Biggest FIDE Rating Increase in a Month

[Ian Thompson]

This player was brought to my attention today. Does he hold the record for the biggest rating increase in a month - 352 points? Not surprisingly, he's a junior with a K-factor of 40, but even so. He only played 17 games.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"He only played 17 games."

in 16 days apparently...

[LawrenceCooper]

This player was brought to my attention today. Does he hold the record for the biggest rating increase in a month - 352 points? Not surprisingly, he's a junior with a K-factor of 40, but even so. He only played 17 games.

He was rated 1299 in Feb 23 so has come a long way since then!

[Alex Holowczak]

This player was brought to my attention today. Does he hold the record for the biggest rating increase in a month - 352 points? Not surprisingly, he's a junior with a K-factor of 40, but even so. He only played 17 games.

There have been similar jumps by people over the years. The pattern is nearly always the same:
- Child who doesn't play much in some country in Asia, be it China, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Vietnam (e.g.) - the FIDE-rated tournaments don't exist, so everyone is hugely under-rated
- Child goes on summer tour of Europe. This time Spain was the chosen location, but Hungary/Serbia are also well-trodden paths.
- Child gains hundreds of points so their rating reflects their ability.

Until places in these parts of the world FIDE-rate tournaments, their children's ratings will always lag behind. FIDE can't really be expected to provide a fair rating system for players who don't (or can't) play FIDE-rated chess.

[Leonard Barden]

Bodhana gained 328 Fide blitz points in one DAY in 2022.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... hess-title

[NickFaulks]

Does he hold the record for the biggest rating increase in a month - 352 points?

I've never thought it makes much sense to talk about rating points being gained in these circumstances - the rating is simply reset to reflect the player's current playing strength. If the previous rating was out of date, that may result in a big change - so what?

By the way, the answer is no.

[NickFaulks]

This time Spain was the chosen location, but Hungary/Serbia are also well-trodden paths.

I think that comparison is unfair to Spain.

[Alex Holowczak]

This time Spain was the chosen location, but Hungary/Serbia are also well-trodden paths.

I think that comparison is unfair to Spain.

I was only commenting on the fluctuations in the national ratings of certain countries, and Spain is a good one to go to for under-rated players looking to gain Elo.

[NickFaulks]

The difference is that rating gains made in Spain often stick when the player returns home. In some other federations, only the attaching title tends to stick.

[MJMcCready]

The difference is that rating gains made in Spain often stick when the player returns home. In some other federations, only the attaching title tends to stick.

Do you mean that, for example, two players with the same rating of, say, ELO 2000, from different parts of the world may have a different level of ability or strength?

[IM Jack Rudd]

The difference is that rating gains made in Spain often stick when the player returns home. In some other federations, only the attaching title tends to stick.

Do you mean that, for example, two players with the same rating of, say, ELO 2000, from different parts of the world may have a different level of ability or strength?

That's part of it, yes - most players will play most of their chess in their home country, so it's quite easy for countries to form semi-isolated pools where ratings may not indicate the same strength as the same rating elsewhere. That means that, say, Spain's players may become higher rated than India's players of the same strength - thus Indians who travel to Spain will tend to make rating gains.

The more controversial notion Nick was alluding to was the implication that certain tournaments are not particularly honestly conducted, and some players may have bought their way to some results that their actual playing strength wouldn't lead itself to.

[MJMcCready]

The difference is that rating gains made in Spain often stick when the player returns home. In some other federations, only the attaching title tends to stick.

Do you mean that, for example, two players with the same rating of, say, ELO 2000, from different parts of the world may have a different level of ability or strength?

That's part of it, yes - most players will play most of their chess in their home country, so it's quite easy for countries to form semi-isolated pools where ratings may not indicate the same strength as the same rating elsewhere. That means that, say, Spain's players may become higher rated than India's players of the same strength - thus Indians who travel to Spain will tend to make rating gains.

The more controversial notion Nick was alluding to was the implication that certain tournaments are not particularly honestly conducted, and some players may have bought their way to some results that their actual playing strength wouldn't lead itself to.

Yes I take your point. Myanmar got banned for 5 years and many players stripped of their title for precisely that.Isolated incident in terms of it being so prevalent. I've played more than one player in Asia rated 2100+ and beat them easily and thought that would not happen back home.I've also played players 1800 from the same country and the same thing happened. It didn't apply to everyone I played but more than enough to make me wonder how that could be so. I remember thinking I couldn't work out how they got their ratings up and they were about 200-300 points lower than what their rating suggested. Well, that's all from personal experience anyway.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Do you mean that, for example, two players with the same rating of, say, ELO 2000, from different parts of the world may have a different level of ability or strength?"

Yes - two people living in the same street could have the same rating and be different strengths. All rating systems measure results, not ability. Going back about 40 years, a work colleague played at a club where nearly all of the members were graded 50+ points below him, so he got about 100 % in internal games, and won most of the league games, as they were in a low division. He reached 180+, against an average of 100. I was playing top board in my local league division 1, and good opposition in the club, and strong weekend tournaments, and I reached about 175 against an average of 160.

If I played 10 people rated 2400, or 10 people rated 2000, in different events, I would almost certainly end up with different ratings.

[NickFaulks]

Myanmar got banned for 5 years and many players stripped of their title for precisely that.

Really?

[Tim Spanton]

"Do you mean that, for example, two players with the same rating of, say, ELO 2000, from different parts of the world may have a different level of ability or strength?"

Yes - two people living in the same street could have the same rating and be different strengths. All rating systems measure results, not ability. Going back about 40 years, a work colleague played at a club where nearly all of the members were graded 50+ points below him, so he got about 100 % in internal games, and won most of the league games, as they were in a low division. He reached 180+, against an average of 100. I was playing top board in my local league division 1, and good opposition in the club, and strong weekend tournaments, and I reached about 175 against an average of 160.

If I played 10 people rated 2400, or 10 people rated 2000, in different events, I would almost certainly end up with different ratings.

Surely results reflect ability?