Magnus = Great

You are right amigo. nobody does threaten him but neither are they threatened by him coz hes not competing for the crown. One could be the highest but not the best. The crown is the real deal. Anands close battles are all won by him. Like i said until Carlsen wrests the crown from Anand, then he is the greatest of this generation. One advice though: He should not take it too long or Wesley So may get to him.

Magnus- the chess mozart... One of the best alive. 

I wouldn't call Magnus the Great yet,maybe in 10 years time depending how he goes in the next few tournaments and in the WCC events.

Agree. He's one of the best alive. But not entirely the very best... Yet

I canot speak for the rest of the world. But my sentiment has to do with a typical Magnus tournament finish at maybe +4, =6, -0, while a typical Vishy finish +2, =6, -2. I mean, Vishys tournments have been totally underwhelming of late. I mean, is he World Chamion or what?

And Gelfand and Aronian will do awesome one tournament, and tank in the next.

Carlsen and Kramnik are the only really consistent super-GM's out there ATM. They either win the tournament, or just barely miss it. You never see them finish in the middle.

I agree Magnus is a very strong player, but I have to disagree with your statement, either Akiba Rubenstein, J. R. Capablanca or Vasily Smyslov is the best ENDGAME players, possibly include here Petrosian.

I don't think you know how old is Anand to say Carlsen is one of his rivals

Capablanca was a true natural. A Roger Federer of chess.

Good call, konhidras

Now if I ever gert around to filming that Carlsen movie, I will know exactly who to cast!!

Disagree. Lasker and Fischer were better in endings than Rubinstein, Capablanca, Smyslov or T. V. Petrosian (because there is still a T. Petrosian alive). Even John Nunn is better at endings than the 4 players you mentioned. There Carlsen is surely better!

The point is, he is often overestimated, yes he is one of the best at present(at least in my opinion) but some aspects such as endgames ,where people say he is the best, is where I disagree. 

WOW! O.o, I believe , yes, that Fischer and Lasker are endgame master too, but to say they are better with 100% commitment of yours than Capablanca and the likes is, hmmm...

Lasker has shown it in direkt games against Capablanca for many years. The clima in Havanna was not good for him. But he didn't refuse to play the WCC there ...

I'm a 100% sure that they were better. Open up endgame books and you will always find examples by Lasker or Fischer. Even today with the help of computers ... With Capablanca things are not that easy.

More than 95 points higher than #2 would be Fischer dimensions (in 1972).
Even Kasparov did not achieve this. And Magnus won't do this. The players of today are too close for such a difference in rating! (And you have an ELO inflation as well - more rated players and the 100 points given to women ...)

Really?  How exactally do people overestimate the world's highest rated player? 

What I really like about him is that he is not quick to accept a draw...like most other GMs...he sometimes presses, and extends the game in search of the win. I've seen top GMs agree to a draw after move 11...and this just pisses me off, I've seen him fight for a win over 100 moves, and then take the draw...but he really tries to win every game, just like Fischer.

...funny how, when Magnus refuses the draw and continues on, no one critises this, but if weaker GMs do this I am certain they would be raked over the coals for disrespect.

I think, if I may say so, that chess fans present very knowing opinions, but my main point is this.  Its easier to go back and say, this player or that player was one of the best, because of their opening, middlegame or endgame strategy that was absolutely edging on perfection.  My other point though is in conjunctive that if we are trying to define the ranking of current tournament players, my view is that they are all only about equal, and I am not sayng they do not get some respect. But, I am trying to say that anything can happen in the future, whether its a 50 point lead of one over the other or a 200 point lead, a tournament is not defined by the point rank of the players:   It is only defined by the outcome--who wins more pointal by winning the most games.  At this point, the discussion is not logical by saying, "This guy is now the current world's best, bar none."  Most of them if not all, we can say in logic, are competing at roughly the same level. Is it not true that Anand and Carlson are just as equally able to produce a win the the tournaments in the next 3 years, say?  Because this is true, then we can't say that one or the other has established preeminence in the game over all others, nor much less that they have established prominence over real any players of the past, who have passed on also.  In logical terms, I just am seeing that bullish speculation is not the author of considered commentary or logical inference, please.

No it's not true, which recent tournament would give you that impression?

London, Bilbao; Carlsen is a far better tournament player than Anand right now.

If I may go further, I will use a non-chess example of how ability and skill could be rated to try and make another point in the discussion of "best player ever."  If we compare a man who did a two year tour of duty in Vietnam, then went home, with the man who completed a six year tour and escaped with his life, it would seem easily concluded that the second man was the better comparable soldier.  But, if the first man was a medic not in the field and the second man was in combat every day, then the second man would definitely have been the better corpsman.  Just an aside on that point.

But to determine the best chess player ever, I think it would require a statistical analysis through computer engine, to see who made more very good or excellent moves over their career, at tournament play.  Even though Alekhine beat Capablanca in one or two tournaments, Capablanca has respect for his complex calculating in endgames, but equally so in the opening moves and middlegame, which prepared for his seemingly easy wins in the endgames.  As such, many more would say that Capablanca was a superior player, an inference that most people agree with than take issue.  But, I think a beginning way of looking at how did a player make a mark far beyond his peers to take a seat as "the best ever" we must look at all their tournament level games, and determine who had a higher average of "best moves" and obversely, a lower average of "blunders" or "moderate mistakes" at the tournament level, correlating factors only possible discovered through computer generated analysis-- But it is true that chess enthusiasts can addice a knowing on who achieved more perfection in the game absent any computer analysis.  And, we like certain players more over years because, well, they were much better players and we try to aspire to that level.  But yes, I am saying the players that competed and won in tournaments for a longer range of time, Fischer was one who won it all, then dropped out, but Alekhine and Capablanca competed over and over again, displaying their passion, and proving easily and quickly that they are better masters of chess than was Fischer.  And, I say Fischer loses points in ranking for unsportsmanship that is well known as a fact.  But, also when they are saying that because of the high point rank of the current tournament players, that these players are way better than the seminal players of age old, I fully disagree.  I don't think there is a correlative between current point rank and overall standing in the total history of chess.  

Scott, I disagree because we all know that past performance is no guarantee of future results. Can you agree with me on this point--which I obviously borrowed from the field of financial investments?