CheckBreak - When Chess Attacked Its Biggest Players

@petri999 said ^

FIDE/Glicko type single game evidence system are doomed to fail by definition.

FIDE already dismissed the idea of switching from Elo to a system with dynamic reliability evaluation (like Glicko-2) because they worry it would be less transparent and would not allow players and public to check the rating updates easily. Personally I find it rather sad but I have to admit they may have a point.

But rating were not such an issue. Why FIDE is so dominated by russian? Why there have so much bad administration. Nigel Short also was also Vice President and not really a role model.

Very hard to sell chess sponsorship with current or past administrations.

Indeed. FIDE heads have been questionable at best for last 40 years and more than 30 years after the end of Soviet Union, its influence in FIDE leadership seems to be strengthening rather than weakening. :-(

That is crazy! I wouldnt use FIDE ever!. Is the PCA still here? This is mindblowing

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

What's wrong with tweeting what comes to mind? It's his account, he can say whatever.

For common people, it's their choice. But we are talking about FIDE CEO who is making such statements not as a private individual but as its representative.

Also he said he was gonna make a proposal. I don't see what the problem with making a proposal, he isn't forcing it on anyone.

I would much rather see a statement that would promise a serious evaluation and debate - or even no statement at all - than a superficial first idea clearly just reacting to one specific case.

A heretic idea: for the image of the world champion title, it's already bad enough that both open and women No 1 players chose not to participate; does FIDE really want to eliminate also the next positions in the rating lists?

And why aren't they playing? You imply it's FIDE's fault.

No, I'm not. All I said was that it does not help the image of the title. I'm not judging whose fault it is. However, if what Emil Sutovsky proposed is accepted, eliminating further top rated players would definitely be FIDE's fault.

We already had a period when the official FIDE world champions were not perceived as real world champions by majority of chess community. And the core problem was essentially the same: FIDE leadership trying to act from (deemed) position of power and ignoring the reality and changes in the world around them. I don't think it's in FIDE's or chess interest to repeat the experience just because those people have not learned anything from that crisis.

The reason the 400 point rule exists was for high rated players who happened to face an extremely lower rated player on rarer occasions (e.g. in open tournaments). This was to guarantee getting 0.8 points (the amount for a 400 point difference) when winning a game, as opposed to the possibility of not getting any points for a win which would be tough.

Sounds cool but... do you realize the FIDE version of the "400 point rule" is actually symmetric so that it also means that if I am, by a chance, paired with 2500 rated IM/GM in first round of an open tournament, I'm also guaranteed to lose 1.6 points (a year ago 3.2 points) of rating for losing to them, which, let's be honest, is quite sure outcome?

However multiple GMs decided to take advantage of this rule by deliberately playing opponents who were more than 400 points below them, this meant they would get far more points than they would normally for winning and they got a lot of undeserved points. So FIDE amended the rule on the 1st of October 2025, stating that the 400 point rule only applies to players below 2,650. Players above 2,650 will have the ratings calculated based on the real difference between ratings.
You're not giving FIDE any credit here. You act as though they are thoughtless buffoons lol. There are a committee of people who work on this stuff.

I'm giving FIDE the credit it deserves: rather than dropping this unfortunate exception, they added an ad hoc and arbitrary exception from that exception. Why should 2650 rated players be prevented from abusing the rule but 2649 rated ones should not? BtW, according to current regulations, if I ever ended up paired with a 2650 rated opponent, he won't get almost anything for the win but I still lose 1.6 points of rating for that loss.

Still ignoring the fact that Hikaru Nakamura case had absolutely nothing to do with "rating abuse"?

I have always agreed that Nakamura engaged in rating abuse. I never denied it and I agree with you!

Seriously? You are "agreeing with me" by saying exactly the opposite?

@EdwardChan6143Chess said ^

That is crazy! I wouldnt use FIDE ever!. Is the PCA still here? This is mindblowing

It died long ago. But even then, one cardinal problem with it was that it was only an alternative for a very small group of elite players, it never aimed to be an alternative to FIDE as a whole. And the sad truth about current situation is that FIDE may be rotten through and through but none of the strong players wants to provide an actual alternative, they only seem to care about a very narrow elite.

@mkubecek said ^

No, I'm not. All I said was that it does not help the image of the title. I'm not judging whose fault it is. However, if what Emil Sutovsky proposed is accepted, eliminating further top rated players would definitely be FIDE's fault.

Eh, rating spot is one person. So I don't know why you use plural: 'top rated players'

If Nakamura is that good then surely he can qualify through the seven other ways.

We already had a period when the official FIDE world champions were not perceived as real world champions by majority of chess community. And the core problem was essentially the same: FIDE leadership trying to act from (deemed) position of power and ignoring the reality and changes in the world around them. I don't think it's in FIDE's or chess interest to repeat the experience just because those people have not learned anything from that crisis.

'not perceived as real world champions ' - What do online trolls have to do with FIDE leadership??

Come on!

Sounds cool but... do you realize the FIDE version of the "400 point rule" is actually symmetric so that it also means that if I am, by a chance, paired with 2500 rated IM/GM in first round of an open tournament, I'm also guaranteed to lose 1.6 points (a year ago 3.2 points) of rating for losing to them, which, let's be honest, is quite sure outcome?

So you lose rating points when you lose a game. I mean that's normal. Like do u want free points lol?? Also ur not 'guaranteed to lose'. Your expected score will stabilize. You will lose some, draw some. And u will win on occasion which gives more points.

Like I don't understand why your so pessimistic about playing higher rated players. You certainly are not guaranteed to lose. Seems like a confidence thing I guess.

I'm giving FIDE the credit it deserves: rather than dropping this unfortunate exception, they added an ad hoc and arbitrary exception from that exception. Why should 2650 rated players be prevented from abusing the rule but 2649 rated ones should not?

Come On! That's a petty argument ;) The line has to be drawn somewhere. They saw specific players taking advantage and noticed they were above 2650. Also it secures the elite top level from interference.

You can't have everything. There needs to be tradeoff between stopping rating abuse and letting higher rated players get points for beating weaker opponents.

Still ignoring the fact that Hikaru Nakamura case had absolutely nothing to do with "rating abuse"?

I have always agreed that Nakamura engaged in rating abuse. I never denied it and I agree with you!

Seriously? You are "agreeing with me" by saying exactly the opposite?

Well I'm a bit lost now lol. Let me share what I thought. You saying 'Still ignoring the fact that Hikaru Nakamura case had absolutely nothing to do with "rating abuse"?' made me think that you thought that I was pretending that Nakamura wasn't engaged in rating abuse as I said FIDE was doing good things. Like I thought that you were saying that FIDE is bad because they let the situation happen in the first place. So I clairified. I guess this is just a miscommunication between us :)

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

The point is that was not the reason why he did it, only a side effect. I'm absolutely sure that even if he knew in advance he wouldn't get any rating at all for them, he would still have played those tournaments.

I agree that it's not the main reason. I listed both reasons because they are contributing, as you say the rating padding is a beneficial side effect.

Actually FIDE CEO Emil Sutovsky said they would make a proposal to eliminate the rating spot qualification (a good idea).
"Going forwards, I'll submit a proposal, eliminating rating spot altogether towards Candidates-2028."

Which exactly illustrates my point. Rather than "We are going to discuss and rework the qualification criteria for next cycle.", he quickly tweets first thing that comes to his mind.

What's wrong with tweeting what comes to mind? It's his account, he can say whatever.

Also he said he was gonna make a proposal. I don't see what the problem with making a proposal, he isn't forcing it on anyone.

A heretic idea: for the image of the world champion title, it's already bad enough that both open and women No 1 players chose not to participate; does FIDE really want to eliminate also the next positions in the rating lists?

And why aren't they playing? You imply it's FIDE's fault. Professor Yifan went back to University and Carlsen retired from World Championship saying "It doesn't mean as much anymore as it once did" and that "If someone other than Firouzja wins the Candidates Tournament it's unlikely I will play the next World Championship match".

Yifan and Carlsen made personal decisions to step back.

The infamous "400 point rule" is actually an exception which goes against the logic of the rating system. When it shows that some players were abusing this unfortunate and unsystematic exception, does FIDE drop the exception? No, they create an ad hoc exception from this exception for players above an arbitrarily chosen level.

They had it for a reason! I put the exclamation mark cos I actually wrote about this once:

"The reason the 400 point rule exists was for high rated players who happened to face an extremely lower rated player on rarer occasions (e.g. in open tournaments). This was to guarantee getting 0.8 points (the amount for a 400 point difference) when winning a game, as opposed to the possibility of not getting any points for a win which would be tough. However multiple GMs decided to take advantage of this rule by deliberately playing opponents who were more than 400 points below them, this meant they would get far more points than they would normally for winning and they got a lot of undeserved points. So FIDE amended the rule on the 1st of October 2025, stating that the 400 point rule only applies to players below 2,650. Players above 2,650 will have the ratings calculated based on the real difference between ratings."

You're not giving FIDE any credit here. You act as though they are thoughtless buffoons lol. There are a committee of people who work on this stuff.

Overall, I think this info is good news. FIDE is looking out for the Candidates system and safeguarding against rating abuse from players who try to take advantage of the system.

Still ignoring the fact that Hikaru Nakamura case had absolutely nothing to do with "rating abuse"?

I have always agreed that Nakamura engaged in rating abuse. I never denied it and I agree with you!

FIDE is looking out for it now. Like they are taking steps to address it. That's why I said it's good news.

@RuyLopez1000 is right

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

'not perceived as real world champions ' - What do online trolls have to do with FIDE leadership??

That's not about "online trolls". How many people, outside the FIDE headquarters, fully recognized the official FIDE world champions in the schism period as the true champions? I remember those times; do you?

So you lose rating points when you lose a game. I mean that's normal. Like do u want free points lol??

No, I want the delta to reflect the estimated mean result. When playing an 800 higher rated opponent, the mathematical model estimates the mean result at 0.0099 points per game for me so that the rating delta should be -0.0099 * 20 = 0.198 points. Instead, it's 1.6, i.e. eight times more; for people with K=40 it would be as much as 3.2. That's how the "good" 400 points rule distorts the rating system.

Also ur not 'guaranteed to lose'. Your expected score will stabilize. You will lose some, draw some. And u will win on occasion which gives more points.

That's only true if the rating updates reflect the statistical result estimates. The 400 points rule breaks that assumption.

Like I don't understand why your so pessimistic about playing higher rated players. You certainly are not guaranteed to lose. Seems like a confidence thing I guess.

Estimating my chances against a 2500 rated opponent as high as 8% would be hardly realistic.

You can't have everything. There needs to be tradeoff between stopping rating abuse and letting higher rated players get points for beating weaker opponents.

I don't see any reason (except to make them happy) to give them more than they deserve based on their estimated winning chances. Which is how the rating system is supposed to work. (Knowing that I already had at least one game where I was on the upper side of the rule in national rating does not change my mind.)

Well I'm a bit lost now lol. Let me share what I thought. You saying 'Still ignoring the fact that Hikaru Nakamura case had absolutely nothing to do with "rating abuse"?' made me think that you thought that I was pretending that Nakamura wasn't engaged in rating abuse as I said FIDE was doing good things. Like I thought that you were saying that FIDE is bad because they let the situation happen in the first place. So I clairified. I guess this is just a miscommunication between us :)

No, what I said was that what Hikaru Nakamura did in 2025 had nothing to do with "rating abuse" and that you seem to be ignoring the fact. Just look at the rating list, he had absolutely no reason to worry that he would lose the qualification spot if he does not gain rating, the only concern was the 40 games condition. Or do you really think he would play those tournaments if the condition weren't in place? Or that he wouldn't if he knew in advance he wouldn't gain any rating in them? (After all, he did not stop when they changed the regulations.)

@mkubecek said ^

That's not about "online trolls". How many people, outside the FIDE headquarters, fully recognized the official FIDE world champions in the schism period as the true champions? I remember those times; do you?

Thanks for clarifying that you were referring to the early 2000's.

No, I want the delta to reflect the estimated mean result. When playing an 800 higher rated opponent, the mathematical model estimates the mean result at 0.0099 points per game for me so that the rating delta should be -0.0099 * 20 = 0.198 points. Instead, it's 1.6, i.e. eight times more; for people with K=40 it would be as much as 3.2. That's how the "good" 400 points rule distorts the rating system.

That's only true if the rating updates reflect the statistical result estimates. The 400 points rule breaks that assumption.

Eh, it's just 1.6 points. A worthy sacrifice for our stellar idols (GMs). GM deserve some sunshine. You don't play GMs often with a huge point difference.

You can't have everything. There needs to be tradeoff between stopping rating abuse and letting higher rated players get points for beating weaker opponents.

I don't see any reason (except to make them happy) to give them more than they deserve based on their estimated winning chances. Which is how the rating system is supposed to work. (Knowing that I already had at least one game where I was on the upper side of the rule in national rating does not change my mind.)

It's tough to earn no points against far lower rated player, especially in opens. It feels dull and empty.

No, what I said was that what Hikaru Nakamura did in 2025 had nothing to do with "rating abuse" and that you seem to be ignoring the fact. Just look at the rating list, he had absolutely no reason to worry that he would lose the qualification spot if he does not gain rating, the only concern was the 40 games condition. Or do you really think he would play those tournaments if the condition weren't in place? Or that he wouldn't if he knew in advance he wouldn't gain any rating in them? (After all, he did not stop when they changed the regulations.)

He shields his rating. Rating spot is based on rating. If he played against top players he could have lost his position as No. 2.

@petri999

Very hard to sell chess sponsorship with current or past administrations.

I mean they got Google in 2023. Sound pretty big.

@mkubecek

FIDE may be rotten through and through but none of the strong players wants to provide an actual alternative, they only seem to care about a very narrow elite.

What would an 'actual alternative' look like?

Curious to know.