According to various calculations, Morozevich is trailing Kramnik by less than 1 rating point for the #2 ranking in the world after 6 rounds in Sarajevo. If he wins today, he will surpass Kramnik and coming closer to taking away the #1 ranking by Anand.
Here is the game so far this morning:
GM Morozevich (2774) – GM Predojevic (2651) [D10]
30.05.2008 – Round 7
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bf4 Qb6 6.Qd2 Nc6 7.e3 Bf5 8.f3 e6 9.Rc1 Bb4 10.h4 h5 11.a3 Bxc3 12.Rxc3 0–0 13.Be2 Rfe8 14.Bd1 e5 15.Bxe5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Rxe5 17.Ne2 Rae8 18.Nd4 Bd7 19.0–0 Qd6 20.Bb3 R5e7 21.Rfc1 g6 22.Ba2 Kg7 23.Ne2 Bb5 24.Nf4 Qb6 25.Kf2 Bc4 26.b3 += Bb5 27.Bb1 Bc6
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
This only proves that the rating system is flawed as a measure of playing strenght. True, Morozevich performs outstandingly against “lesser” players, but he’s never been a dominant force in super tournaments. So his becoming #2 on the rating list is almost meaningless, and more than a little absurd.
I disagree that the rating system is “absurd”, but I agree that it should not determine the “Best Player” let alone the World Champion.
IMO the rating system could and should be used to qualify for a Candidates Tournament. From this point on all should be as it was from 1963 to 1972 and 1985 to 1993; that is:
Best 7 of the Candidates Tournament join the loser of the last WCC Match and play Candidates matches (Best of 10) The last two remaining Players play the Candidates Final Match (Best of 12). The winner challenges the World Champion (Best of 16)
For tie-breaks there are several solutions possible. The best IMO are 2 Rapid Games with reversed colors as long as there is a decision (max 4 tie-break rapid games per day) but no blitz or “Armaggeddon” games, as these are IMO not suited for tie-breaks.
To sum it up, the rating system would make a perfect tool to select the WCC “Candidates”
“True, Morozevich performs outstandingly against “lesser” players, but he’s never been a dominant force in super tournaments. So his becoming #2 on the rating list is almost meaningless, and more than a little absurd.”
Why should this be absurd?
Moro needs about 2 points from 3 games not to lose ELO-Points against these ~2680 players.
Playing like Kramnik, Carlsen, Anand etc. almost only in tournaments with 2740+ players you just need (perhaps about) 1,6 from 3 games.
So Moro must be at +3/10 not to lose points while others may draw there way winning one game and they’d been winning ELO points.
Now TELL ME why is it so much harder to score 5,5/10 against similar strong opponents as to score 7/10 against a bit less strong opponents?
Players like Anand or Kramnik that are used to draw many games wouldn’t be able to win ELO points in such a tournament. They would for sure win this event but lose ELO points.
Or put drawing man Leko in such tournaments… if he wouldn’t just play against high rated players he would drop under 2700 more quickly than you think.
It’s much harder playing lower rated opponents as you cannot just “play for a win with white and draw with black” as many players are used to.
And therefore playing in tournaments with enemies having much lower rankings than you have is very ‘brave’ if you are focused on ELO points.
This is a very, very strong accomplishment by Moro and I hope he will be number one in the ELO list some day (soon!).
Best regards
Jochen