can magnus carlson cross the 3000 elo barrier

don't be so sure .....

I can break 4000 FIDE if I am given a chance. No, I don't want to do that. Let somebody other than CArlsen does

of course you can, you are Mr.Bean ..... just make all kinds of funny faces, your oppponents will start laughing and then you can complain to the Arbiter and he will rule the game in favour of you !!

I didn't know uscf used the glicko. Do they or not? If so, how long have they been using it?

The USCF provides the main rating system for tournament chess in the United States in conjunction with approximately 2,000 affiliates, mostly chess clubs and local chess organizations. Earlier, the USCF used a rating system that was invented by Arpad Elo, a college professor of physics who was a chess master. Elo worked with the USCF for many years, and the system is utilized in a variety of other games and sports, including USA Today's college football and basketball rankings. Recently, the USCF has transitioned to a rating system that was proposed by Mark Glickman. Glickman, currently the chairman of the USCF Ratings Committee, is a college statistics professor who plays chess and has written numerous papers related to rating systems. The current rating system as implemented by the USCF is still an Elo rating system, but with a sliding K-factor. There is an ongoing discussion within the USCF Ratings Committee of going to Glickman's Glicko-2 system in the future. The Glicko-2 system is an enhanced version of the Glicko system that would better allow for rapid jumps in ratings by young and upcoming scholastic players whose ratings might improve dramatically in a short period of time.

no

no, but Shoedini can . 

What's the deal with carlsen and aronian having their ratings based on 16 games? Where'd the first 10 come from, isnt this their first 6 games here?

HMM MAY BE

oh yesss he can

Mathematically, the chances are close to zero, but he has a realistic chance of breaking 2900 FIDE. (USCF, internet and other ratings don't really count for these purposes.)

hmmm smyslov can u please teach me litle bit about its mathematics

In order to perform at a 3000 rating level, one would have to score 7/10 against an average rating of 2850. There's only one player who is +2850 right now, so let's be realistic and choose an average of 2750 rating for Carlsen's opponents:

Carlsen would have to score nearly 8.5 out of every ten games against an average of 2750 to get a 3000 performance rating. To raise his rating to 3000, he will need to have consistent performance ratings significantly above that (~3200 strength).  That is, Carlsen would have to be active and score 93/100 points against an average rating of 2750. 

Compare that to what Carlsen has been doing. Carlsen has been absolutely amazing, the best player ever. He just had a really good result even by his own lofty standards, 4/5 at Zurich (the pre-tournament average rating for those five players: 2786.6) for a performance rating of 3027. He gained 9 rating points to go up to 2881 in the live ratings. It's just about impossible for him to perform above 3000 consistently enough to get anywhere near 3000.

I think if anyone has a chance of breaking the 3000 barrier, it's Carlsen. Just give him some time.

Very unlikely.

2900, yes, but will not get very far above it at all.

Back in Fischer's day wasn't it of the opinion that a rating like what Carlsen has now was unachievable?

Yes but Carlsen wasnt as well kown back then.

Back in Fischer's day, Carlsen's current rating was unachievable.

Why do people not understand that chess ratings are completely relative to one's peer group?  Fischer could not reach Carlsen's rating because in his day, everyone else was in the 2600s, not the 2700s.  The higher ratings of today are inflated.

Let me make an extreme example, maybe that will work:

If you put every single chess player in the world on a rocket and sent them to Mars, then started all over again with only patzers playing chess and started with 1500 ratings (or 1200, for that matter), eventually, after several decades, a small subset of patzers would reach the same ratings we see today.  The best of the patzers could be rated 2880.

However, when you sent that patzer to Mars on a shuttle, Carlsen would kick his behind all over the solar system.  Why?  Because ratings are relative to the current peer group.

Statistically, a 200 point ratings advantage over one's peer group is very, very hard to achieve.  A 300 point advantage is effectively impossible.  Think about it.  When Carlsen draws, he loses rating points.  When Carlsen wins, he gains almost nothing in terms of rating.  The higher his rating goes, the harder it gets to go up any further.

Inflation comes not from players getting much better at the game, but from the extra ratings points being constantly fed into the system by beginners that start to play, lose ratings points, then quit playing rated games.  In a closed system, it could work...if two players start at 1500 and play each other, one might reach 1600 and the other would be at 1400.  If the 1400 stays in the system, then inflation is mitigated...but this is not what happens...on average, the 1400 is more likely to leave the system than the 1600 player.  This leaves a 1600 player and 100 inflationary ratings points behind.