Magnus = Great

Piratch has been busted and I didnt even have to respond.... thanks y'all ! 

Everybody can be busted! *rofl* Thanks.

I will say that between Anand and Carlson, that I feel that logically speaking, it would take exactly two tournament  of 13 game sets  at each one to determine who was the better player.  [It doesn't matter what is the time period between the two.]  If a tie was reached, then for the betterment of the game and solving dilemmas that are causing reasonable people to resort to hieroglyphics in   innane  logical algorithms in wit, then we could perhaps ask them to conjoin at a third tournament with 13 game set, to resolve the ownership of said title.   I don't think a standard tournament would afford adequate measurement of their comparative skill in a finite and measured region.  

I don't understand this. Of course an uneven number of games make it more likely to have a winner. But it's unpracticable for matches. Only an even number of games makes sure that both players have the same amount of white/black!

Therefore I prefer the old system of 24 games in a match (for WCC)!

I can't dissent from that argument. 24 games? even better, statistically closer to some region of finite comprehension of comparative skills, as if one or two games could prove dominant...

I'm more of a Radjabov fan. He's fourth in the world and some people never heard of him. He is also a promising young talent.  He beat Kasparov when he was 13 with the black peices, accomplishing a feat that hadn't been executed in the remaining four years of Kasparov's career before he retired.

Just for once and all, if Carlsen beats Anand in a meaningful match (20+ games) then he can claim to be the greatest player, because he did it mano a mano over the board. Currently he has losing head to head records against Anand, Kramnik, Svidler and Leko (for example) so I wouldn't get too carried away with the plaudits just yet.

I know he's only 22 and if he keeps going he will probably end up with winning records against those guys but at this moment in time the results speak for themselves.

The head to head is not that important. There will always be some opponents you cannot lead head to head. Fischer for example lost in head to head to E. Geller. But nobody would say E. Geller was the better player!

Geller had a plus score aginst Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian too, but a losing record against Taimanov over a long series of games. (Not that Taimanov was a poor player, but you get the idea) Somehow he couldn't crush the weaker players the same way Fischer or Tal did which is why he never got a shot at the WC, strange how that works..

"The head to head is not that important..."

..........................................................................................

If Carlsen wants to win the WCC, he has to go "head to head" with Anand, and beat him...if of course he wins the Candidates.

Head to head Carlsen vs Viswanathan Anand +2−6=17 (until today).

If Carlsen would win WCC against Vishy by +2 he would still have a negativ head to head.

But maybe Carlsen won't have to win vs Anand for WCC because an other player will become World Champion ... Who knows?

The only thing useless here is your ability to reason. It's on black and white in all of your posts.

2-6=17 sounds like you. Oh wow this cracks me up 

Please be relevant, helpful & nice! (There is no more to argue!)

"Head to head Carlsen vs Viswanathan Anand +2−6=17 (until today)." (PIRATCH)

"2-6=17 sounds like you. Oh wow this cracks me up " (Melk0r)

You seem not to bear the truth ...

After all the education I have provided with in this thread, I'd at least expect you to call me helpfull, relevant and not the least, nice. My pleasure, and it was for free 

No, I feel in retrospect that a minimum of two match sets of 24 games between Magnus and Anand could be statistically valid proof of who is the dominant player.  I feel that if and when they commit to the first match set of 20+ games, that they would both feel that the winner of that one match would not conclude the argument in total, but if in the second match, the opposite player was to win, then a third match set--and I know I am asking for quite a lot of games played, but...--would be needed to make a defined conclusion about who is currently the best of out of just those two ranking tournament players.

A wise person in this thread once said: "It depends on how chess skill is defined. If player A beats player C and D. Player B only beats player A, but can't beat anybody else. You can't say that player B is better than A"