Caruana is very good, but seems unpredictable. He had a fantastic result in St. Louis and has shown he's capable of being the best (for one tournament, anyway), but he seems to have some mediocre results too. If I remember correctly, last candidates I think he didn't deal with the pressure well.
Caruana did not qualify for the last candidates tournament.
Either Caruana, Anand or Nakamura :)
Caruana did not qualify for the last candidates tournament.
Right - I was probably thinking of a qualification tournament and got confused, or maybe I was even thinking of a different player. 
If you follow major chess tournaments then you could see Anand is still the best force in classic version of chess.
He have defeated Nakamura, Caruana,Kramnik and Topalov .
So just pass the Anand to challenge the Carlsen.
But the yaksh asks who is better than Anand except Carlsen.
And Carlsen is already world champ.
:)
Anand will always win the candidates, but will always lose the match.
The next world champ after Carlsen is not born yet. Unless Carlsen gets bored and loses a match due to disinterest.
The next world champ after Carlsen is not born yet. Unless Carlsen gets bored and loses a match due to disinterest.
+1 Or maybe the next champ is that 6-year-old Norweigan girl that had beaten grandmaster recently. :)
Anyhow, I think that we will watch Carlsen - Anand match again. As much as Caruana and Nakamura are brilliant, as much as Anand will be 50 years old he is a chess giant and a league for himself.
The wait is over and it's Karjakin. Looking forward to this exciting encounter in November. My money is on Magnus, but Karjakin will he very hard to beat...
One of the three: Caruana, So and Nakamura. Vlad and Vishy lack the stamina.
Wesley So
I think it shows the fact that the Candidates is only one tournament and any player can perform relatively well compared to the rest of the field for a short period of two weeks while the other players may be slightly off form or lacking in stamina or not offering much in the way of resistance or something else. basically luck is a factor no matter how you look at it. I don't believe that anyone can say that Karjakin was necessarily a better or more skilled or talented player than the others present at the Candidates - he just had a good tournament while the rest did not play to their level of expectations.
predicting a winner in any tournament is of course an unpredictable matter, and often these things are unfairly (in my opinion) decided by tiebreak criteria that make little sense, especially since the entire purpose of the event is to find a challenger for the world champion, with there being no reward (except monetary) for finishing in second or third place. I remember that the last round of the 2013 Candidates tournament was total chaos - Carlsen and Kramnik were tied before the round and they both lost their own games to different players, but they had no way to strategize what result was sufficient for them to win the tournament. like if Kramnik knew that Carlsen was going to lose then he would probably have settled for a draw instead of riskily pushing for a win and eventually losing. in the end Carlsen was chosen as the challenger for Anand by having the most number of wins or least number of losses or something stupid like that, even though he was tied on points with Kramnik. so there is much more involved than pure skills and ability.
I agree here. Maybe they should put a tweak here.
All this is off the top of my head so it might be completely wrong, but here's my thoughts: