every game he seems to be struggling, yet somehow pulls it off,wining...... from the unlikelist of posistions... i just dont get it

this is interesting what this guy said on chessgames

Twas not skill that carried Magnus to the top. Let's face it. Magnus is a lucky guy:

1. In terms of sponsorships- that explains his elo. 

2. In terms of his opponents performing below par- that explains his wins.

He still has to create his perfect game which would reflect his alleged genius than his propensity to be a beneficiary of wins gifted him due to ill moves and blunders committed by his opponents.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1705181&kpage=13#reply354

The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes

Lucky year after year and staying at the top huh?  Sounds like what you sometimes hear against Lasker heh.

i know, do people just like to hate on magnus cause he is young and not a soviet player or something?

Sounds an awful lot like what you heard about Lasker. 

Why so surprised? Paulsen outplayed Morphy many times in the opening, yet his midgame development and endgame was miles better. It is the same here.

hate to break it to you guys, but Lasker jacked chess in a long time ago.

i don't get it either, i don't see many games where he was struggling ?

are you kidding? Paulsen was like one of the worst opening players i ever seen, with the backward pawn blocked by Morphys Queen.

you'll see far worse here. currently there's a bloke trolling the forums with rubbish about openings, really bad for the kids on the site.

let me guess: yereslov ?

why would you think that he's struggling?

lol yeah, hes #1 because he is lucky, righto.

well if the gamblers fallacy is true, then ofc he could be for years number 1 just by luck. Im not saying i dont even know most of his games or anything about him. But if we assume that the gamblers fallacy theory is correct, then he could also be number 1 just by pure chance.

He still has to create his perfect game which would reflect his alleged genius than his propensity to be a beneficiary of wins gifted him due to ill moves and blunders committed by his opponents.

Sure. The day you win a game without your opponent making a single mistake, come back to ask this.

All the art is precisely to push the opponent to make a mistake.

And oh, yes, he could be #1 by pure chance. Unfortunately, it fell on Carlsen and not on me ; and strangely, he has still never scored 0 in a tournament which should happen any time now (after all, he's just a patzer, when he runs ot of luck that's what will happen).

ccording to gamblers fallacy theory it might be possible, anyway i never said he is a patzer though. i mean if in 10000 coin tosses we can get 10000 times head because the past doesn affect the future, then of course we migh have 10000 games were his opponents just played badly or blundered for no apparent reason.

Yeah, but in terms of likeliness for GM opponents to "blunder" it is less than 1/2, and the fact this happens regularly makes that "Carlsen is overrated by at least 500 Elo points" less likely than "the FBI conspired with aliens and Illuminati to rig all his matches to make the path to World War 3", if you see what I mean.

Sure, it's possible - as well as it is possible than you die from suffocation because suddenly all the oxygen particules in the room you are decide to go away from you, leaving you with the nitrogen particles (which are useless to breathe). Or that when mixing an egg suddenly all the white and all the yellow part reform. It's just so unlikely it is not even worth considering.

how can you predict the likeliness of GMs to blunder?