The argument from the other side

Here is an argument addressing a different angle of the FIDE rating system:

Fom Chess Today www.chesstoday.net (issue 2800)

Dear Mr Baburin,

You’re quite correct in pointing out that there’s more to these FIDE rating lists than just rating points/prestige – there’s also money to consider. The difference between tenth place on the most recent rating list and, say, fifteenth can make the difference between a given player’s being invited to his first Linares event (and possibly subsequent ones if he performs well enough) or having to wait until next year’s edition.

Naturally, Linares is just one example of how important rating lists can be. Who gets invited to an annual event like Linares or Wijk ann Zee, is often determined by who all played in the previous year’s edition and how well they did. But for some players just getting invited to such an event for the first time can be the hard part – and rating lists can make the difference.

I agree that FIDE should make a firm deadline for when a tournament needs to be completed in order for it to make the next rating list, and then no exceptions should be made. Better yet, for tournaments in which the deadline will almost be met but not quite, it should be announced / confirmed before the event starts that it will not count towards the next rating list. If there are legitimate grounds for an exception, then the decision should be announced/explained before the event starts.

That way, in the event of a Carlsen-like situation (which just took place in Foros), if people start petitioning for an “exception” to be made so that the tournament can be prematurely included for the next list, FIDE can simply remind those people that it was confirmed before the first pawns were even pushed that this event would not count. End of iscussion!

On a final note, it needs to be pointed ut that it wasn’t just Carlsen’s place in the next FIDE list that was at stake here. There were no doubt other players in the event who also probably wanted to have it included prematurely – and there were probably other players who preferred that it be “postponed” until the next list, for obvious reasons.

In other words, so much has been said/argued about the matter concerning Carlsen’s being honoured with second-place on the next FIDE rating list, it appears that hardly anyone has been thinking of the other players in the tournament. Some of them had a stake in this matter as well – it wasn’t just Carlsen.

Yours sincerely,
Howard S. Sample, Toledo