Answers.Body: <p>It's not at all clear what you mean by &quot;top 100&quot;. In any sensible definition <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Menchik" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vera Menchik</a>, the first women's world champion, who <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F41dV_R-Lrg&amp;ab_channel=kingscrusher" rel="nofollow noreferrer">beat Max Euwe</a> 3 years before he became world champion by beating Alekhine, was comfortably in the world top 20 let alone top 100.</p>
  <p>If you mean the top 100 in FIDE ratings lists then that seems a fairly meaningless criterion. Apart from the fact that they have only been produced from 1971 onwards, one of my club mates, <a href="https://ratings.fide.com/profile/402036" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dave Mooney</a>, appeared at 97= in the <a href="https://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/Elo197907e.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">July 1979 FIDE rating list</a> with a rating of 2215. He would be the first to admit that there have always been several thousand players in the world better than him at any one time.</p>
  <p>FIDE rating lists from 1971 to 2001 are available on the <a href="https://www.olimpbase.org/index.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Olimpbase site</a>. On the right side of the page find the box &quot;Players &amp; Teams&quot; and in that &quot;Elo Lists 1971-2001&quot;.</p>
  <p>FIDE rating lists for 2001 to today can be downloaded from the <a href="https://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FIDE Download Rating List</a> site via the dropdown box at the bottom of the page.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>does it exist some kind of top 100 marathon table in chess (e.g., something like, if you are 1 for a week you get 100 point, if you are 20 for a week you get 80 points, if you are 100 for a week you get 1 point</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>No. That would also be meaningless.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-04-21T06:26:40.760Z
Answers.Text: Not sure if the "marathon" would be meaningless, at least if we start counting at the point where FIDE ratings are reliable enough. They'd be a decent measure of longevity at elite chess.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-04-21T20:24:28.827Z
Answers.Text: I mean top 100 in the same way Wikipedia does. "Only" 1971? That is 52 years. How long is a chess career? Kasparov played on an elite level for 15 years, which I reckon is a long career. 52 years are more than 3 times as long. Define "meaningless". If you want to compare two players careers' - one reasonable comparison would be  length on top 100 x position on top 100.
Answers.UserDisplayName: d-b
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-04-30T20:57:41.643Z
Answers.Text: Is there a good argument for Menchik being "_comfortably in the world top 20_"?  I mean, I read over the Wikipedia pages, and it looks like Menchik did beat Euwe in two events -- one in 1930-1931 and the other the next year.  But, Euwe got 1st-place in that first event while Menchik got 5th-place (of 10), so while she technically beat Euwe, it doesn't follow that she was a stronger player.  Likewise, while Euwe got the "_World Champion_" title once, his own victory doesn't appear to reflect him having been a stronger player.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Nat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-04-30T21:03:09.877Z
Answers.Text: Wikipedia did have strong words of praise for [the Carlsbad 1929 chess tournament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsbad_1929_chess_tournament), which Menchik attended and got 22nd-place in.  That was last place, scoring only half-as-many points as the second-to-last-place player, so.. at least in 1929, it wouldn't seem that she was Top-20 -- though her having been invited there lends some credibility to her being Top-100.  And then, Wikipedia seems to suggest that she may've had some better play by the early-1930's.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Nat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-04-20T20:52:43.847Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-04-20T20:52:43.847Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Body: <p>From <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess</a></p>
  <p>&quot;Three women, Maia Chiburdanidze, Polgár, and Hou Yifan, have been ranked in the world's top 100 players.&quot;</p>
  <p>That is, right now, there are not three women that are top 100 - the number three is the total of women that have been top 100 during all time. My question is, how many men has ever achieved top 100 <strong>during all time</strong> there has been a top 100 in chess? Even someone just was at position 100 for a week, he would still count.</p>
  <p>Furthermore, does it exist some kind of top 100 marathon table in chess (e.g., something like, if you are 1 for a week you get 100 point, if you are 20 for a week you get 80 points, if you are 100 for a week you get 1 point, similar to <a href="https://www.worldfootball.net/alltime_table/eng-premier-league/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.worldfootball.net/alltime_table/eng-premier-league/</a> )? If it exists (couldn't find anything on Google), how many women are in that table?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-04-20T19:20:03.300Z
Comments.Text: A strangely phrased question. Basically you are asking: how many players have ever been in the world top 100? I'm not sure why you need all the extra gender-specific stuff: as you already pointed out, if you ask it about men specifically, then you just get an answer which is smaller by 3. And as for your second question, haven't you already answered it? If your scoring system means that one needs to be in the top 100 to score a point, then there are 3 women who have scored a point.
Comments.UserDisplayName: James Martin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-04-20T20:31:36.760Z
Comments.Text: @JamesMartin yeah, it's basically "subtract 3 from the number of players who've ever reached the top 100"
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-04-21T20:23:56.660Z
Comments.Text: @JamesMartin Yes, you can subtract 3 from the overall number. I just tried to be more explicit and clear in my question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: d-b
Tags: <history><statistics><women><gender>
Title: According to Wikipedia, only three women have EVER been top 100 in chess. How many men have ever been top 100?
ThreadText: # According to Wikipedia, only three women have EVER been top 100 in chess. How many men have ever been top 100?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2023-04-20)
  
  From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess>
  
  "Three women, Maia Chiburdanidze, Polgár, and Hou Yifan, have been ranked in the world's top 100 players."
  
  That is, right now, there are not three women that are top 100 - the number three is the total of women that have been top 100 during all time. My question is, how many men has ever achieved top 100 **during all time** there has been a top 100 in chess? Even someone just was at position 100 for a week, he would still count.
  
  Furthermore, does it exist some kind of top 100 marathon table in chess (e.g., something like, if you are 1 for a week you get 100 point, if you are 20 for a week you get 80 points, if you are 100 for a week you get 1 point, similar to <https://www.worldfootball.net/alltime_table/eng-premier-league/> )? If it exists (couldn't find anything on Google), how many women are in that table?
  
  **Tags:** history, statistics, women, gender
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: A strangely phrased question. Basically you are asking: how many players have ever been in the world top 100? I'm not sure why you need all the extra gender-specific stuff: as you already pointed out, if you ask it about men specifically, then you just get an answer which is smaller by 3. And as for your second question, haven't you already answered it? If your scoring system means that one needs to be in the top 100 to score a point, then there are 3 women who have scored a point.  
  > **username_2**: @username_1 yeah, it's basically "subtract 3 from the number of players who've ever reached the top 100"  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 Yes, you can subtract 3 from the overall number. I just tried to be more explicit and clear in my question.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2023-04-20. Score: 4
  
  It's not at all clear what you mean by "top 100". In any sensible definition [Vera Menchik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Menchik), the first women's world champion, who [beat Max Euwe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F41dV_R-Lrg&ab_channel=kingscrusher) 3 years before he became world champion by beating Alekhine, was comfortably in the world top 20 let alone top 100.
  
  If you mean the top 100 in FIDE ratings lists then that seems a fairly meaningless criterion. Apart from the fact that they have only been produced from 1971 onwards, one of my club mates, [Dave Mooney](https://ratings.fide.com/profile/402036), appeared at 97= in the [July 1979 FIDE rating list](https://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/Elo197907e.html) with a rating of 2215. He would be the first to admit that there have always been several thousand players in the world better than him at any one time.
  
  FIDE rating lists from 1971 to 2001 are available on the [Olimpbase site](https://www.olimpbase.org/index.php). On the right side of the page find the box "Players & Teams" and in that "Elo Lists 1971-2001".
  
  FIDE rating lists for 2001 to today can be downloaded from the [FIDE Download Rating List](https://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml) site via the dropdown box at the bottom of the page.
  
  > does it exist some kind of top 100 marathon table in chess (e.g., something like, if you are 1 for a week you get 100 point, if you are 20 for a week you get 80 points, if you are 100 for a week you get 1 point
  
  No. That would also be meaningless.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Not sure if the "marathon" would be meaningless, at least if we start counting at the point where FIDE ratings are reliable enough. They'd be a decent measure of longevity at elite chess.  
  > **username_0**: I mean top 100 in the same way Wikipedia does. "Only" 1971? That is 52 years. How long is a chess career? Kasparov played on an elite level for 15 years, which I reckon is a long career. 52 years are more than 3 times as long. Define "meaningless". If you want to compare two players careers' - one reasonable comparison would be  length on top 100 x position on top 100.  
  > **username_4**: Is there a good argument for Menchik being "_comfortably in the world top 20_"?  I mean, I read over the Wikipedia pages, and it looks like Menchik did beat Euwe in two events -- one in 1930-1931 and the other the next year.  But, Euwe got 1st-place in that first event while Menchik got 5th-place (of 10), so while she technically beat Euwe, it doesn't follow that she was a stronger player.  Likewise, while Euwe got the "_World Champion_" title once, his own victory doesn't appear to reflect him having been a stronger player.  
  > **username_4**: Wikipedia did have strong words of praise for [the Carlsbad 1929 chess tournament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsbad_1929_chess_tournament), which Menchik attended and got 22nd-place in.  That was last place, scoring only half-as-many points as the second-to-last-place player, so.. at least in 1929, it wouldn't seem that she was Top-20 -- though her having been invited there lends some credibility to her being Top-100.  And then, Wikipedia seems to suggest that she may've had some better play by the early-1930's.  
  
  ---
  
  