can magnus carlson cross the 3000 elo barrier

Food for thought: If you only took the results of the round robin of the top 4 players, Aronian and Anand would have tied for first. Carlsen would have finished third. If you take the results of the top 6 players (those who currently have a + score), Aronian and Carlsen would have tied for first. 

Carlsen's performance is amazing, but he's not doing it against the top half of the tournament. He's beating up on the guppies. And yeah, those are some very high rated guppies.

Would he have a hope of beating an engine like stockfish or houdini (which is above 3000)?  I'm aware the elo numbers for engines and players are only loosly related.

Using the same scoring that is being used at Tata, if you took a round robin of the top 4, Anand would be clear first, Aronian and Carlsen would tie for second.  If you took it from the top 6, Carlsen is clear first. I think you've missed that Anand beat Aronian in round 4.

As for the 3000 barrier, either the field needs to get higher rated or he needs to get white every game. He'll (probably) hit 2900 in the near future, but beyond that is nearly impossible now. In 15-20 years, perhaps someone could reach 3000, but not quite yet.

Yes, I made a mistake in my earlier post. But the point that Carlsen's result against the top players was not special remains valid.

The thing to note about that is that Carlsen had black in all three of the games that he drew. It's not a complete pardon, but color is rather significant at that level.

So basically Carlsen only plays well against patzers. Put him up against, say, a master or something like that, and he cracks.

Well... these are some 2700-rated patzers, remember.

Karjakin is #6 in the world and Carlsen made him look like a fish. Carlsen's accomplishments are amazing. It bears repeating.

Carlsen's accomplishments are amazing.

But a match against Kramnik would be a far better proof that he is better than Kramnik than a tournament where they draw their two games and he scores better against the lower rated players.

I do not need any more proof, to me, he is the greatest player in the last 4 billion years on this planet. 

I notice that you have carefully excluded the Primal Ooze from your time-bracket.

I think you missed some numbers somewhere.

Top 4 players by current standings (1 round to go): Carlsen has had no whites and 3 blacks.  Aronian has had 3 whites.  Anand has had 2 whites.

Among these 4 players only the score would be Anand 1st and Carlsen tied for 2nd with Arnonian, and Leko last.

------------------------------

Top 4 players by initial ratings: Carlsen has had 2 whites and 1 black. Aronian (1 white), Caruana (2 whites), Karajakin (1 white).

Among these 4 players there will be a 3 way tie for 1st if tomorrows game of Caruana - Aronian is decisive.  If it's a draw then Carlsen would be #1.

---------------------

Top 6 players by current standing (1 round to go):  Carlsen has had 2 whites and 3 blacks and the standing would be exactly the same as they are now, ties and all: 
Carlsen (1st with 3.5 points)
Anand | Aronian (shared second with 3 points)
Leko | Karjakin (shared 4th with 2 points)
Nakamura (6th with 1.5 points)

--------------------------

Ratio of:  (wins vs those with a plus score / win vs those without a plus score)

Carlsen:     0.4    (2/5)
Anand:       0.33  (1/3)
Aronian:     0.66  (2/3)
Leko:         0
Karjakin:    0
Nakamura: 0

This means Anand has benefited the most from wins against weaker players while Aronian has benefited the least.  (Possibly not surprising considering the game Aronian - Anand this tourney).  Although it is true that Carlsen doesn't seem to do better or worse among those with a plus score.

----------------------

Conclusion:  Carlsen does not score poorly against the top preformers and is not winning the tourament through the backdoor.  He had black against the next three tourney leaders and the only decisive game among these players was Aronian - Anand.  Looking at a RR among those with a plus score the standings do not change.

I think it's a poor argument to say Carlsen is not as strong when his competitors fail to score as well as he does against the "weak" players (average rating of bottom 8 is 2692).  If Arnonian and Anand can't score well against them this must indicate they're not as strong as Carlsen.  In the end, Carlsen's dominating rating and performance tell the whole story.

I agree that Carlsen gets his points by outplaying the lower-rated players -- those rated 2-10 in world, for example. He can't help it though if there is nobody else who isn't severely lower-rated compared to him.

If Your Carlsen EVERYBODY is lower rated

Right, I thought that's what I said ;-)

it was amazing game he was crushed badly

Not sure how much meaning to give it, but he did have black in the three games Aronian, Anand, and Leko, the three players currently below him in the standings.

Well, beating 2600 players is something Magnus can do a hell of a lot better than the rest it seems. If he's really not so much better than the top players, why should the other members of the top 10 struggle with the same task? You could argue that if they can't beat the 2600 players very often, then are they really so much better than those 2600s in the first place -- see how we can make crazy arguments like this? Or, we can simply look at the ratings -- that helps to average things out better.

"But a match against Kramnik would be a far better proof that he is better than Kramnik than a tournament where they draw their two games and he scores better against the lower rated players."

I simply don't agree with this. I think how one performs against lower rated opponents is a perfectly valid component -- after all, not losing or drawing to lower rated is what keeps your rating from going down and is thus responsible for keeping it up.

Not to say match play isn't important too -- but just because Kramnik can probably avoid losing a lot to Carlsen isn't as significant as the fact that Carlsen can beat more people in general, yet still loses seldomly as Kramnik does.

Elubus is correct, the fact that Carlsen can beat up on "lower rated players" and someone like Kramnik cannot do this is significant.  It goes to Carlsen's overall ability to play chess.

It is to Carlsen's advantage right now to take it a little easy with the black pieces vs the so called "higher rated players".

Carlsen would win a world championship match as anyone who would have the pressure of playing against him would eventually crack.

[like an egg ]

Unfortunately yes. :(