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.
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. :(
Would it be fun? He would just crush everyone at chess, and beat ¨weak¨ computers.
Look at it this way: in the November 2010 FIDE rating list, there is exactly 18 points between #1 (Anand 2804) & #5 (Topalov 2786). In live ratings as of today, there is 90 points between #1 (Carlsen 2874) and #5 (Anand 2784) - and 64 points between #1 and #2 (Aronian 2810).
Something has happened in those 27 months. Aronian and Kramnik gained 10 points each, roughly. Anand lost 20. Carlsen gained 72. That is significant.
Wow, 18 point difference between #1 and #5 to today a 90 point difference. Yes, something is very different. And so begins the era of Magnus Carlsen! We can all say we were there when it happened
The thing is that this guy just "never" lose a game. An amazing ability. Like someone said, he's drawing lost positions and winning drawn positions.
hmmm todays game against giri i fear he may loose
Giri did beat him before! But Carlsen is less then a pawn behind. And rating diff is quite big...
i HOPE & PRAY for Carlsen's loss. He is like Michael Schumacher - he is devastating his sport. :)
OK, Giri has just lost his win. 
from +1.45 to 0.0 magnus is a genius...
Hmm, he'll be playing a while, but I don't know if rating inflation will take it that high that soon.
Today's 2800 was the 2600 of years past.
Reminds me of a line in the "Golden Girls".
The one says, I have just turned 40, I feel old. The other one replies 'Don't worry - today's 40 is the new 30. And 50 is the new 40.'
Grandma : What about 78 ? - Reply : 78 is still 78.
Draw now, Anand is losing?
So Magnus equals Kasparov's best ever performance at Tata...and yet does so with a 2934 performance rating.
This is why 3000 is out of the question unless many other players are suddenly rated between 2850-2900.
Agreed Chris. Carlsen won't break 3000 in the next five years, and probably won't break 3000 in the next 15 years unless a new crop of players really improve on today's lot.
Just look at the way he squeezed today poor Nakamura like a bug...
it was amazing game he was crushed badly