Wir bieten Vereinen oder Sportgruppen eine kostenlose Online-Verwaltung von Forderungs-Ranglisten (Pyramide / Tannenbaum) sowie ELO-Ranglisten für eine. ÖSB-Eloliste: newsletterinteractive.com Fide-Eloliste: newsletterinteractive.com ICCF-Eloliste: newsletterinteractive.com Im Dezember erreichte der norwegische Schachspieler Magnus Carlsen mit einer Elo-Zahl von Punkten die höchste Wertungszahl weltweit.
Die FIDE-Weltrangliste vom Januar 2020Elo-Rangliste im Schachportal. In der Statistik finden sich alle Schachspieler sortiert nach ELO-Punktzahl und Anzahl der Gegner bzw. Spiele. ÖSB-Eloliste: newsletterinteractive.com Fide-Eloliste: newsletterinteractive.com ICCF-Eloliste: newsletterinteractive.com Aktuelle Elo-Ranglisten Deutschland. Standard-Liste Top Standard - Top - Dezember
Elo Rangliste FIDE-Turnier veranstalten VideoThe Elo Rating System for Chess and Beyond GM Vitaly Kunin. GM Jakob Meister. WFM Nadia Jussupow. FM Robert Stein. rows · Diese Liste der Schachspieler mit einer Elo-Zahl von oder mehr enthält alle . Ranking/ELO Info. Created On November 27, by FACEIT Support. Häufig werden deshalb die Ratingzahlen auch als "Elo-Zahlen" bezeichnet. Die Ratingzahlen der FIDE beginnen bei Zahlen von (Amateur) und reichen bis zu über Die FIDE veröffentlichte bis Juli viermal jährlich neue Weltranglisten, deren Zahlen dann für das nächste Quartal Gültigkeit hatten. Mit den Listen vom September Find out the percentage of tracked players by tier in the latest season and learn the true value of your skill. We are currently tracking 3,, players for the chosen playlist. Ponder off, General book (up to 12 moves), piece EGTB Time control: Equivalent to 40 moves in 15 minutes on an Intel ik. Computed on December 5, with Bayeselo based on 1'' games. Fortnite Leaderboards. You can filter by console or region. FIDE - World Chess Federation, Online ratings, individual calculations. Ratings for national football teams based on the Elo rating system.
ShashChess Stockfish 12 bit 4CPU. Stockfish bit 4CPU. Stockfish 11 bit 4CPU. SugaR NN 1. Stockfish 12 bit. Dragon by Komodo bit.
Stockfish 10 bit 4CPU. SugaR 1. ShashChess 8. Stockfish bit. Stockfish 11 bit. SugaR XPrO 1. Stockfish 9 bit 4CPU.
Komodo 14 bit 4CPU. Komodo SugaR NN bit. Houdini 6 bit 4CPU. Komodo 12 bit 4CPU. ShashChess Pro 1. Ethereal Stockfish 10 bit.
SlowChess Blitz 2. Stockfish 8 bit 4CPU. Houdini 5. Stockfish 9 bit. Komodo 10 bit 4CPU. ShashChess 6. ShashChess 4.
Nemorino 6. Komodo 9. Komodo 14 bit. Xiphos 0. Houdini 6 bit. SlowChess Blitz Classic 2. Stockfish 7 bit 4CPU. Fire 7. RofChade 2.
Komodo 12 bit. Houdini 6 Tactical bit. MateFinder 9 bit. Komodo 9 bit 4CPU. Stockfish 8 bit. Booot 6. Komodo 14 MCTS bit.
RubiChess 1. Stockfish 6 bit 4CPU. Laser 1. Fire 6. Komodo 8 bit 4CPU. Deep Shredder 13 bit 4CPU.
Defenchess 2. Fritz 17 bit 4CPU. Fizbo 2 bit 4CPU. Stockfish 5 bit 4CPU. Igel 2. Schooner 2. Fire 5 bit 4CPU. Andscacs 0. Komodo 10 bit.
Fizbo 1. Stockfish 7 bit. Houdini 4 bit 4CPU. Komodo 9 bit. Houdini 3 bit 4CPU. Houdini 4 Tactical bit 4CPU.
Komodo 7a bit 4CPU. Stockfish 6 bit. Arasan Komodo 6 bit 4CPU. Stockfish 4 bit 4CPU. Komodo 8 bit. Komodo 5. Shredder 13 bit.
Fire 4 bit 4CPU. Fizbo 2 bit. Houdini 2. Fritz 16 bit 4CPU. Fritz 17 bit. Stockfish 5 bit. Chiron 4 bit 4CPU. Vajolet2 2. Houdini 1. SlowChess Blitz Classic 1.
Gull 3 bit 4CPU. NirvanaChess 2. Gull 2. Fire 5 bit. Equinox 3. Komodo 7a bit. ChessBrainVB 3. Houdini 4 bit.
Stockfish 3 bit 4CPU. Stockfish DD bit. WIM Anne Czaeczine. WIM Maria Schoene. Ololi Alkhazashvili. WIM Anna Dergatschova. WFM Nadia Jussupow.
Sandra Ulms. WIM Olga Kozlova. WFM Heike Vogel. WIM Veronika Kiefhaber. WFM Annelen Siegismund. WGM Natalia Straub. Stefanie Duessler.
WIM Nellya Vidonyak. WIM Ulrike Roessler. WIM Brigitte Burchardt. WFM Anna Endress. WFM Caroline Rieseler. WIM Polina Zilberman.
WIM Antje Goehler. WFM Antonia Ziegenfuss. WFM Alina Zahn. WFM Stefanie Scognamiglio. WFM Alisa Frey. WIM Olena Hess. Irina Braeutigam. Katja Sommaro.
Irena Fliter. WFM Franziska Beltz. Marine Zschischang. WFM Hannah Kuckling. Christina Winterholler.
WFM Jevgenija Leveikina. Stefanie Schenk. Carolin Umpfenbach. WFM Margrit Malachowski. Carina Brandt. Marina Limbourg. Manuela Gerlach-Buedinger. Alina Rath.
WIM Constanze Jahn. Astrid Amelang. Karin Chin. Charlotte Sanati. WFM Fan Zhang. WIM Kerstin Kunze. Olga Weis. Beate Pfau.
Katharina Mehling. Elisa Silz. WIM Luba Kopylov. Helene Giss. Steffi Arnhold. WCM Katharina Ricken. WFM Sylvia Wolf. Sibylle Heyme.
WFM Jade Schmidt. WIM Iris Mai. WFM Heike Germann. WIM Claudia Steinbacher. Johanna Bluebaum. WFM Olga Birkholz. Tanja Pflug.
Jacqueline Kobald. Simona Gheng. Susan Erbs. Svenja Butenandt. WFM Doreen Troyke. Kathrin Sewald.
Nathalie Waechter. WFM Ingrid Voigt. Vanessa Braeuer. WFM Dr. Anita Stangl. Claudia Markgraf. Katrin Leser. WFM Mira Kierzek.
Ha Thanh Nguyen. WFM Isabel Hund. Schnellschach-Liste Top Schnellschach - Top - Dezember 1. GM Gennadi Ginsburg. GM Thorsten Michael Haub. IM Alexander Belezky.
GM Vlastimil Hort. IM Thomas Reich. IM Nikolas Lubbe. GM Lev Gutman. IM Steve Berger. IM Christof Sielecki.
Michael Adams. Wladislaw Artemjew. Dmitri Jakowenko. Jewgeni Tomaschewski. Jan-Krzysztof Duda. Wang Yue. Alexei Schirow. Sergej Movsesjan.
David Navara. Nikita Witjugow. Dmitri Andreikin. Jewgeni Barejew. Maxim Matlakow. Arkadij Naiditsch. Viktor Bologan.
Baadur Dschobawa. Wladimir Fedossejew. Ernesto Inarkiew. Wladimir Malachow. Alireza Firouzja. Samuel Shankland.
Oleksandr Mojissejenko. Santosh Gujrathi Vidit. The difference in rating between two players determines an estimate for the expected score between them.
Both the average and the spread of ratings can be arbitrarily chosen. Elo suggested scaling ratings so that a difference of rating points in chess would mean that the stronger player has an expected score which basically is an expected average score of approximately 0.
A player's expected score is their probability of winning plus half their probability of drawing. Thus, an expected score of 0.
The probability of drawing, as opposed to having a decisive result, is not specified in the Elo system. Instead, a draw is considered half a win and half a loss.
In practice, since the true strength of each player is unknown, the expected scores are calculated using the player's current ratings as follows.
It then follows that for each rating points of advantage over the opponent, the expected score is magnified ten times in comparison to the opponent's expected score.
When a player's actual tournament scores exceed their expected scores, the Elo system takes this as evidence that player's rating is too low, and needs to be adjusted upward.
Similarly, when a player's actual tournament scores fall short of their expected scores, that player's rating is adjusted downward. Elo's original suggestion, which is still widely used, was a simple linear adjustment proportional to the amount by which a player overperformed or underperformed their expected score.
The formula for updating that player's rating is. This update can be performed after each game or each tournament, or after any suitable rating period.
An example may help to clarify. Suppose Player A has a rating of and plays in a five-round tournament. He loses to a player rated , draws with a player rated , defeats a player rated , defeats a player rated , and loses to a player rated The expected score, calculated according to the formula above, was 0.
Note that while two wins, two losses, and one draw may seem like a par score, it is worse than expected for Player A because their opponents were lower rated on average.
Therefore, Player A is slightly penalized. New players are assigned provisional ratings, which are adjusted more drastically than established ratings.
The principles used in these rating systems can be used for rating other competitions—for instance, international football matches.
See Go rating with Elo for more. The first mathematical concern addressed by the USCF was the use of the normal distribution.
They found that this did not accurately represent the actual results achieved, particularly by the lower rated players. Instead they switched to a logistic distribution model, which the USCF found provided a better fit for the actual results achieved.
The second major concern is the correct "K-factor" used. If the K-factor coefficient is set too large, there will be too much sensitivity to just a few, recent events, in terms of a large number of points exchanged in each game.
And if the K-value is too low, the sensitivity will be minimal, and the system will not respond quickly enough to changes in a player's actual level of performance.
Elo's original K-factor estimation was made without the benefit of huge databases and statistical evidence. Sonas indicates that a K-factor of 24 for players rated above may be more accurate both as a predictive tool of future performance, and also more sensitive to performance.
Certain Internet chess sites seem to avoid a three-level K-factor staggering based on rating range. The USCF which makes use of a logistic distribution as opposed to a normal distribution formerly staggered the K-factor according to three main rating ranges of:.
Currently, the USCF uses a formula that calculates the K-factor based on factors including the number of games played and the player's rating.
The K-factor is also reduced for high rated players if the event has shorter time controls. FIDE uses the following ranges: .
FIDE used the following ranges before July . The gradation of the K-factor reduces ratings changes at the top end of the rating spectrum, reducing the possibility for rapid ratings inflation or deflation for those with a low K-factor.
This might in theory apply equally to an online chess site or over-the-board players, since it is more difficult for players to get much higher ratings when their K-factor is reduced.
In some cases the rating system can discourage game activity for players who wish to protect their rating. Beyond the chess world, concerns over players avoiding competitive play to protect their ratings caused Wizards of the Coast to abandon the Elo system for Magic: the Gathering tournaments in favour of a system of their own devising called "Planeswalker Points".
A more subtle issue is related to pairing. When players can choose their own opponents, they can choose opponents with minimal risk of losing, and maximum reward for winning.
In the category of choosing overrated opponents, new entrants to the rating system who have played fewer than 50 games are in theory a convenient target as they may be overrated in their provisional rating.
The ICC compensates for this issue by assigning a lower K-factor to the established player if they do win against a new rating entrant.
The K-factor is actually a function of the number of rated games played by the new entrant. Therefore, Elo ratings online still provide a useful mechanism for providing a rating based on the opponent's rating.
Its overall credibility, however, needs to be seen in the context of at least the above two major issues described — engine abuse, and selective pairing of opponents.
The ICC has also recently introduced "auto-pairing" ratings which are based on random pairings, but with each win in a row ensuring a statistically much harder opponent who has also won x games in a row.
With potentially hundreds of players involved, this creates some of the challenges of a major large Swiss event which is being fiercely contested, with round winners meeting round winners.
This approach to pairing certainly maximizes the rating risk of the higher-rated participants, who may face very stiff opposition from players below , for example.
This is a separate rating in itself, and is under "1-minute" and "5-minute" rating categories. Maximum ratings achieved over are exceptionally rare.
An increase or decrease in the average rating over all players in the rating system is often referred to as rating inflation or rating deflation respectively.
For example, if there is inflation, a modern rating of means less than a historical rating of , while the reverse is true if there is deflation.
Using ratings to compare players between different eras is made more difficult when inflation or deflation are present.
See also Comparison of top chess players throughout history. It is commonly believed that, at least at the top level, modern ratings are inflated.
For instance Nigel Short said in September , "The recent ChessBase article on rating inflation by Jeff Sonas would suggest that my rating in the late s would be approximately equivalent to in today's much debauched currency".
By when he made this comment, would only have ranked him 65th, while would have ranked him equal 10th.
It has been suggested that an overall increase in ratings reflects greater skill. The advent of strong chess computers allows a somewhat objective evaluation of the absolute playing skill of past chess masters, based on their recorded games, but this is also a measure of how computerlike the players' moves are, not merely a measure of how strongly they have played.
The number of people with ratings over has increased. Around there was only one active player Anatoly Karpov with a rating this high.
In Viswanathan Anand was only the 8th player in chess history to reach the mark at that point of time. The current benchmark for elite players lies beyond One possible cause for this inflation was the rating floor, which for a long time was at , and if a player dropped below this they were stricken from the rating list.
As a consequence, players at a skill level just below the floor would only be on the rating list if they were overrated, and this would cause them to feed points into the rating pool.Magnus Carlsen. Garri Kasparow. Fabiano Caruana. Dies war insbesondere früher der Fall, als der Weltschachbund FIDE Schachspieler erst ab einer Wertungszahl von in die Rangliste aufnahm. Da die Elo-. IM Valentin Buckels. Wladislaw Artemjew. Deep Junior 10 4CPU. The ratings of a player who won more games than expected would be adjusted Billy Biber Anleitung, while Casino Online Tricks of a player who won fewer than expected would be adjusted downward. Carballo 1. Accept Learn more…. GM Falko Bindrich. Naum 3 bit 4CPU. American college football used the Elo method Mahjong Dark Dimensions 3d a Elo Rangliste of its Bowl Championship Series rating systems from to after which the BCS was replaced by the College Football Playoff. WIM Kerstin Kunze. Carlsen Invitational the chess world, concerns Ergebnisse Em 2021 players avoiding competitive play to protect their ratings caused Wizards of the Coast to abandon the Elo system for Magic: the Gathering tournaments in favour of a system of their own devising called "Planeswalker Points". Wladimir Fedossejew. Jabba 1. Deep Junior 12 bit. Spike 1. Squared-chess 1. TSCP 1.