Kramnik is stronger then magnus

The only thing we can say for sure is that this is not the right way to determine the challenger. He should be determined in a match play the way it was in the past.

Tell that to Kirsan.

That's the problem with this tournament, it's not about the results!

It's about an arbitrarily chosen tiebreak - they just as easily could have said the player with the fewest losses wins, and then Kramnik would be the challenger.

To be honest, I would have had more fun watching a Kramnik Carlsen tiebreak match then I will watching Anand Carlsen, and it seems more fair.

The primary goal of the Candidates tournament is to select the best candidate for the world championship match. If it entertains too, great. If it doesn't, too bad. Yes, the tournament was a great, exciting tournament. But the tournament did not decisively select the better player between Kramnik and Carlsen. A ten game match between the two would have settled the question.

@Smyslov fan

OR a tournament with a playoff to break ties.

I think the tournament decided that Carlsen and Kramnik were ahead of the rest of the field. Aronian, Svidler, Ivanchuk, Radjabov, Gelfand, and Grischuk all had shaky moments, while Carlsen and Kramnik played well throughout the event.

A tiebreaking match would be good for the media, and would be the best way of deciding who deserved it more, Carlsen or Kramnik.

Perhaps they could have decided the tie-break by either mudwrestling or arm-wrestling?

Or maybe an all-you-can-eat hot dog, or stuffed cabbage, contest? 

Cheap tricks against 2700+.

As far I can see, no one of the Candidates chess players is above the rest. Maybe theirs ratings, but on the board I looked equality, thin and thicks from all the players, doubts, tiredness, etc. Not super chess machines as someone says. I think that Karpov, Kasparov and Fischer are yet better than todays players.

+1

 What if not a cheap trick is his win against Radjabov?  Poor Radja knew the endgame is a draw but just didn't have enough time.

A Grandmaster losing because he ran out of time is just as much to blame as a driver who had an accident because he was drunk.

Anyway, if Radjabov had spent less time earlier...maybe his position would have been a lot worse. Can't have it both ways.

We'll have to settle this Kramnik v Carlsen dispute in some objective manner instead of just shouting one's own opinion.

So, some sort of rating system?.....hmmm

Or perhaps look at their head-to-head record?...hmmm

Or maybe we'll look at the recent tournament victories?...hmmm

 Go Magnus!

Wow. You just compared Ivanchuk and Radjabov to a murderous drunk driver. 

Really?

There is a reason Carlsen is rated #1 in the world- and who has been winning all of the tournaments lately?

My point was that if you lose on time, you should blame yourself, not the opponent.

The OP seems to feel that Magnus Carlsen is "cheating" by winning on time.

I was thinking the same thing about then and than. But of course look who's posting. You can explain 2+2 totals 4 all day and he just wants to keep going "well", "but", "what if", "and so and so said" instead of simply acknowledging the facts.

+1