Watching Garry play was great. But without form how can you say you are really playing well? After all we don't get awarded a win because we played more good moves than the other guy. You have to mate or force a resignation and Garry only did that once and that was due to a huge blunder by his opponent. So ok he played good most of the time but not when it actually counted. After all, what good is the build up if it leads nowhere? We can talk about how nice it would've been if it did lead somewhere but that's really all it's good for.
Stuff like time management, calculation under pressure and intuition are as important as developing the pieces and castling the king especially in rapid and blitz. You just can't deal with these top players without them. So it's like ok, you got a great position, but engines have shown that even the worst looking positions can have all kinds of defensive resources and you have to be up to dealing with all that stuff no matter what turn it is.
So to me it's kind of like saying, "If he played better he could be ahead" which is true I guess. I don't know... maybe it's not this cut and dry in classical controls but the more I learn about chess the more I realize that it's just not enough to play well. You have to play well when it counts. And that could mean that all 39 of your other moves could end up being worthless if you screw up on move 40 or 41 or 42... That's just how I see it.
Before this tournament I had
1) Fischer
2) Carlsen
3) Kasparov
but on pure accomplishment, probably Carlsen is quickly moving up to #1 given his accolades.
However after seeing this tournament most would say Garry is washed up. In fact I think he's showing how tremendous he is.. I'm watching intently minute by minute/ move by move, and I'm still only on day 3 of the rapid after his collapse against Navara, which prompted me to make this post.
Seeing him playing move by move, Kasparov was not making any errors or loss in computer evaluation in all his moves, and playing either slightly winning or completely winning positions in every single rapid game. His problem was form, serious time trouble, and closing games as a result of the time trouble and maintaining continuing to play the best move.
I totally sympathize with what's happened to him, because I've felt this way when playing online, spending my time away playing the objective and best moves for respect of the game, but then folding under time disadvantages etc.
Everyone else in the tournament had wild swings and inconsistent moves game to game. This is because they're playing in a different rhythm, and Garry is just playing to objectively win every game and play the best move in every position. That's why he's losing so much time. Yes it's part of the game, and a loss is a loss.
If Garry played full time even at this age, I see him as being clearly ahead of all these players once he would have his form and rhythm down. Magnus Carlsen would be the only player that I would see being able to beat him, but I'm honestly not sure how they would play out. I think Garry would have an experience advantage.