Magnus knows lots of main stream, main line opening theory - just study his blitz games at ICC for instance. The thing is, though, that he fears that opponents like Aronian know the hottest theory even better, so this far he's preferred and tried a lot of off beat lines instead at the higher level.

But it's true that he needs to switch to main lines sooner or later, and it's also true that currently the opening is his weakest point compared to the rest of the world top 20. But he's quite knowledgable of the stuff you can find in books, actually. What he really needs, is to have more time to work on finding opening novelties himself, or have/pay some strong players to do it for him, like we know Cheparinov does for Topalov, and probably the ukrainian and armenian players do for each other.

It seems to me you wanted to show you were mathematically skilled ... <"I cam mathematically prove it!> ...but that sentense points in another direction!! My english is not so good but I think you now what I mean. You see: Every person with sufficient skill/level in maths/statistics CAN answer your two questions! (And very easily I think).

I was specially looking at your last statement/assertion: <this fact was proved repeatedly>.

You claimed that: all eight matches together is enough for proveing "this fact".

I wrote: No! You haven't proved anything!

In this type of assertions (as you did) you really isn't proving anything no matter if it is 8, 100 or 1000 matches/data. You can only get something like: "hypothesis A is true with some level of significanse".

I said to you that your result wasn't significant. If you still think it is - can you please estimate some significans-level?

Aronian-Carlsen was more than entertaining. It was wondrous and inspired.>

My difference is with people who only see errors. They follow chess as though it were a mathematical exercise instead of a sport.

But we were talking about risk. And there is actually a better word than that.

In game 5 when Carlsen gave up his c-pawn in pursuit of an attack that I can only describe as visionary, people were wondering how he was going to stop Aronian's c-pawn from advancing. Nobody was accusing Aronian of poor defence at that moment. We all watched in wonder as the idea unfolded.

While I must admit to not having studied Gelfand's games very cautiously, I do object to comments like this:

<there were so many mistakes in this match (every game had many mistakes), and the games were all so one-sided as if they agreed to take turns beating each other up.>

Saying that Magnus-Aronian was "low quality" and Gelfand-Kasimdzhanov was "high quality" like the commentator I quoted does, makes me protest. Do _you_ agree to this quote? [I know you've said elsewhere that the match had hight quality <and> low quality "moments".]

As for the Gelfand-Kasim match: I think the picture might have been different if either of them had faced Magnus or Aronian. Here are some possible scenarios:

1) Out of respect (e.g. of Aronian) both might have played more solid openings (like Magnus/Aronian did, facing the other)

2) Magnus/Aronian might have unbalanced the games more (after the opening)

3) Aronian (and maybe also Magnus) might have "punished" the sharp play early on in the match, so as to convince Gelfand/Kasim to play more cautiously for the rest of the match. [As it was, there was no reason for either to change their openings much, but 2 of Kasim's 3 white games were rather short and tame draws, IMO.]

So, the first game(s) of a match might influence the total verdict. Magnus trailed most of the time, while Aronian was ahead most of the time. Maybe being ahead like Aronian was, made him "relax" a bit (too much), or maybe it even made him nervous...

The Kasim - Gelfand match had high quality <from both sides> in all the games. There was a lot of tension and exciting moments.

I must fully agree with those who say that Aronian - Carlsen match was one-sided. Perhaps it is a bit harsh to call it low-quality because both players showed good technique in utilising the rather bad play from their opponent.

The tension in the Carlsen-Aronian match was more between the individual games, not in the games themselves.

I objected to naming one "low quality" and the other "high quality". Consider my points above, and you'll see that the verdict might have been different if Gelfand or Kasim had faced either of Aronian or Magnus. We just don't know, and as usual I think many ppl are too categorical in their remarks.

<As I see it, every game (with some exception) in the Gelfand-Kasim match was as exciting as the entire Aronian-Carlsen match>

They played 6 games, and when you use a phrase like "every game" and seem to completely forget the dull and non-game round 6 (17 moves), and white's decision to offer draw after 23 moves in the same opening in round 2 (?), where Bxh6 instead of Qxd4 would have been a try for the whole point (which someone like Magnus is very likely to have tried) - it might not win, but you got to at least try!

IMO Kasim is either low on ambition, too confident in his rapid skills, or too cautious when he doesn't want to play out that position. And of course it becomes "higher quality" (= fewer mistakes), when you just stop playing a playable and anything but lifeless position after only 23 moves... [If indeed "some exception" was meant to cover both game 2 and 6, then "every game" is a very strange and misleading phrase about 66% of the games - so I kind of expect you included the 23 move abortion in "every game".]

So, I have a really hard time believing that you find a 23 move "I don't want (dare) to play anymore" as exciting as the "entire" Aronian-Carlsen match. What is your motif or what is your background to (say you) feel that way? Fan of Kasim or Gelfand or both? :)

PS! Note that I neither deny several weak moves/mistakes in Aronian-Carlsen, or fewer similar mistakes in Gelfand-Kasim, but one non-game and one aborted when things were becoming exciting, just isn't what I prefer as a chess spectator.