By now most of you will have heard about the incident in round 6 of the Candidates Tournament between Lev Aronian and Hikaru Nakamura, over a touched king (If not, here is chess.com's coverage)
What I am a little surprised about are the somewhat divergent opinions that this case has caused. While I get that there will always be Nakamura fan boys (just as their are Carlsen or So fan boys), Lev Aronian seems to have copped criticism for suggesting that he was winning the position anyway. Emil Sutovsky criticised him for this, describing the claim as 'complete rubbish'. Maxime Vachier-Lagrave later showed analysis that indicated that Nakamura could have drawn it (without this, or any other mistakes), which emboldened some who were critical of Aronian.
On the other hand Ian Nepomniatchi stood up for Aronian, making reference to issue with Nakamura's illegal two handed castling in the World Cup. And at least some strong street chess players argued that given the position on the board, 'winning' was a perfectly acceptable claim by Aronian.
As for my 2 cents, possibly Aronian may have chosen his words to deflect any criticism of enforcing the touch move rule on Nakamrua (which would have been quite unwarranted), and could have said 'should be winning', but overall, the expression 'winning' has been used by other players in positions with far less winning chances, and so he was entitled to use it.