Talk:Magnus Carlsen

Old talk

If anyone has any better ideas on how to format the sample game I just added, please feel free to mess around with it. I'm not aware of any particular conventions on Wikipedia for formatting chess games given with annotations. --Malathion 17:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can have a look at Category:Chess_games to see how some other people have done it. Additionally if you look at Immortal game at the bottoms there is a link to a .pgn of the game which is also described in the article. The link is to upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia which is I think diffrent form how files that get directly upladed here work. I have been investigating this in spare moments to try and figure out if you have to use wikicommons or can use wiki[edia directly for this. When I get it figured out I think I am going to add pgn files for all the atricles in that category, and possibly also for Category:Chess_openings where approprate. Dalf | Talk 20:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categorys

If it is a wikipedia convention that articles should not be in a category and a sub-category then:

• I would like to see where this polocy is discussed (FOUND)

From Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories_applied_to_articles_on_people

But sometimes there's a good reason to assign an article to two categories, one of which is a direct or indirect subcategory of another. For a well-argued case study, see John Lennon.

• Most of wikipedia needs changing including -

1. Entries for all of the states in the U.S.A. (ex. Missouri is in Category: missouri as well as Category: U.S. States though Category: Missouri is a sub-category of the latter.
2. Category: Chess is another example (though not as good as someone did think to remove several categories which I put back. I mention it because there is relavent discussion on the talk page.)
3. More too come

The problem is some times a article should be visible from both levels. For example Category: Chess is a sub category of multiple others even ones that are in the same tree because people expcet to see Chess in Category: Board games. Dalf | Talk 23:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reorganise Chronologically

I think the "Biography" section of the article should be reorganised chronologically. The problem is that it is a very POV judgement over what is a "major" achievement. I suggest:

• Preface the chronology (or perhaps in the lead section) summarise his most important results (which to my mind are becoming a GM so young, qualifying the Candidates, and his Linaraes 2007 result).
• Than put ALL results chronologically in the biography section.

Peter Ballard 09:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of annotations

Isn't Carlsen's notes to the sample game in this article subject to copyright? Or has someone got the author's permission the reproduce them here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dersen (talk • contribs) 21:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Playing style

Do you know anything about his playing style? I think this should also be added on this page. I only know that he knows the theory very well and plays a big variety of different openings. I think I've read this in the interview wich was also mentioned in "external links". And then I think another thing should be improved: "The match was closely fought, Agdestein won the first game, Carlsen won the second, so the match went into a phase of two and two rapid games until there was a winner. Carlsen won the first rapid game, Agdestein the second. Then followed a series of three draws until Agdestein won the championship title with a victory in the sixth rapid game." Don't you think that this sounds a bit repetitiv? I didn't change it because I want to leave that to a native english speaker in order to avoid adding another error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.116.194 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We tend to avoid "style" sections since these usually constitute original research. Best, ⟳ausa کui ^× 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, if his playing style has been extensively covered in 3rd party sources then it is easily included, just like our sportsperson articles. SGGH ^ping! 10:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the commentary on his playing style is incorrect and somewhat misinterprets Kasparov's comments. Firstly, Kasparov does liken him to Karpov and Smyslov but at no point says his style is unlike Fischer's. In fact his style is often liken to Fischer's because of its very simple and classical approach - Anand is one of many to make this observation. Secondly whlst Kasparov says some players are more aggressive and others more defensive, he does not actaully say that Carlsen is a defensive player. He does say Carslen is less aggressive than himself but then Kasparov was one of the most aggressive players of the modern era and certainly the most aggressive world champion of the modern era, so this really deos not imply Carlsen is defensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.93.173 (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've now deleted the reference to Fischer for the second time. Adpete (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Date

The first paragraph in the article has "Friday september 26 2008," Which can't be correct. I don't know what the correct date is (otherwise I would correct it). But also, "Friday" needs to be taken out, September needs to be caps, there needs to be a comma after the date, and the sentence needs a period. Bubba73 (talk), 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Original sentence: "Friday september 26 2008, he become historic when he, during the Bilbao turnament took the 1 place on the unoffical rating lists on LiveChessRating.org" I made a lot of changes to the sentence, but I don't know the correct date. Bubba73 (talk), 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think the live ratings are unofficial and so do not belong in the lead. Since the live ratings have only been in existence for a few months, how can he have "made history"? Peter Ballard (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If he is the top of the official list, that will be historic. Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I created an internal link to Elo rating system#Live ratings and pointed to there. Whether we like it or not, Live ratings are creating interest so we need to refer to them. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-English Characters

Forgive me since I'm (relatively) new, but shouldn't we have a transliteration of his name since it contains non-English characters? Chaotic42 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

First, apologies for the anonymous comment. I know that this subject comes up fairly often and I believe there is some debate around it. I agree with Chaotic42. While Magnus Carlsen's Norwegian name contains a non-English character which is a valid character in Norwegian, his English name (for an English article) should be spelled with the English alphabet. After all, his Chinese name is spelled with Chinese characters. Like Norwegian and Chinese, Norwegian and English are two different languages with two distinct alphabets. It is my opinion that the Norwegian spelling of his name should only appear once, in something like "Magnus Carlsen (Norwegian: ... ...)" at the beginning of the article, in order to avoid forcing English-speaking readers to repeatedly encounter the same words written in foreign characters throughout the article. For examples, check out pages written about people of Japanese origin. The Japanese writing is given once, at the beginning, and the English transliteration is used in the remainder. It is always a bit perplexing to me that this debate occurs with languages whose alphabets are similar to English; it poses no confusion with Japanese or Chinese subjects. Cheers :) 97.115.39.159 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this about the Øen bit of his name? That "Ø" is the only non-English character I can see (unless there are others I am missing). Can that character be transliterated? I'd also ask how it is pronounced. Most biographies have a bit saying how a name is pronounced, so someone will have fun at some point trying to work that one out. I would suggest asking in places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway. Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To the IP: I do not see the problem really, as the Ø only appears in the lede sentence and in the infobox, and nowhere else in the article. Therefore, English speakers do not really "repeatedly encounter the [foreign characters]" in this case. He is typically just referred to as "Magnus Carlsen", both in English and Norwegian sources. decltype (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the anonymous comment (maybe it's time for me to get a username :) ). I'm thinking what I see a problem with, as far as the info box is concerned, is that Carlsen's Norwegian name appears not in addition to but instead of his English name. The info box is meant for quick reference; the native writing of his name might helpfully be offered there for reference (much like Kanji is often written below the Roman spelling of Japanese subjects' names in their info boxes), but his English name should be at the top. In the main text of the article, the native spelling of his name should be given as an aside (e.g. in parentheses) at the beginning of the article; it is confusing for non-English characters to appear in the regular text unless they are the focus of that particular sentence or paragraph. I am not trying to be unfair to speakers of Norwegian, and I understand that it is common for many Norwegians who are of course quite fluent in English to use "Ø" with no problem in Norwegian names in the middle of English sentences; I just feel that since this is an English Wikipedia article, the main text should stay in English for consistency, professionalism and readability. This is particularly important from the standpoint of many English-speaking communities outside Norway who may not be familiar with the character. I do see other articles with similar such issues, and if anyone knows of any existing discussions of this type or precedents for this situation on Wikipedia, it would be much appreciated if you could point us to those for reference. Thanks :) 97.115.45.208 (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for help here. There is also Wikipedia:Reference Desk which has a language section. For Manual of Style stuff, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I think you want something like Wikipedia:Proper names, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). There are language style guides for languages like Chinese and Japanese, but I can't find one for Nordic languages. Ah, we also have Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms. Possibly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters is also relevant. You might be better off asking at the talk page of the manual of style: WT:MOS. If you need help creating an account, and for some of the things to consider, see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Carcharoth (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer is simple; you don't transliterate the Norwegian alphabet, since it uses (unlike Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Greek etc) the same Latin alphabet as English does. The comparison with Chinese is far-fetched. As for professionalism, writing æ, ø, å is the only way to represent the real world, in other words we don't make up names (ø is sometimes written "oe", which in this case would render "Oeen", a made-up name which has no basis in the real world). Geschichte (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I second Geschichte's statement. Æ, Ø, Å needs no transliteration. Nordic languages and Chinese isn't comparable, by a very long shot. Manxruler (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'll third it. Perhaps it might be worth a discussion if the fellow were known as Øen Carlsen, but he's not. (As to pronunciation, I usually say that Ø is similar to 'i' in bird. The Norwegian written languages have nine vowels: A E I - O U Y - Æ Ø Å.) - Hordaland (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound self-centered, but if Norwegian uses the same alphabet as English, and English is my native language, then why can't I read it? :) That's my point here. I know Norwegian speakers can take these characters for granted, but as a member of a Non-Norwegian English-speaking community, I can't be expected to know how to read them when I encounter them in English Wikipedia. So I would argue that yes, they do need transliterations. After all, they are characters that we really, truly, can't read. I promise! :)

I infer from the fact that, so far, our Norwegian users all seem to opine that this issue is trivial, that our "real worlds," as you put it, may be slightly different. But try to imagine what it would be like if you didn't speak the language in question. For example, Ichiro Suzuki's "real" name isn't "Ichiro Suzuki;" it's "鈴木一朗." But your average English speaker can't read that; therefore we give the "real" spelling of his name once, at the beginning of the article, and thereafter use an English transliteration, "Ichiro Suzuki." I understand that many Norwegian speakers may consider it trivial, but as a non-Norwegian speaker, I can't read the symbols "Æ, Ø, Å" any more than a non-Japanese speaker could read "鈴木一朗" (although thanks to Hordaland's comment, I now know how to pronounce "Ø" :) ).

I guess I'm not completely understanding your opinion. Why do you consider the non-English characters in the Norwegian alphabet so different from the non-English characters in Japanese or Chinese?

At the end of the day, I suppose it looks like we may need a style manual for Nordic names, though. 97.115.31.36 (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any combination of the letters A through Z that would come close when pronounced at that position in a word by an English speaker, so I do not see how it is supposed to be transliterated. Although the 'i' in bird is similar to ø, one can not transliterate Øen with Ien, as that 'i' sounds completely different. In my opinion, it is better that people realize that the name contains something they can not pronounce, than get the impression they know how to pronounce it, but get it wrong. At least when dealing with such closely related languages. Both also use the Latin alphabet, not some wholly alien alphabet. Ters (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the letters "kj" written together (cf Kjell Magne Bondevik etc), no non-Norwegian speakers know that they represent the voiceless palatal fricative, should this be transliterated as well? Besides, as Ters says it is the same alphabet. English language does even use these characters - for instance Æ is found in the word Encyclopædia Britannica! Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One way of solving this whole pronunciation "problem" would be if a native Norwegian speaker were to make a sound file of Carlsen's name, upload it to Commons, and add it to the article. Although, AFAIK, the standard way of doing that is to make a sound file of the article's name, and Øen isn't in the article name. User:Houshuang used to create and upload such files, but as I said, why on earth would we have an ogg file that included the pronunciation of Øen when Øen isn't in the article name. This is quite a pointless discussion, as there is no actual problem. Manxruler (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why this couldn't be done for his birth name, even if it isn't in the article's title, like for instance in the Gothenburg and Copenhagen articles. decltype (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then there's the solution to the "problem". Manxruler (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Who was the 2nd youngest fide number 1

If Magnus Carlsen is the youngest fide number 1 then who was the 2nd youngest fide number 1? Who was the 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th 7th … youngest fide number 1? Mschribr (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a draft article in my userspace that answers just that question! :-) See here. It turns out there have only been seven FIDE number ones since the FIDE rating lists started. If anyone wants to try and work out who could have been considered "number one" in the earlier periods, and how old they were, they could try... (the article in the see also section of that draft article, Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history, covers some of that sort of thing). Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's nice. Because I'd like to see that question answered as well. --bender235 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth for creating a page. It would be easier to see the list of youngest fide number ones in a table, sorted by age and year. I also saw Kasparov was 21 when be became number one in the summer of 1984. See www.kasparovagent.com/garry_kasparov_biography.php

Fide Number 1

Player	Age	Year
Carlsen	19	2010
Kramnik	20	1995
Kasparov	21	1984
Karpov	24	1975
Fischer	28	1971
Topalov	31	2006
Anand	37	2006

Mschribr (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I need to move that page into article space so people feel freer to edit it. :-) I was trying to find a source for when Kasparov became number one. I guess the sources differ. Discrepancies may be because people are going by publication dates, not the date of the rating period in question. I'll go and move the page now - hopefully someone will turn it into a proper table as well, and Mschribr can add the table above (with the source he gave as well). Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Now active at List of FIDE chess world number ones. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

World ranking caveat

Seems an ongoing error to the use of raking and rating claims without given them the necessary framework to supports the data. The issue is the world raking and such like are all based on data which have the caveat of active players. This wiki article attempts to use the data as absolute. There is a certain Mr Kaspasrov who at 2812, is currently the world's highest rated players. SunCreator (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who notice the sentence above is littered with inconsistencies and typoes, the 1812 they mention is ACTUALLY supposed to be 2812...Carlsen's is only 2 points below but he's still second to Kasparov. Ratings don't mean much until Kasparov plays Carlsen though :-) 78.86.230.62 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but we are reporting what the news media are saying this is. And Kasparov is retired (if he came out of retirement, that would be some story). Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked on the FIDE website, and Kasparov is indeed still listed with a rating of 2812, but with last game played in 2005. Because his entry has the "inactive" flag on it, he doesn't appear in the published lists. Not sure where this sort of thing should be mentioned. Something similar happened with Fischer appearing top of the lists in the 1990s, before they introduced the idea of 'database flags' for inactive and active players, to separate them out. As for Carlsen and Kasp playing each other, they do play blitz in training sessions, and there was a report somewhere of who wins those sessions, but I've forgotten which one of them wins more (I would guess Carlsen). Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is he a chess pro?

Maybe this is taken for granted, but is he a chess professional? There is nothing in the article about whether he will be attending university to pursue any career other that chess. I assume he is someone who should have no trouble making a living at chess, but nontheless it seems the article should mention this. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chess "professionals" are not regulated by any world body other than FIDE, and even then, it's a take-it or leave-it situation. Plenty of good chessplayers ignore FIDE rankings altogether, and go solo. Look at how Bobby Fischer didn't give a flying f* what FIDE thought about him. And for what it's worth, making money does not turn you into a "professional" any more than losing money turns you into a chump. The Chess World, whatever it is, ignores the rules in place for other sports like football or boxing. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying makes sense, but I'm not sure it's what I meant. Many grandmasters, even great ones, still get an education and it is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. For example the Anand article says "Anand did his schooling in Don Bosco, Egmore, Chennai and holds a degree in commerce from Loyola College, Chennai". BashBrannigan (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why he has to choose between chess professionally and a career? He could easily do both and just take time off from his normal work to take part in tournaments, or not even work at all if he wishes to live off what he can earn from chess 78.86.230.62 (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I must not be explaining myself very well. I'm simply saying it should be included in the article. Not everyone who'll visit the article is a chess player. His education would provide background. I briefly googled it and I would have added it in myself, but I found nothing. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He has a company, Magnuschess AS, which has 4 employees. He added earnings of 1.8 million Norwegian crowns to it in 2007, or so it says here. The press discusses which international sponsors he may or should accept. I can't find anything about whether he intends to study another subject, but he certainly won't have to. Here his father says he reckons that his son will have enough money for the rest of his life before he is 25. And here it says that the earnings for 2009 won't be high, as trainer Garry Kasparov (46) is expensive. As to formal education so far, he went to an athletic high school, The Norwegian College of Elite Sport (Norges Toppidrettsgymnas/NTG), where his chess coach was Simen Agdestein. (I haven't read the article, so all this may already be in there.) - Hordaland (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for that! Very interesting. Should be in the article somewhere, plus a mention of his current sponsors (Arctic Securities, I think). It is noticeable that the jackets he wears have the sponsor's names on them. There is a photo I took at the London Chess Classic, which is on Commons, but I haven't put it in any article yet. Carcharoth (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant! Background like that would be greatly enhance the article. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical time control?

The main page of this article could be improved by citing the actual time control, and not just pass it off as a "classical" time control. Is the primary time control 40 moves in 2 hours? Is there a secondary time control of 20 moves in 1 hour? Does he have someone doing his notations for him, or does he have to waste time by writing the moves down?

I'd think a primary time control of 12 moves in 2 hours, and a secondary time control of 10 moves in 1 hour, is sufficiently leisurely that a high quality game can be produced. As it is, there has been so much over-analysis of chess openings, most good chess masters have memorized the "book" up to 25 moves anyway. It's not like rushing them into following the book, is going to make them play any better than letting them sit and ponder their moves for a while. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Youngest to break Elo barriers

Magnus broke the 2600 Elo barrier, whit 2625 at the age of 15 and 31 days. And Wesley so, who now hold the record, broke it at 14, 9 days shy of 15 years old. I think it safe to say that Carlsen was the previous holder of the record. It would be nice that it was mentioning in the article some were in the 2006 sections. I will make a draft be i would like someone more experience in literature to correct me afterwords.

I also think he is the current holder of the record for the youngest to reach the 2700 Elo barrier. Right now were in the stage of prodigy so it highly unprobable that someone broke it before Carlsen and before the year 2000. And well i have check all the major prodigy and not one was younger then when Carlsen broke that barrier. Plz give me feedback on wat you guys think.GSP-Rush (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

He's not, Sergey Karjakin bettered him. SunCreator (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not even close in both for 2600 Sergey got it at 15 and 3 month, Carlsen was 15 and 1 months. And for the 2700 ther more then a year apart. Sergey at 18 years old finally got it. Magnus got it at 16 and 7 months.GSP-Rush (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Carlsen was younger in all those ratings. Although Karjakin was still 17 when he got to 2700. I wouldn't bother checking for others though, you are doing WP:OR and also you'll not be able to reference a statement. So use whatever is available in sources already. SunCreator (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well actually Sergey was 18. Note he turned 20 on January 2010 and he made it passed the 2700 (2732) rating on January 2008. Also if you want me to make a reference i don't realy know how i can do that. Since you seem to understand more WP:OR protocol can you help me make it work.GSP-Rush (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Karjakin's birthday is January 12th, the FIDE ratings come out before, maybe 1st of January officially, his wikipedia page was edited to include new 2700 FIDE rating before that day. On 1st of January he had not yet had his 18th birthday. Anyway all this stuff it's easy to make errors. The thing with WP:OR is Wikipedia does not publish original thought, so no calculations or anything you have to make out but instead find a reliable source about the subject matter you wish to include in the article. If there is no reliable source then don't add it. SunCreator (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil worker

Re: Agdestein introduced his civil worker Torbjørn Ringdal Hansen, currently an International Master, to Carlsen,... Probably what is meant is a conscientious objector doing civilian service, but was Agdestein en employer who had such a person? Needs to be checked.--Mycomp (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Carlsen vs. The World

What about this? --173.3.154.230 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be included in the article. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Carlsen in interviews

Carlsen is often pretty ironic. Talking to Carlsen people often want him to say things they usually associate with celebrities. So Carlsen is sometimes at a loss, because on the one hand he is very natural, never saying spectacular things intended to build up kind of a myth. On the other hand he doesn't want to be unpolite. On such occasions he just smiles and says - virtually nothing, and by no means the answer the interviewer want's to get out of him by his suggestive question. -- Rolandor (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Magnus Carlsen and Bobby Fischer

Carlsen is often compared with Bobby Fischer and as for excellence in chess I hope he will become like Fischer. But despite him dropping out of the Candidates Tournament - the final will be in May 2011, which is very regrettable, he is not and will never be as eccentric as Fischer.

From an interview with the Guardian (the answers are from Carlsen, it is not very difficult to recognize the admiration in his first and the irony in his second answer):

"Paul Morphy or Bobby Fischer?"

   "Fischer, for sure. Morphy was way ahead of his time but Fischer was masterful."

"And a little mad ..."

   "I'm not yet as crazy as he was but I'll get there." 

-- Rolandor (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the three-point scoring at the London Chess Classic

I think that the tournament was a great occasion, but the scoring rules are questionable. In short - appropriate for football, but not for chess. Nevertheless one should point out that Carlsen had the most difficult draw having to play more games with black, in particular with black against McShane, Anand, and Kramnik, which is definitely an disadvantage, while McShane and Anand had only three games with black. So I made a point of commenting that Carlsen would have been the winner anyway. This is due to the tiebreaker rules saying that from two player with equal points the one with more games with black will be placed better.

-- Rolandor (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nanjing 2009 performance

Stop citing that 2850 figure - it was 3002. Look at how Sonas arrived at 2850, it has literally nothing to do with FIDE's calculation of performance ratings. He takes FIDE ratings, puts them down by 29 points without explaining why (calculation "inflation" between the 2005 Chessmetrics list and the 2009 FIDE list is impossible anyway as CM and Elo use different methods to calculate ratings - and even different rankings) and then applies to those lowered by 29 FIDE ratings the Chessmetrics formula. In short: the way he arrived at 2850 is an ugly hybrid of Elo and Chessmetrics, justified by nothing. While 3002 is a correct calculation based on Elo.--Alexmagnus2 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)