Kramnik is stronger then magnus

Nakamura has never beaten Carlsen in a slow game and has been beaten 7 times, many of them very painful crushes, and you think Nakamura would beat Carlsen if they played a bunch of slow games in a row? I think you've really lost it, bean. The history is that Carlsen dominates Nakamura in slow play.

But did they ever meet in a match besides the blitz where Nakamura won? And I tell you what. Nakamura secret is in his black glasses.  You may try to inspect them before the match.

Naka and Carlsen once played an all-night blitz match. The games were interesting, but Carlsen won fairly handily (23.5-16.5). Even in blitz, Carlsen is better than Nakamura. Carlsen has won a world blitz championship, Nakamura hasn't ... yet.

Nakamura is #4 in the world, has a plus score against both Kramnik and Anand in classical chess, and would not have much chance at all against Carlsen. That says something about just how good Carlsen is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGXvcQP6VPo

smyslovfan beat me to it. A blitz match is totally irrelevant, but even there, Carlsen has beaten Nakamura decisively.

Time to retreat to another specious argument, bean.

The score is 1 - 1 in 2 matches. Can't tell who will win. Botvinnik remark is not broken yet.

I guess now you are really trolling, because even you couldn't be so stupid as to think that winning a 3-game "match" by 1 point is equal to winning a 40-game match by 13.5 points.

I'm undecided on whether you could really believe that blitz play is a better predictor for performance in slow chess than slow play though.

That's right, Nakamura has never beaten Carlsen. 
However, I would like to point out that Alekhine and Fischer had had never won a game against Capablanca and Fischer before defeating them in WC match.

Nice post...one of the best I've seen of the subject

Are you really that sure about something that has never happened before it happens that you already not only predict the result but claim it rightfully? So why the championship matches if anybody can claim any results before they happen?

AGree with OP

+1. OP is right.

I have not claimed certainty on anything about the future. Please note the words "best predictor" in my post, and ponder their meaning after looking them up in a dictionary.

I'm bowing out of further discussions with you here, as you seem incapable of actually having a rational discussion.

Nothing has happened yet. Anybody can predict. And I predict Nakamura is stronger than Carlsen in a match. Anybody can predict he is weaker. Those are not results. Those are called prediction. Q.E. D.

Talk about seeing the future... haha

Reb was wrong, but at least he was thinking for himself. I was hoping he'd be right, but Anand couldn't overcome his own fears.

At least there were a few interesting games in the match. But Carlsen won comfortably and really wasn't pushed until the last two games. 

Anand couldn't reconcile the fact that he was World Champion  with the fact that there were weaknesses in his game and knowledge. The same thing happened when Kasparov played Deep Blue - he was afraid of his own limitations - and even accused Deep Blue as having "Grandmasters" helping it.

I don't know if it's a "very odd" tiebreak that most wins win, it has been used in the most prestigious tournaments like Linares for many decades. If the Sonnenborn Berger is supposed to be the "traditional" tiebreak I don't know why it's supposed to be more traditional or better than most wins (or most losses, as you prefer to see it).

Needless to say I don't agree with the "Kramnik always plays stronger than Carlsen in tournaments" quote either. The people writing such stuff have probably not followed any tournaments the last five years :-)

I had a tie break when I put too much starch on it.

No, that is something he certainly never said. Carlsen didn't play the previous Candidates because FIDE replaced the longer Candidates match with knockout minimatches in the middle of the cycle. Carlsen (together with Aronian) urged FIDE not to change their rules, but FIDE didn't listen to them and Carlsen withdrew from the cycle.

Immediately after Kazan 2011 Kramnik said that he always had preferred the tournament format, and hoped FIDE would implement an eight player double round robin for Candidates. This is what FIDE also did. So to make this into FIDE capitulating for Carlsen's demands and introducing a "worse" tournament Candidates is not particularly correct.

What is the difference? They are both detriments to the game. 

Chess, nowadays, is all about seeing who is more of an old lady. I'm not going to say that either of them couldn't completly thrash the likes of Anderssen or Tal. They probably could. I'll give them that much. Still, neither one of them is likely to have the enduring glory that some of the old timers still have today.

Seems to me that chess, like a lot of things, goes in cycles. After Cappablanca it stunk for quite a while. Not necessarily the strength of the players but their inspiration. We had a brief comeback starting in the 50's and we are now back in a boring, lackluster phase.

It hardly matters who is better. Neither of them is memorable.