FIDE has released the April 2007 rating list with Veselin Topalov still on top. Why? Because the list does not include the Linares/Morelia tournament results that moved Viswanathan Anand up to the top spot. Linares finished on March 10, well inside the margin for inclusion unless the organizers suddenly changed their ways. Nor, as pointed out by Marky Mark, does this new list include the massive Gibtelecom tournament that finished in Gibraltar on February 1! I note the Ruy Lopez tournament won by Sargissian isn't rated either. It does include Aeroflot.
Getting the paperwork in on time is up to the organizers, although FIDE has a history of issuing repeated updates and corrections. For now I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to a FIDE blunder and expect this to be fixed in a day or two. If not, someone will have to answer some questions. The comments section is already buzzing with conspiracy theories. E.g.: Now that Topalov's manager Danailov is working on the Grand Slam with the Linares organizers, might they have let the paperwork gather dust just long enough to keep the Bulgarian in his cherished #1 spot? I really don't think so. But Linares has ended on March 10 several times in the last few years (March 11 last year) and it has always been rated for the April list, so a prompt correction, or some explanation, is required.
Even God does not want Vishy to be # 1.
We don't know whose fault it was, Fide or Linares (most likely). Anand should however complain and Fide should of course include Linares and re-issue the ratings list.
It is just FIDE's provisional list. The new list is due only on April 1. FIDE has never published the final list before the date it is due.
Otherwise, it is Kirsan's head.
as mentioned in the other thread, what about Humpy in the Top Junior list?
I think the real story of this new rating list is the fact that Korchnoi is still in the top 100. Look at the DOB's in that list and then look at Korchnoi's, the man is a true anomaly.
I guess there are lies, damn lies, statistics, and FIDE ratings...
Do your homework people: http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=B0209
It says there "9.13 The closing dates for receipt of information for a particular list are usually one month before the publication of that list.
9.13a Rated play completed or received after the closing date will not normally be included in the computations for the rating list in question."
So only tournaments finishing by the end of February seem to be included in the FIDE list of April.
Somehow I think Anand is more focused on becoming world champion than being #1 on the rating list.
Peace...
Elias, clear precedent for Linares being included in the April list has been cited. It is, from what I understand, ALWAYS included in the April supplement, so the rule you have quoted does not circumvent the fact that it clearly is both possible and to be expected.
Hotep,
Maliq
This is ridiculous, first they give Topalov unfair advantage to have rematch with Kramnik in case he wins in Maxico and now excluding tournaments to keep Topalov N1.
I did some search on fide website and found that in last four years it is always included in April list and here are the finish dates for the tournament: 2006-02-28, 2005-03-10,2004-03-05, 2003-03-09
So this year it is clear case of some exception and unfair advantage to Topalov.
Even in 2002 finsh date is 2002-03-10 and it is included in April list.
Source: http://fide.com/ratings/archive.phtml
Unknown's post at 22:24 --
Linares 2006 finished on March 11. It was just the 1st half (Mexico) that finished on Feb 26. I believe the entire tournament was rated in April 2006.
Regarding GibTelecom: I checked the list of submitted tournaments a couple of weeks ago and both the morning events from Gibraltar (the so-called amateur events) were in the list, but the main event was not. Which tends to suggest a problem with the submitted file (or a different arbiter for the main event not submitting the file). I'm not sure pinning that case totally on FIDE is correct, because there is the facility to check that a submitted tournament report was recorded by the system beforehand and the Gibraltar tournament finished almost two months ago.
There seem to be some more errors. Some Azeri (Gashimov) and all Argentine players are missing. Maybe they just blundered by putting an early draft online.
Correction: They are not missing entirely. They just don't seem to have a rating if you search for them. And the countries don't show up in the countries' list.
"9.13 The closing dates for receipt of information for a particular list are usually one month before the publication of that list.
9.13a Rated play completed or received after the closing date will not normally be included in the computations for the rating list in question."
Since ratingslist is used for many formal purposes, example to decide between players right to participate in WCCT one should reckon that the rules were rigid. As seen above they open up for deliberated descisions by using the words "usually" and "normally". Not good if you ask me..
As you can see from the past, Linares has been exempted from this rule and the norm is to include it for April list. The reason for this exemption could be due to the elite nature of the tournament or due its effect on top rankings. Any deviation from this standard now will be plain arbitrary or discriminatory, which should find no place in democracy.
What kind of bull is this here ?? Who cares? Then Anand will lead the standings in the next list unless a) Anand destroys his rating himself b) someone overtakes him, in both cases i could not care less that Anand would have headed the list for a measly two months.
Post something about global warming, perhaps you can make some comment about Danailov's involvement there as well. Jeez.
As you can see from the past, Linares has been exempted from this rule and the norm is to include it for April list.
---
This rule is not in effect. Take a look at http://www.fide.com/ratings/reports/logbkapr07.txt and you'll see plenty of tournaments submitted well into March, quite a few almost three weeks after the so-called deadline.
There is simply no excuse, in this day and age, that a list cannot be put out AT LEAST monthly. Why is FIDE so far behind?
I could even fathom a weekly ratings list, which I know would be a little more work for FIDE, but at least they wouldn't look like they are still operating in a pre-1995 world.
This is the last time I'm reading this page. Chess news is pointless and this is a prime example:
"Oh dear, the April list isn't updated correctly!"
"Let's bury them!"
"What a tragedy!"
Calm down, folks, this is just an early April joke of FIDE
Sofia/M-tel is being touted in its PR to have the world's No.1 participating, there clearly is some marketing value...
The #1 rating is proof of being the "world's best chessplayer," regardless of whether "the world's best chessplayer" lost a world championship match to some lesser creature the day before.
But on date did Anand actually become the "world's best chessplayer" if he ever did? After Linares? What if the Linares result isn't reported until the July list and Anand stumbles between now and July? Was he never the "World's Best Chessplayer?
Enquiring minds want to know.
posted by Jo>>Post something about global warming, perhaps you can make some comment about Danailov's involvement there as well. Jeez.<<
Ok. How about, any time Danailov opens his mouth, it contributes to global warming? :-)
http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1305
on what date
Who cares? They haven't broken any rules. Most probably the organisers submitted the papers later than usual and FIDE decided to leave them out. Big deal.
Censor,
Ordinarily it would not be any big deal indeed. But if the sweet #1 spot is used purely for propaganda purposes - it does become a big deal, especially, if the player who is claimed to occupy that spot is no longer there!
By simply not including Linares results in the April rating list... Kirzan has caused many fans to turn against Topalov (althought Topalov did nothing).
This is clearly a carefully calculated move to further discredit Topalov.
Kirzan is evil!!!
Dear Mig
Before the conspiracy theories get out of hand, perhaps I can explain what happened to the best of my knowledge.
With regards to Morelia-Linares etc., in order to be completely fair, the Ratings Committee has decided that only tournaments that finished a month before the rating list comes into effect should be rated. Once one starts to make exceptions, where does one stop? Why Morelia-Linares and not a whole host of others?
With regards to Gibraltar, I can only presume the ECF did not send the report in before the list was finished or it was sent in wrong.
With regards to Azerbaijan (and other countries whose players are not on the list), despite reminders, they failed to pay their dues in time and are at least a year in arrears. Once the arrears are cleared, then their players ratings will be released.
I hope this clears things up.
Best regards
Nigel Freeman
"With regards to Morelia-Linares etc., in order to be completely fair, the Ratings Committee has decided that only tournaments that finished a month before the rating list comes into effect should be rated."
When was that decision made?
zakki gave the link before: http://www.fide.com/ratings/reports/logbkapr07.txt
There are 4 tournaments that ended in March, but were still counted for this elo list. Contrary to the words of Mr. Freeman.
Mons, BEL (ended 9-3 2007)
Theran, IRI (10-3 2007)
Kishinev, MDA (1-3 2007), 2 times
Furthermore, if FIDE wants to apply some rules, it seems more logical to apply the existing ones instead of inventing new ones. Thus, only rate tournaments that send in the rating reports at least a month before the new list appears. And not only rate tournaments that are at least a month old.
How come Moldova championship which ended on March 1 is included?
If the rating comitttee wanted to be fair, they could have announced it and could have implemented it, say, 4 months from when they made that announcement.
Another Prague Agreement like conspiracy against Anand. Unfairness in the name of fairness??
The tournament was in Tehran of course, not in Theran. The "Asian Cities Team Championship for Dubai Cup", chief arbiter Casto Abundo. Mr. Abundo is also the Rating Administrator of the FIDE. Maybe Mr. Freeman should tell him the Ratings Committee (of which Mr. Abundo is a member as well) implemented a new rule?
It surprises me that nobody seemed to know of this new rule. If even Mr. Freeman, who is not on the Rating Committee (he is the FIDE treasurer) knows, probably by reading the minutes of a meeting, how is it possible that the rest of the world missed this decision?
I failed to find this decision in the minutes of the last meeting I could find, the one that took place on 27 May 2006: http://www.fide.com/news/download/annexes/ga2006/annex44.pdf
Which makes me ask the same question as acirce: when was this decision taken?
Thanks Oscar. So far this "explanation" really made things look no less odd, imo.
"With regards to Morelia-Linares etc., in order to be completely fair, the Ratings Committee has decided that only tournaments that finished a month before the rating list comes into effect should be rated. Once one starts to make exceptions, where does one stop? Why Morelia-Linares and not a whole host of others?"
Beloved Nigel,
Could you please explain to me why every single time in recent history except for this year Linares was included on April's ratings list despite finishing in March?
Or why several other tournaments that finished in March, as pointed out by Oscar, were included? Including one that finished on the same date as Linares?
Everything I read on this topic seems to show that FIDE applied improper logic (or malicious logic) in the failure to rate Linares, while apparently rating other events in that time period. I do not find Nigel's reply satisfying, as (1) there was a long-running precedent, (2) there were no announcements regarding changing of this precedent, and (3) FIDE applied these supposed changes unequally.
It is quite clear that if FIDE does not correct the list, there will be a lot of questions regarding ethical motivations. Once the errors are pointed out, failure to amend them is no longer a mistake, but willful misbehavior.