can magnus carlson cross the 3000 elo barrier

May Bobby Fischer rest in peace.  If Carlsen is to beat Bobby Fischer, his only opportunity rests on the probability of an afterlife. 

I seriously doubt that Magnus can maintain a consistent 3000.  Perhaps, but not likely.  He is having one of the greatest ever tournaments and looks poised to break Kasparov's record of 10/13 at Tata and yet his performance rating is 2951 right now.

The old masters dominated because they were dominant.  Not because their opponents took the game less seriously.  So to try to say that one era is better than the other just doesn't hold up.

Yes, players today know more about the game than the players of ages gone by because the old guard paved the way for the knowledge and computers have refined it.  But you can't compare one generation to the other based solely on rating because it's not relevant.  Ratings only mean something when compared relative to peers. 

Or to put it another way, the 100th strongest player today is comparable to the 100th strongest player of 50 years ago when compared to their peers.  It's erroneous to say that since the 100th strongest player today is higher rated than the one from 50 years ago they are also better.

GMs actually calculate less than amateurs do. They don't need to calculate most positions! But when the GM does calculate, he can calculate more deeply and more efficiently than any amateur.

Estragon has been acting as if it's possible to add 30 rating points each tournament. As Carlsen outstrips his competition, his rating will increase and the points he gains from each victory will be less. 

There's no way Carlsen will break 3000 in the next five years. If he has any chance at all, it will be because a new generation of players will have improved beyond today's players. I doubt 3000 will be broken in the next 15 years. 

I see how any of my points can be argued against. They should be common sense. As the player pool increases and as everyone starts taking the game more seriously, the situation becomes more competitive and therefore less conducive to one player dominanting to such an extent. Why do you think no one has dominated as much as Morphy since he was around?

And another thing: As the knowledge base (as you mentioned) goes up, the harder it becomes to make such giant, innovative strides as players have done in times gone by and pull away from the rest of the pack. Just look at any endevour (music for example) and you'll see the same thing.

And I'm not going to comment on the ratings and if Magnus will get over 3000 as it's not something I mentioned in my 1st post.

EDIT: (that was in response to Chris. I notice 2 posts were made as I was typing this).

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.

Just look at the way he squeezed today poor Nakamura like a bug...

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 ;-)