Who is the legimate threat to Magnus Carlsen world champion😉⏰

i wouldnt go that far....

Well it's like the nba there are lebron and Kobe but the next 8 to 10 are similar with nothing between them when Carlson plays it never seems like he's thinking or struggling it seems like he knows what he's doing Doing something at a world 100 level is strange. You must concentrate all the time and look to improve your talent its a lot of stress I think

I cannot comment on winning the world championship I can tell you that it is more than no 2 vs no 1 or no 3 vs no 5

It might be one of the lower 2700 rated gms who have been doing well

How do you think it could be better?

i have an idea that looks more accurate, but its  much work.

THE WC is decided over many games, between the same two players. The most qualified should be the player that is able to  win most against one single opponent in a long match.  To organize a qualification that has something to do with the WC match-format it should be a cup.  First they must qualify to the cup. I think it can be a mix of top eight by rating and some winners of selected tournaments and cups.

The Candidate Cup can be:

round one- three games and 2 rapid tiebreak, then 4 blitz tiebreak, then 1 armageddon tiebreak

quarterfinals- three games and 2 rapid tiebreak, then 4 blitz tiebreak, then 1 armageddon tiebreak

Semifinals - four games and 2 rapid tiebreak, then 4 blitz tiebreak, then 1 armageddon tiebreak

Finale  - seven games and 4 rapid tiebreak, then 6 blitz tiebreak, then 1 armageddon tiebreak

The finalists have 17 games in the tournament and some rapids and blitzes.

The Candidate Cup can last for 3 or 4 weeks.

A Candidate Cup thats like my idea is so big and hard that winning it might be stronger than winning the WC match. An alternative is to skip the WC match, let the Candidate match be the World Championship, and let the World Champion start directly in the semifinals.

If we skip the Candidates and makes it a World Championship, maybe the semifinals and the finale should have more games?

As for whether it was better before - that depends what system you are refering to.   There have been several playoff systems used "before".

Carlsen happened to win the candidates tournament, by a lucky tiebreak system.  But that does not mean it is kicks out the strongest challenger.  Jeff Sonas is a statistician he and he analyzed different formats.  

In the end he finds that having qualifying matches is the best way to get us over a 60% chance of having the best player win the championship.  That Is why I propose a system that is heavy on matches.  Here

The current format is so bizarre in who it includes, and in including rapid and blitz games, that I am fairly sure he did not analyze it.  

So your system simply takes the top 12 players by rating as the qualified candidates. I must say that I strongly disagree. I think the ability to win when it matters - i.e. in a tournament with qualification spots for the Candidates' - should be rewarded (although in the case of the World Cup I think allowing the winner alone to qualify would be sufficient - no need to also take #2). I'd rather see a world #25 who won the World Cup in the Candidates' over a #10 who has not won any major tournaments over the past year.

The top twelve outside the champ.  So almost certainly the top 13.  Now the top 13th is about 75 points lower than the top rated player.  I think if you asked svidler he would say he was not as strong as Carlsen.   In the same token kramnik was about 75 points lower than Kasparov when they played their match and Kramnik pretty clearly demonstrated he learned how to handle kasparov.   Kramnik was still the second rated player (perhaps other than Anand who did not agree to play) at the time their match was arranged.  

Here I think the problem is how many people can we include and on what basis.  If we want to include number 100, then why not number 97 or 96 or 95 etc.  And if we wan to include all of those players then how can we get the cycle done in 2 years?  I think that proposal draws a decent line of both of those concerns.   The current cycle where fide just literally picks people to sit in the tournament is really not legitimate.    

But your concern about someone who has a high rating but is not active is legitimate and could be addressed.   We could put requirement that a certain number of games be played within a certain number of years.  

There may be problems with the current system for the FIDE Grand Prix, but that does not contradict my argument that there should be spots in the Candidates' for which players can qualify by winning certain tournaments, rather than by rating. Winning the World Cup, for instance, is I would argue a more impressive achievement than having a few extra rating points than the #14 player on the ratings list, and should be rewarded with a Candidates' berth. A simple fix to make the Grand Prix more fair might be to make it open to all players beyond a certain threshold (e.g. >2700, >2650, top 100 in the world, etc.). The tournaments are already in a Swiss format anyway, so it shouldn't be difficult to accomodate more people.

As for your last paragraph, my concern is not regarding inactive players (which is an issue, but like you noted, can be easily addressed). I said that I'd rather see the World Cup winner in the Candidates' than a #10 who has not won (not "played in") any major tournaments in the past year. Essentially, my point is the same one that I reiterated earlier in this post.

  Whether you win or lose (and by "lose" I mean take second place or lower even due to tie break rules like Kramnik did when Carlsen won) a tournament often has just as much to do with games you don't even play in.  So luck plays a large role.  

This is also why collusion is a big concern.  If you getting a draw with white against player A allows your friend player B better chances of winning than your non friend player C then you might play a drawing line against your opponent.  If both you and your opponent both prefer Player B the draw may be all but agreed before the game starts.  I would point out that Jeff Sonas's analysis doesn't seem to address this point which is even more reason to prefer matches.  

 I am not against having a swiss tournament that would allow some players to qualify for the candidates matches.  But I also think it is unfair to bypass players who have played consistently strong chess over time and thus gained rating points because some guy had a lucky tournament.  So I think any such tournament should not be used to disqualify people who are rated in the top 5 or 6 (other than the current champ).  Maybe such a tournament or group of tournaments can be used to keep a couple of places open for the candidates matches.