Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

If Capablanca played Carlsen for the world champion match, who would win?


  • 14 days ago · Quote · #361

    SmyslovFan

    Did you take a look at the games I posted? Those games deserve to be studied, not relegated to a museum! The top players know their chess history. There was a chess trivia contest held during one of the Norwegian tournaments. It asked players to identify positions from past games and other standard trivia. Magnus Carlsen dominated it! He studies the great games of the past!

  • 14 days ago · Quote · #362

    Stavros_34

    I think my next question to Magnus Carlsen is...when was the last time he played an opening, middle game, ending idea of those games he studied. I don't think he will remember it, but we have nothing to lose....only a possible compare discussion.

    Good luck all in this thread...I have nothing to give or take more, tracking off.

  • 14 days ago · Quote · #363

    imcraig

    Bobby Fischer was the greatest chess palyer of all time because he beat 20 grandmasters in a row then beat  Petrosian and Spassky easily.  No other player in the last 100 years had a similar period of domination.  Think about beating 20 grandmasters in a row.  Carlsen couldn't come close to that.

  • 14 days ago · Quote · #364

    bb_gum234

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 14 days ago · Quote · #365

    TheronG12

    yureesystem wrote:

    Theron wrote: The top 10 can't increase their ratings just by playing each other. Rating inflation is caused by an increase in the number of rated players, not by top players avoiding weaker players.  

     

     

     Ivanchuk is prove once a mid-2700 player and now a 2700 player. Ivanchuk is still a great player: In TataSteel Ivanchuk drew the Carlsen and was defeated by So, he demonstrate he can still play chess against the top elites; his score is really impressive in TataSteel 3 wins, 1 lose and 9 draws.

    If the top 10 only play each other, they can only change their ratings relative to each other, they can't increase their ratings relative to the rest of the world. They had to beat weaker players to get where they are.

    You are correct though that ratings aren't comparable between eras. They only measure your strength relative to the present group of players.

  • 12 days ago · Quote · #366

    VierKazen89

    Yawn....

  • 12 days ago · Quote · #367

    Quiksilverau

    Todays chess is different from pre-engine chess.

    Now it is engine-assisted memorization out to move 20-25 (or 50 if you count openings like the berlin).

    Todays super GMs have photographic memory, memorizing tens of thousands of positions and consulting engine analysis.

    It is clear in 20 years to be a super GM you must have Aspergers and photographic rain man memory. This is not a unique sporting phenomenon. To be olympic swimmer, you require long torso and femur, large hands and semi-webbed feet, all the hard work and dedication won't make up for that. Same as in chess, but with autism spectrum/aspergers and photo memory.

    most adults recoil from chess these days and it is becoming a game for genetically 'different' toddlers.

  • 12 days ago · Quote · #368

    GreedyPawnEater

    Yes. Chess is dead. It has become a hige waste of time as Kasparov himself has said on numerous occasions.

  • 11 days ago · Quote · #369

    yureesystem

    No, chess is not dead. I am glad I am not in the top ten, they have to use chess programs and seconds to compete. Of course if you have no goals chess is dead, I play for the enjoyment and to reach specifics goals in chess.

  • 11 days ago · Quote · #370

    yureesystem

    The top ten players rating are inflated. I give you an example, I played very strong chess site and you can play only against the very strong players and never worry about playing a low rated players. My rating there is at 2258 and I am playing only 2100 to 2200 players and once I go to 2300 I will be playing against 2300 to 2400 player. My rating is protect and when I lose:I lose very little rating. I know I not 2258 but otb 2011 uscf. If I play only strong players I don't lose that much rating points. The top ten players can protect their rating and their rating does go up. In my other chess site these players are over rated experts and low masters, I doubt if there are any real otb 2400 players, so you can see there can be a rating inflation if you play a class of players.

  • 11 days ago · Quote · #371

    chessman1504

    yureesystem wrote:

    The top ten players rating are inflated. I give you an example, I played very strong chess site and you can play only against the very strong players and never worry about playing a low rated players. My rating there is at 2258 and I am playing only 2100 to 2200 players and once I go to 2300 I will be playing against 2300 to 2400 player. My rating is protect and when I lose:I lose very little rating. I know I not 2258 but otb 2011 uscf. If I play only strong players I don't lose that much rating points. The top ten players can protect their rating and their rating does go up. In my other chess site these players are over rated experts and low masters, I doubt if there are any real otb 2400 players, so you can see there can be a rating inflation if you play a class of players.

    There can be, but that does not necessarily have to be the case. Usually, when people like me say Capablanca at his best would still play extremely well in today's age, they fall back on computer analysis of his games, which reveal close to errorless chess, especially in the period around 1918-1922 (I'm mentioning this period in particular because I want to make the point that I want to discuss Capablanca's chess at it's best. As he aged, he got significantly worse at concrete calculation, which may have connections with his familial hypertension, though this is admittedly speculation. This is also why I believe he was so thoroughly defeated by Alekhine, a fact GMs such as Kramnik have expressed surprise at. He had shown signs of not being well as early as the first game of their match, for instance). After all, people can discuss all the abstract theory that has advanced chess since his era to argue that he would be squashed, but computers are very good at being concrete and are especially good at finding errors, and he just was not making many at that point, even in positions that were not simple (The most famous example being the Marshall attack game). After all, games are never won; they have to be lost by someone, or drawn.

         That being said, similar approaches applied to the games of today's greatest masters reveal very few mistakes. I do think that the players who have the ratings they do objectively deserve to be where they are. 

    A final point I should mention is that, I do not believe computers to be all powerful in judging chess positions; I also do not believe that one should take at face value the idea that chess has evolved to the point where the game would be unrecognizable to a player such as Capablanca.

  • 10 days ago · Quote · #372

    yureesystem

             

    chessman1504 wrote:

    yureesystem wrote:

    The top ten players rating are inflated. I give you an example, I played very strong chess site and you can play only against the very strong players and never worry about playing a low rated players. My rating there is at 2258 and I am playing only 2100 to 2200 players and once I go to 2300 I will be playing against 2300 to 2400 player. My rating is protect and when I lose:I lose very little rating. I know I not 2258 but otb 2011 uscf. If I play only strong players I don't lose that much rating points. The top ten players can protect their rating and their rating does go up. In my other chess site these players are over rated experts and low masters, I doubt if there are any real otb 2400 players, so you can see there can be a rating inflation if you play a class of players.

    There can be, but that does not necessarily have to be the case. Usually, when people like me say Capablanca at his best would still play extremely well in today's age, they fall back on computer analysis of his games, which reveal close to errorless chess, especially in the period around 1918-1922 (I'm mentioning this period in particular because I want to make the point that I want to discuss Capablanca's chess at it's best. As he aged, he got significantly worse at concrete calculation, which may have connections with his familial hypertension, though this is admittedly speculation. This is also why I believe he was so thoroughly defeated by Alekhine, a fact GMs such as Kramnik have expressed surprise at. He had shown signs of not being well as early as the first game of their match, for instance). After all, people can discuss all the abstract theory that has advanced chess since his era to argue that he would be squashed, but computers are very good at being concrete and are especially good at finding errors, and he just was not making many at that point, even in positions that were not simple (The most famous example being the Marshall attack game). After all, games are never won; they have to be lost by someone, or drawn.

         That being said, similar approaches applied to the games of today's greatest masters reveal very few mistakes. I do think that the players who have the ratings they do objectively deserve to be where they are. 

    A final point I should mention is that, I do not believe computers to be all powerful in judging chess positions; I also do not believe that one should take at face value the idea that chess has evolved to the point where the game would be unrecognizable to a player.   

     

     

     

     

     

    Nicely stated! In small pool of players, if are playing only a certain rating level and when you do lose you lose very little rating points. There are two way rating can be inflated, playing only against very strong players or beating low rated players only. Here in this chess site I don't understand why there not enough strong players. I can get a match with 1800 and 1900 level, it unbelieve hard to find an opponents with rating of 2000, 2100 and 2200 level. I see players who are 2000 and their average of opponent are 1600 and 1800 level. I tend to be very choosy and now only accept opponents with at least 1800 level and I am now at 1900 level. Second way of inflated rating is playing only against strong players like Carlsen, his small pool of players he plays he know their weaknesses and strengths and a lot easier to prepare against the top ten elites players and the risk of losing a lot rating is slim.   The best system playing against strong and weak players, you have to play well against a 2500 level grandmaster and to draw them, you will lose rating points, no quick draws and passive opening, now it is a fight and mainline opening. That is why Steinitz, Tarrasch, Lasker, Rubinstein, Alekhine,Spassky, Fischer and Kasparov were so successful: they play aggressively and they play to win.

  • 10 days ago · Quote · #373

    chessman1504

    yureesystem wrote:

             

    chessman1504 wrote:

    yureesystem wrote:

    The top ten players rating are inflated. I give you an example, I played very strong chess site and you can play only against the very strong players and never worry about playing a low rated players. My rating there is at 2258 and I am playing only 2100 to 2200 players and once I go to 2300 I will be playing against 2300 to 2400 player. My rating is protect and when I lose:I lose very little rating. I know I not 2258 but otb 2011 uscf. If I play only strong players I don't lose that much rating points. The top ten players can protect their rating and their rating does go up. In my other chess site these players are over rated experts and low masters, I doubt if there are any real otb 2400 players, so you can see there can be a rating inflation if you play a class of players.

    There can be, but that does not necessarily have to be the case. Usually, when people like me say Capablanca at his best would still play extremely well in today's age, they fall back on computer analysis of his games, which reveal close to errorless chess, especially in the period around 1918-1922 (I'm mentioning this period in particular because I want to make the point that I want to discuss Capablanca's chess at it's best. As he aged, he got significantly worse at concrete calculation, which may have connections with his familial hypertension, though this is admittedly speculation. This is also why I believe he was so thoroughly defeated by Alekhine, a fact GMs such as Kramnik have expressed surprise at. He had shown signs of not being well as early as the first game of their match, for instance). After all, people can discuss all the abstract theory that has advanced chess since his era to argue that he would be squashed, but computers are very good at being concrete and are especially good at finding errors, and he just was not making many at that point, even in positions that were not simple (The most famous example being the Marshall attack game). After all, games are never won; they have to be lost by someone, or drawn.

         That being said, similar approaches applied to the games of today's greatest masters reveal very few mistakes. I do think that the players who have the ratings they do objectively deserve to be where they are. 

    A final point I should mention is that, I do not believe computers to be all powerful in judging chess positions; I also do not believe that one should take at face value the idea that chess has evolved to the point where the game would be unrecognizable to a player.   

     

     

     

     

     

    Nicely stated! In small pool of players, if are playing only a certain rating level and when you do lose you lose very little rating points. There are two way rating can be inflated, playing only against very strong players or beating low rated players only. Here in this chess site I don't understand why there not enough strong players. I can get a match with 1800 and 1900 level, it unbelieve hard to find an opponents with rating of 2000, 2100 and 2200 level. I see players who are 2000 and their average of opponent are 1600 and 1800 level. I tend to be very choosy and now only accept opponents with at least 1800 level and I am now at 1900 level. Second way of inflated rating is playing only against strong players like Carlsen, his small pool of players he plays he know their weaknesses and strengths and a lot easier to prepare against the top ten elites players and the risk of losing a lot rating is slim.   The best system playing against strong and weak players, you have to play well against a 2500 level grandmaster and to draw them, you will lose rating points, no quick draws and passive opening, now it is a fight and mainline opening. That is why Steinitz, Tarrasch, Lasker, Rubinstein, Alekhine,Spassky, Fischer and Kasparov were so successful: they play aggressively and they play to win.

    Well, if you have trouble finding people to play, I'd be willing to have a 30|0 match! :) I presume you're much stronger than me, so I could have some fun and learn something as well. 

  • 8 days ago · Quote · #374

    shockinn

    The one who wins will get crushed by Anand.

  • 8 days ago · Quote · #375

    tkbunny

    Hulk smash anand crush shockinn wish

  • 8 days ago · Quote · #376

    chessman1504

    shockinn wrote:

    The one who wins will get crushed by Anand.

    Well, when it comes to Carlsen... third time's the charm, right?


Back to Top

Post your reply: