Should Carlsen be given the title of Hyper-grandmaster?

There are a couple of fails of logic there.

1. It's not necessarily the two strongest players in the world, it's just the two that have qualified.

2. Beating a player doesn't necessarily make you a stronger player (even ignoring form). Players can struggle against a certain player, while having better results against the rest of the population.

@Scottrf:

So how do you propose we should objectively determine the strongest player in the world?

You can't get perfect but the rating system does a pretty good job, especially since the top players play in a lot of the same tournaments.

Since when was it a match between the two strongest players in the world? Anand-Gelfand? Kramnik-Leko? Alekhine-Euwe? Lasker-Janowski?

Thats wat.. people are making confusion between strength of player and world champion title.

FanofCarlsen is from India but is a fan of Carlsen?

I understand what you are thinking. 

Yes, and I never really get how someone being picked for a title match makes him stronger than others. If Shirov beats Kramnik but Kramnik gets the match Kramnik suddenly becomes stronger than Shirov, but if Shirov had gotten the match he would have been stronger than Kramnik, etc. I guess it just is easier to rank players like that.

Why can't I be? I am the fan of strongest chess player on this planet. Country doesn't matter.

Me thinks the top 10 should automatically be seeded in the candidates but then we have the problem of rating hoarding so Im not sure.Maybe there should be a penalty for nonactive players.

Also silly tiebreak rules like the sonenberger should be abolished in the candidates matches.It should be decided by a minimatch.

People ... World Championship #1 Contenders aren't picked by a lottery as "Fabelhaft" has made it seem; they earn their match by a series of games! Whoever can get there and beat the Champ is the strongestplayer in the world! If there is another "strongest player in the world" he will make it to the championship match and win!

Who are you rooting for in the WCC then?

Ohh.. So you mean currently strongest player in the world is Anand!! And you mean he is stronger than Carlsen!! LOL

Do they? Did Kramnik, Euwe, Bogo (twice), Janowski, Marshall, Tarrasch, Schlechter, Lasker, Gunsberg, etc earn their title matches in a series of games? The only of them playing some sort of qualification was Kramnik, and he lost it to Shirov.

My dear fablehaft,

Like your name suggests, you're talking nonsense! We are in the 21st century and the way to the World Championship has changed significantly from the time of the masters you mention! And please do not undermine Shirov - at least until you're sure you can beat him!

PS. The editing to your name was intentional - a way to make a point!

Natalia_Pogonina wrote:

There's a World Chess Champion title to earn. Plus if he can beat Houdini, then maybe

Best of 10. Hey Kasparov beat Deep Blue. Time to step it up

I am not giving up my title for him! (LOL!)

How is it "undermining Shirov" to question why Kramnik should be ranked as stronger than him after losing the Candidates match, simply because he was the one given the match by Kasparov? Or asking why Shirov being given the match instead is what would have made him stronger than Kramnik, not the result of the qualification? And what does my not beating Shirov in chess have to do with it?

Kramnik played his match against Kasparov in the 21st century, by they way. In the next match he played Leko, in a cycle where the two strongest players, Kasparov and Anand, didn't participate. In 2011 Gelfand won the Kazan knockout, but that didn't make him top two either. The type of reasoning where the two players in the title match always must be the two strongest players in the world is just difficult to understand.

No one has won a chess game before it starts.