magnus carlsen= u.s open

The rating is meaningless. Carlsen is very picky about the tournaments he picks. He hasn't played in any major tournments since Tata Steel. If he played in lesser tournaments, his rating would drop, and he knows it.

Ratings dont tell the whole story i would believe.

So, ratings don't count and head-to-head results don't count. What pray tell does count? 

Ratings only tell part of the story, want to compare Carlsen with Naka another way?

http://www.tatasteelchess.com/tournament/standings/year/2013/group/1

http://www.tatasteelchess.com/history/recent/year/2012/standings/1

http://www.londonchessclassic.com/classic.standings.htm

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/carlsen-wins-7th-tal-memorial

http://www.chessdom.com/magnus-carlsen-wins-mikhail-tal-memorial-2011/

Results count. Ratings not so much.

And did you see the games? Nakamura played very solidly against the best player in the world. Most of them are hard fought matches, especially the one at London 2012.

Ratings tell a pretty damn big part of the story: i.e, who is constantly beating everyone else.  Yeah there may be externals, but the fact is Carlsen's rating shows he's consistently beating everyone else, and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would need more than that.

Half-baked opinions of patzers are what counts.

Pretty solidly =/= at the same level as Carlsen, so what's your point?

....that he lost.

This is a stupid conversation.

You are thinking too simply. It's not as if Carlsen crushed him. 

Post five tournament games that Naka won against Carlsen.

So what?  You said Nakamura is on the same level as Carlsen; not being crushed is not an argument for parity, it just shows that he's good enough to not get crushed.

but seriously do you really want to tell me that the rating of Ivanchuk really were a true mirror of his chess strenght for example??? i dont think so.

No, Ivanchuk waxes and wanes like the moon. Recently he has been really suffering.

True.

And God, at His best, is Carlsen-like.