I've nominated the above question for reopening. Since it asks "Can" instead of "Will", I don't see it being primarily opinion-based.

I believe an acceptable answer would be a matter of calculating the score he would need over his next few tournaments.


2 Answers 2


My opinion is that the question right now will not get a good answer. If there were already an answer with mathematical models and probabilities of Carlsen achieving 2900 that might be an acceptable question and answer to leave on the site.

If the question can be edited so that it's based on facts and not on opinion then it might be on topic.

  • Maybe I'm making too much of the semantics, "can", which I read as is it possible, vs. "will", or is he going to, which I believe most others are reading it as. It appears I am alone in that opinion. I thought about editing it, but I didn't want to make significant changes to how it reads, asking for the math, tournament results needed, etc.
    – Herb
    May 6, 2019 at 16:36
  • 4
    @HerbWolfe When I read "can" my reaction is "Of course it's theoretically possible" which is different than "What is the likelihood..." or something along those lines. FWIW, I read on one chess news site that Carlsen could get over 2900 with something like 8.5/9 at the Norway Open, so a question that elicits that response is closer to the mark.
    – Andrew Mod
    May 6, 2019 at 18:08

I interpret the question differently, but the interpretation is, in the end, irrelevant. Even if he is asking if it is mathematically possible for Carlsen to reach 2900 (as you suggest, probably correctly), this becomes a fairly self-evident and (IMHO) pointless question. I do not see how it contributes to the Chess.SE site or model in any significant way, regardless of interpretation.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .