Kurzbeschreibung der Elo-Rangliste. Kurzbeschreibung Elo-Berechnung. Was ist die/eine Elozahl? In verschiedenen Zwei-Personen-Spielen (Go. Magnus Carlsen. Im Dezember erreichte der norwegische Schachspieler Magnus Carlsen mit einer Elo-Zahl von Punkten die höchste Wertungszahl weltweit.
Die FIDE-Weltrangliste vom Januar 2020Garri Kasparow. Wir bieten Vereinen oder Sportgruppen eine kostenlose Online-Verwaltung von Forderungs-Ranglisten (Pyramide / Tannenbaum) sowie ELO-Ranglisten für eine. Dies war insbesondere früher der Fall, als der Weltschachbund FIDE Schachspieler erst ab einer Wertungszahl von in die Rangliste aufnahm. Da die Elo-.
Elo Rangliste Navigation menu VideoTop 10 Best Chess Players. FIDE Rating 1967-2020. Magnus Carlsen, Garry Kasparov and others
Sich vor allem Neukunden Гber teilweise hohe Summen Elo Rangliste. - InhaltsverzeichnisMunkhzul, Turmunkh.
Nemorino 5. Rybka 4 bit 4CPU. Stockfish 2. Fire 4 bit. Rybka 4. Komodo TCEC bit. Komodo 6 bit. Texel 1. Combusken 1.
Pedone 1. Protector 1. Lc0 0. Alfil Demolito bit. Winter 0. Wasp 3. Sting SF 4. Chiron 3. DeepSaros 4. Pedone 2.
Komodo CCT bit. Gull 3. BlackMamba 2. Stockfish 4 bit. Gull 3 bit. Rybka 3 bit 4CPU. Vitruvius 1. Elektro 1.
Chiron 4 bit. Roc 0. Stockfish 1. IvanHoe 9. RobboLito 0. Komodo 5 bit. Senpai 2. Rybka 3 Human bit 4CPU. Strelka 5. Fritz 16 bit.
Beef 0. Komodo 4 bit. Naum 4. Nemorino 4. Stockfish 3 bit. Fritz 15 bit. Komodo 3 bit. Chiron 2 bit 4CPU. Critter 0. Rybka 4 bit.
Demolito bit 4CPU. Amoeba 3. Deep Fritz 14 bit 4CPU. Nemorino 3. Wasp 4. Rodent III 0. Defenchess 1. Topple 0. Koivisto 4. Minic 2. Hiarcs 14 4CPU.
Ethereal 9. Marvin 4. Rybka 3 bit. Chiron 1. DeepSaros 3. Komodo 2. Naum 4 bit 4CPU. Sting SF 5 bit. Sting SF 8.
Gull R bit 4CPU. Wasp 2. Sting SF 3 bit. Sting SF 6. Deep Fritz 13 4CPU. Sting SF 15 bit. Sting SF 9. TheViper TaToH DauT Time Your time. Calendar Featured Events.
Argentina - 1v1 Arabia - USD. Nicov MbL40C RoR Kamigawa SuN Uzzi SuN Mexican Psycho Fr Sitaux True Barakah Jurij Kryworutschko. Rustam Kasimjanov.
Waleri Salow. Kirill Alexejenko. Denis Chismatullin. Loek van Wely. Wladimir Hakobjan. Luke McShane. David Howell. Jeffery Xiong. Alexei Drejew.
Alexander Beliavsky. Alexander Motyljow. Maxim Rodshtein. Daniil Dubow. Gawain Jones. Sachar Jefymenko. Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu.
Hannelore Neumeyer. WFM Dorota Weclawski. Elisa Zeller. Tena Frank. Anastasia Erofeev. Katja Hartung. Elke Zimmer. Barbara Niedermaier.
Theresa Peters. Lea Rieping. Rabea Schumann. Britta Leib. Gerda Strate. Anne Lukas. Olena Kosovska. Dagmar Aden.
Johanna Ehmann. Constanze Wulf. Nicole Nentwig. Anke Freter. Astrid Froehlich-Dill. Regina Heyne. Dietlind Meinke.
Melanie Muedder. Madeleine Schardt. Karin Roos. Estelle Morio. Monika Braje. Sana Fock. Christa Kaulfuss. Margarethe Wagner. Rosemarie Sand. Bianca Stolcz.
Lena Mader. Linda Becker. Sonja Noll. Amina Fock. Anna Schneider. Hannah Clara Roesler. Tiffany Kinzel. Blitzschach-Liste Top Blitzschach - Top - Dezember 1.
FM Jonah Krause. IM Andreas Schenk. IM Alexander Gasthofer. FM Marco Riehle. IM Lars Stark. IM Raoul Strohhaeker.
IM Robert Baskin. FM Frederik Svane. GM Jakob Meister. Thomas Bohn. Anthony Petkidis. FM Robert Stein. FM Hans Moehn.
FM Pascal Barzen. IM Bernhard Bayer. IM Sven Joachim. IM Thomas Fiebig. IM Christian Braun. GM Thomas Paehtz.
IM Markus Schaefer. FM Leonid Sawlin. IM Lev Yankelevich. Blitzschach-Liste Frauen Top Blitzschach Frauen - Top - Dezember 1. WFM Eveline Nuenchert.
Michelle Viviane Frank. Kathrin Schiffmann. Birgit Schneider. Andrea Schmidt. The difference between the ratings of the winner and loser determines the total number of points gained or lost after a game.
If the high-rated player wins, then only a few rating points will be taken from the low-rated player. However, if the lower-rated player scores an upset win , many rating points will be transferred.
The lower-rated player will also gain a few points from the higher rated player in the event of a draw. This means that this rating system is self-correcting.
Players whose ratings are too low or too high should, in the long run, do better or worse correspondingly than the rating system predicts and thus gain or lose rating points until the ratings reflect their true playing strength.
An Elo rating is a comparative rating only, and is valid only within the rating pool where it was established. The Harkness system was reasonably fair, but in some circumstances gave rise to ratings which many observers considered inaccurate.
Elo's system replaced earlier systems of competitive rewards with a system based on statistical estimation. Rating systems for many sports award points in accordance with subjective evaluations of the 'greatness' of certain achievements.
For example, winning an important golf tournament might be worth an arbitrarily chosen five times as many points as winning a lesser tournament.
A statistical endeavor, by contrast, uses a model that relates the game results to underlying variables representing the ability of each player.
Elo's central assumption was that the chess performance of each player in each game is a normally distributed random variable. Although a player might perform significantly better or worse from one game to the next, Elo assumed that the mean value of the performances of any given player changes only slowly over time.
Elo thought of a player's true skill as the mean of that player's performance random variable. A further assumption is necessary because chess performance in the above sense is still not measurable.
One cannot look at a sequence of moves and derive a number to represent that player's skill. Performance can only be inferred from wins, draws and losses.
Therefore, if a player wins a game, they are assumed to have performed at a higher level than their opponent for that game. Conversely, if the player loses, they are assumed to have performed at a lower level.
If the game is a draw, the two players are assumed to have performed at nearly the same level. Elo did not specify exactly how close two performances ought to be to result in a draw as opposed to a win or loss.
To simplify computation even further, Elo proposed a straightforward method of estimating the variables in his model i. One could calculate relatively easily from tables how many games players would be expected to win based on comparisons of their ratings to those of their opponents.
The ratings of a player who won more games than expected would be adjusted upward, while those of a player who won fewer than expected would be adjusted downward.
Moreover, that adjustment was to be in linear proportion to the number of wins by which the player had exceeded or fallen short of their expected number.
From a modern perspective, Elo's simplifying assumptions are not necessary because computing power is inexpensive and widely available. Moreover, even within the simplified model, more efficient estimation techniques are well known.
Several people, most notably Mark Glickman , have proposed using more sophisticated statistical machinery to estimate the same variables. On the other hand, the computational simplicity of the Elo system has proven to be one of its greatest assets.
With the aid of a pocket calculator, an informed chess competitor can calculate to within one point what their next officially published rating will be, which helps promote a perception that the ratings are fair.
The USCF implemented Elo's suggestions in ,  and the system quickly gained recognition as being both fairer and more accurate than the Harkness rating system.
Subsequent statistical tests have suggested that chess performance is almost certainly not distributed as a normal distribution , as weaker players have greater winning chances than Elo's model predicts.
Significant statistical anomalies have also been found when using the logistic distribution in chess. The table is calculated with expectation 0, and standard deviation The normal and logistic distribution points are, in a way, arbitrary points in a spectrum of distributions which would work well.
In practice, both of these distributions work very well for a number of different games. Each organization has a unique implementation, and none of them follows Elo's original suggestions precisely.
It would be more accurate to refer to all of the above ratings as Elo ratings and none of them as the Elo rating. Instead one may refer to the organization granting the rating.
There are also differences in the way organizations implement Elo ratings. For top players, the most important rating is their FIDE rating.
FIDE has issued the following lists:. A list of the highest-rated players ever is at Comparison of top chess players throughout history.
Performance rating is a hypothetical rating that would result from the games of a single event only. Some chess organizations [ citation needed ] use the "algorithm of " to calculate performance rating.
According to this algorithm, performance rating for an event is calculated in the following way:. This is a simplification, but it offers an easy way to get an estimate of PR performance rating.
Permanent Commissions, A simplified version of this table is on the right. FIDE classifies tournaments into categories according to the average rating of the players.
Each category is 25 rating points wide. Category 1 is for an average rating of to , category 2 is to , etc. For women's tournaments, the categories are rating points lower, so a Category 1 is an average rating of to , etc.