Elo-Rangliste im Schachportal. In der Statistik finden sich alle Schachspieler sortiert nach ELO-Punktzahl und Anzahl der Gegner bzw. Spiele. im Januar mit einer Elo-Zahl von Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu, der mit einer Zahl von auf Platz 84 der Rangliste liegt. Wir bieten Vereinen oder Sportgruppen eine kostenlose Online-Verwaltung von Forderungs-Ranglisten (Pyramide / Tannenbaum) sowie ELO-Ranglisten für eine.
Weltrangliste der besten Schachspieler nach Elo-Punkten 2020Name, Title, Fed, Rating, G, B-Year. 1, Bluebaum, Matthias, g, GER, , 8, 2, Donchenko, Alexander, g, GER, , 8, Kurzbeschreibung der Elo-Rangliste. Kurzbeschreibung Elo-Berechnung. Was ist die/eine Elozahl? In verschiedenen Zwei-Personen-Spielen (Go. Magnus Carlsen.
Elo Rangliste FIDE-Identifikationsnummer VideoBrawlhalla Ranking System *Guide*
Stargames Casino Testbericht wieder ungГltig. - FIDE-IdentifikationsnummerAchim Illner.
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. BlackMamba 1.
Deep Junior 13 bit 4CPU. Fat Fritz Junior w bit. Bobcat 8. SmarThink 1. Pirarucu 2. Sting SF 4 bit. Senpai 1. DeepSaros 2.
Pirarucu 3. Rybka 3 Dynamic bit. Sting SF 2 bit. Deep Junior Deep Fritz 14 bit 1CPU. Deep Shredder 12 bit 4CPU.
Rybka 2. Spike 1. Chiron 2 bit. Rybka 3 Human bit. Crafty Marvin 3. Nemorino 2. Sting SF Cheng 4. Sting SF 19 bit. Sting SF 7. Monolith 2 bit. Rodent IV 0.
Sting SF 9 bit. Hakkapeliitta TCEC v2 bit. Sting SF 24 bit. Bagatur 2. Gull II b2 bit. Weiss 1. Deep Fritz 11 4CPU. Rodent IV bit. Gull R bit. Gull II bit.
Deep Fritz 12 4CPU. Scorpio 2. Hiarcs Cheng4 0. Deuterium Jewgeni Najer. Ferenc Berkes. Sergei Rublewski.
Ivan Sokolov. Boris Gratschow. Jon Ludvig Hammer. Emil Sutovsky. Markus Ragger. Wladislaw Kawaljou.
Surab Asmaiparaschwili. Alexander Chalifman. Ihor Kowalenko. Gabriel Sarkissjan. Alexander Onischuk. Igor Lyssy.
Peter Heine Nielsen. Diese Seite wurde am Oktober in dieser Version in die Auswahl der informativen Listen und Portale aufgenommen.
GM Michael Hoffmann. GM Jens-Uwe Maiwald. Standard-Liste Frauen Top Standard Frauen - Top - Dezember 1. WGM Marta Michna.
WGM Tatjana Melamed. IM Zoya Schleining. IM Ketino Kachiani-Gersinska. WGM Sarah Papp. WGM Josefine Heinemann. WIM Iamze Tammert.
WGM Elena Koepke. WIM Fiona Sieber. WGM Melanie Lubbe. FM Jana Schneider. FM Lara Schulze. Annemarie Meier.
WGM Filiz Osmanodja. WIM Annmarie Muetsch. WGM Jessica Schmidt. WGM Judith Fuchs. WIM Manuela Mader. 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. Search recorded games. Search Advanced…. Latest activity.
Legendary AoE players. AoE2 Hall of Fame wip. Feedback and Suggestions. Shortcuts General Discussion. Questions and Answers. Articles and Guides.
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".