Nakamura and Judit Polgar undeserving of all the credit they get?

yeah i have been following the game, Aronain almost has to win this position!

he actually just resigned

I think the popularity is justified because not only is Polgar the greatest female chess player who ever lived but her style of play is very dynamic like Bobby Fischer.  As for Nakamura he always seems to play for a win and is a top blitz player as well.  In a sea of GMs content to draw and play dry chess is it really any surprize that these two are quite popular? 

Rating doesn't mean anything, it just measures past performance. It's not ranking like General, colonel, captain, sergeant. Of course general commands colonel command captain commands sergeant.

If you want to discuss intelligenly, you will not discuss abt rating at all, but only chess play and chess moves. If this is all abt rating, tehy don't have to play chess at all.

Why do you say she will no way defeat Carlsen? First, she is a female. Second, she is 200 points lower. Third she is getting to 40. All these things are against her.

Carlsen has all the things in favor of him. So No problem, CArlsen will defeat her, zap.

But one thing you forget, Carlsen is a human, so is Polgar. Human vs human. Brain vs brain. If he chickens out, Carlsen should never play chess anymore. And don't give this rating, that rating.

Magnus carlsen is getting pretty close to the skill of Kasparov. maybe with a lot of luck Polgar would beat carlsen in one game, but never in a match unless carlsen lost his mind. if you look at the classical games of polgar-Kasparov polgar won one time, kasparov won about 10 or 11 games completely crushing her. She did very well to win one game. my point is that magnus Carlsen would beat her zap. there is one and only one person who  i think could dethrone Carlsen. Levon Aronian. that is beside the point, Polgar is not even close to Carlsen skill level however well she does in the womens events. 

i agree with you. Gata has great talent, but i don't believe that it will take him to  the world championship.

Yeah, I know. Kasparov beat Polgar. Nakamura beat Carlsen. So what? It is past tense.

We will argue endlessly with no result. Let them play a match. Then everybody knows the result.

Now, nobody argues about Anand beat Carlsen. Because they have played amatch recently. But look before they did, ppl would argue endlessly.

Let them play a match to settle it.

excuse me naka beat Carlsen? I don't think so! not any match wins at least. They will not play anytime soon i think. Look at tournament records, no one that plays now has a good record against carlsen. or at least  a significantly better record.

Can we stop arguing who won or didn't? It doesn't matter. Nothing is proved.

BTW, I like you say excuse me. +8.

ok agreed no more arguing(i kinda doubt it will happen though)

Magnus is still on Hikaru's bucket list in FIDE-rated classical chess

With all due respect but I've looked at both player's games and they both seem to aggressively pursue positional advantages and favor dyanmic traits such as initiative over static advantages such as pawn structure usually.  Both also usually try steering the game into a favorable endgame (though compared to other super GMs Polgar isn't exactly an endgame great although she can transpose to them whereas Fischer had a great endgame understanding even compared to other top players), and both will relentlessly go after the enemy king if they have the slightest pretext to, even if sometimes best defense gives their opponent a slightly better endgame, but even super GMs aren't perfect and like the old saying goes if you have a style you have weaknesses. 

Nakamura on the other hand is the odd one out.  Yes, like the other two he plays for a win, but has a more unusual style though is still aggressive.  Here's a Nakamura game I looked at awhile back to get a view at his style.  Annotations aren't perfect but it was part of a thinking process exercise involving strategy, calculation, and assessment, three critical skills needed to improve at chess. 

Here's one of my old exercises, again far from perfect but I was just getting the hang of them.  We can see Polgar's style in this one nicely but it's one she lost.  However, there's no shame in losing to Kasparov (or anyone at that level). 

You forgot to mention that in the second Garry initially played bad 36... Nc5 and then took back. And also that Judit was 17 years old.

so what? As long as he hasn't let go of the piece and moves the piece he touched it is fine.

Because I didn't know at the time that he took a move back (Heck, I never even thought it was legal especially in top end competition) and the age of the player (yes she is a phenomenal talent even just to make it to Linares) has no bearing on practicing strategy, calculation, and assessment, which was why I looked at the game.  I heard Linares 1994 was a notable tournament and wanted to look at a Kasparov game since his calculative ability on top of his deep strategic understanding is simply nuts.  Have to look at some tough games if we want to improve as players. 

ajmeroski your   comment is irrelevent since Kasparov can in fact take back a move. you may ask why, but they play touch move. you touch a piece you move it. so if he had not let go of the piece yet, he can take back the move but he has to move that piece

The thing is, he did release the knight. For a very short period of time (something like 0.25s), but he did. It was even recorded. IM pfren mentioned this exact situation in the post #58.

If I recall correctly Kasparov's "first" move was analysed as a draw with best play, but since there was no protest from Polgar the "second" move stood and Kasparov won. Kasparov later said that he thought he had never let go of the piece, but apparently he had done that for enough time for it to be seen when a TV film from the event was replayed picture by picture a while later.

ok then i don't think that it should be allowed.....but if there was no video it would be almost impossible prove it.