Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

I think it's quite fair to call Carlsen the Lebron James of chess.

Rating difference should be comparable, elo is designed so that a given rating difference is a given probability of beating your opponent.

It is absolutely true that the Elo model is a relative one and does not guarantee that a given rating number represents the same ability over time, but the belief that modern ratings are inflated is not unanimous. Ratings have certainly gone up over time, but computer analyses of games have indicated that intrinsic play quality has gone up over time as well. See the work of Ken Regan, for example (search for "ken regan ipr").

More databases, more games played, internet giving opportunity to play many, many more games. Programs to analyze their play, coaching in the modern era, etc.

That is something that Anand didn't really benefit from when he was young.

strategical: I wonder if I can machinate to end up mostly on white squares by the end-game, then I could let his black bishop take this pawn for free, while I work on getting my pawn structure to become invincible on the other side, effectively nullifying his bishop by the end-game while opening my position for greater pressure.

tactical: how can I protect this pawn, together with the rest of my pieces, so that all lines in the next 15 moves have all pieces protected, so that he can't take anything, and defensive enough that he can't force a 'better position' in any of them, while remaining offensive enough to open up for a future attack.

Strategic play is much more subtle, but becomes more important as you get stronger. Strategic play generally involves more long term planning with the goal of creating a lasting advantage for yourself. Some examples of strategic concepts are creating more space for yourself (and at the same time constricting your opponent), having a better pawn structure (e.g your opponents pawns are isolated and vulnerable to attack), having your minor pieces better positioned(e.g your bishops rake open diagonals while your opponent's are trapped behind pawns)

Strategery: knowing what to do when there's nothing obvious to do, aka vision, planning.

this is a good example of both tactics and positional play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEcRQXN2dbg

IE - Knowing your opponent is aggressive with their queen and having plans in place to quickly neutralize her, or being good at manipulating your opponents pieces util it gets to a point where you can gain a strong advantage by castling.

All these objectives form the basis of what you're trying to accomplish with the ideal being that successfully executing your major objectives will gain you victory.

Tactics refers to how well one reacts to and overcomes changes on the board.

IE - Based on the current board layout you notice that a certain move(s) will heavily fortify a section of the board that you previously were not focused on, or seeing your opponent set up for a particular pattern of play you feint a reaction only to hit them somewhere else.

As a tactical player he focuses more on evolving his strategy(larger objectives) to fit the board rather than trying to manipulate the board to fit his strategy more so than the average chess player.

Strategy concerns more of theoretical ideas, long term possibilities. 10+ moves ahead. This involves pawn structure, where your king is positioned, how your pieces are developed, which side of the board left or right you might launch an attack, end game considerations, etc. How you intend to defend or win the game. This type of play is usually called positional. Whereby the placement of your pieces gives you an overall advantage. In GM level play this is very subtle and 15+ moves ahead. Positional vs. tactical.

As an analogy tactics are like cobra strikes and positional play is like a boa constrictor where tiny shifts strangle the opponent in the end. Both are lethal.

Others will resign very prematurely and they say so. They say they just didn't "feel" the position. Computer analysis later on says they are equal in position, though.

He'd be in the tournaments, it would just be a waste of time for him to play out all the games, when he is certain to lose. instead, he resigns and relaxes his mind and winds down before the next game.

It doesn't make him popular, it wastes the time of the opponents who have to sit around for an extra half hour and we even have to warn visiting players to expect it. His opponents will sometimes create 3 Queens or similar just to make him look stupid.

If you get a reputation then others will start to treat you like an idiot. Eg one strong player recently played out the full 50 moves of K+R vs K+N against another strong player, possibly to "punish" past behavior.

As an Indian, and someone who practically looks at Anand as a role mode. I would be disappointed if Anand really had that attitude.

Frankly speaking, I don't like the 'naturally talented' or 'natural genius' or this whole belief that people are born with some skills that can't be matched by other people. This isn't just about chess. This sort of thing manifests in every other walk of life.

Most kids just resign to be incapable at math due to constant comparison with other kids. Though I they would do far better if only they were motivated enough to put more effort.

When exactly does someone like a Carlsen (Norway) or Anand (India), as "gameplayers", choose to go into a different game than chess?

As an example, I used to play chess when I was younger. Plenty of people later took up things like poker and starcraft, and a few became quite successful at it. These people were generally not the best chess players, instead they were more likely to be average / slightly above average (for being serious club players) in chess.

Today, the game is poker.