Does Karjakin even have a "puncher's chance"?

Or it's stupid to assume a counterexample to your assumption couldn't mean your assumption was wrong. I.e., you expect me to be stupid, and thus have a low chess rating, I don't, and the reason for that couldn't possibly be, your assumption was wrong, no, it must mean that somehow you can be an idiot and achieve 2050 USCF. So you're saying that predicting a chess match says more about intelligence than actually being good at chess. Ok.

...Not to mention the fact that having a high chess rating is helpful in answering the thread topic anyway.

No, the problem with that is that you'd have to also have Karjakin have no bad days, or even average days, really. Karjakin can hardly afford average days against Magnus. So you need Magnus to be playing way below his average, Karjakin to be playing way above his average basically every game, for chances to realistically emerge. Even if Karjakin got a lucky win, which is actually quite hard to get, he'd have to not allow Magnus something similar. If Karjakin can get a lucky win, it's even easier for Magnus to, because he creates many more opportunities for himself.

Even in the highly unlikely event he makes it to a playoff, his chances are very low to win that playoff. At every corner he has to beat the odds. You underestimate just how good Magnus is. Obviously it's possible, but his odds are quite low.

Keep in mind people said the same stuff in both Anand matches. Oh, he just has to catch Magnus out of preparation one game and draw the rest. Yeah. Couldn't be farther from reality.

But hey, maybe you guys will get lucky one day and your prediction will come true after nine failed ones, and then you'll talk about how smart you are and, apparently, how dumb I am.

"Rating gap? What was the rating gap between Kasparov and Kramnik when Kasparov lost?"

Yeah, Kasparov lost, for an extremely specific reason in the form of the Berlin Wall. Carlsen's playing style wouldn't lend itself to losing to some kind of opening novelty. We saw that loud and clear in his Anand matches, Anand being a player quite rightly noted for his skillful opening preparation.

Indeed, and Anand had at least been World Champion for years, won title matches against Kramnik and Topalov, been #1 not too long ago, and by many considered to be one of the ten if not five greatest players ever. Nakamura even meant that Anand could be ranked as the second greatest player ever. As I see it every preview of this match has exaggerated Karjakin's level quite a lot.

InfiniteFlash 

All your talks would be more convincing with higher Tactics Trainer Stats ;-DDD      

Not to mention that Anand is much more experienced in matches than Karjakin. And that was supposedly a major point about how Carlsen was inexperienced in wwc matches... but not so when it's someone other than Carlsen who is inexperienced? :)

He's got a chance, but not much of one. Literally no chance would be like if I played Carlsen . Carlsen to win 2-0 or 3-0. Maybe 3-1.

Caruana would have had a chance playing in front of his home crowd.

Just looked at a few betting sites and the best odds I could find for a Karjakin win were 8/1. Most sites were at about 5/1.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

You are an idiot and a hypocrite. You should just shut up. You're embarrassing your self.

Talk to people like you would in real life. Either you're a fake person or you're a schmuck in life. 

Engage his argument, not personal attacks. Please watch your words.

The shorter the match length, the better off an underdog is.  End of discussion.

You're stupid, too. Have you actually read his assertions? He didn't make an argument. He only made assertions. They were so ridiculous, too, that I need not engage them. Further more, everyone else here already has for me.

If Karjakin wins the first game, he will force Magnus to play for win, to take risks. That situation is a bit doubleedged, because Magnus is at his best when he takes risks.

Well, I don't think so. Explaining just how logical my argument is should do the opposite of that. Calling me an idiot, either based on no argument, or based on the silly argument that, as I said before, predicting a chess match shows more about intelligence than actually achieving 2050 USCF, is hardly going to be convincing. But thanks. We need more people like you.

Well, how many supporting points need be made for something to qualify as an argument for you? Apparently for you, all that's enough is that the underdog sometimes wins.

Let's see:

You: Kramnik beat Kasparov.

Me: Maybe this match isn't exactly the same thing.

You: That's ridiculous. So much so in fact that I forgot why.

I didn't dispute that. Karjakin's chances are better in a 12 game match than in a 24 game match, but his chances are still quite low. To be more specific, about 5 to 1 for him to lose, as I implied in response to madhacker.