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

I believe Capablanca would win because he had no trainer and was a very gifted chess genius.

 This what Alekhine said of Capablanca, "..... we have lost a very chess genius whose like we shall never see again.

 Lasker said, " I have known many chess players, but only one chess genius: Capablanca.

 Capablanca: 372 wins (ONLY 46 loses) 265 draws 803 games  73.9 % wins.

Carlsen: 395 wins 167 loses 437 draws 1549 games 61.4 % wins.

Capablanca, Carlsen cannot play against Capablanca's unique gift of picking checkmates out of the air.

If Capablanca were allowed to familiarize himself with modern chess. It could go either way, but otherwise I would feel quite confident in giving the edge to Carlsen.

In addition this is only if we're talking about Capablanca in his prime, and not cocky, where he was unwilling to keep himself in strong physical shape and mental preparation. (Remember Alekhine?)

I would give the edge to carlsen as no one in maybe the histoy of chess has been willing to play on in equal positions quite like him.  He has the same nautral ability as Capablanca in my opinion.  Your stats are quite meaningless in this debate as well as the competition that Carlsen has to play against is quite a bit stronger than what Capablanca had to face.  I do realize that Alekhine and Nimzovitch were quite strong at the time but now you have Kramnik, Nakamura, Aronian, Topalov and the list goes on and on.

If Custer had air support at the Little Big Horn,who would win?

I would have to go with Carlsen. 

Does the C-man mean Carlsen or Capablanca?

I'd say Capablanca if he lived in the era of computers, but otherwise Carlsen.

I will pick Capa if he will be given the knowledge of today's chess.

That would be a close one. They have very similar strengths. Both seem to prefer strategic play over long lines of calculation. Both rely on strong endgame technique. It's a good hypothetical, though you pose it in a somewhat biased forum.

The normal difficulties in historical comparisons applies here. Does Capablanca have access to modern openings and (perhaps less importantly) endgame databases. Does Capablanca have access to computers, and is he able to study the development of human chess over the past half century? 

If you're just going by raw chess ability, then I'd say Capablanca remains the gold standard. When you run a computer analysis, Capablanca's moves agree with the computer's first choice more often than any other player's -- even the modern ones (I think this "experiment" was run twice, and Capa came out on top both times. I assume that they ignored opening moves). Of course, that's partly because he was playing against a lot of weak opposition. 

Nevertheless, if it were about raw talent alone, then Capa seems clearly better than Carlsen. Indeed, Capa still probably remains the best ever in terms of natural ability (see, e.g., his games with Corzo). But if you start factoring in other stuff, e.g., ability to adapt, capacity for study/work, then Capa starts looking a lot worse. Whether he's better or worse than Carlsen on balance is difficult to say.

Regardless of "who would win," there is that other criterion: how they win. On this point, I doubt anyone would dispute that Capa's games are more aesthetically pleasing. In this sense, Capa seems to me more similar to Kramnik or Karpov than Carlsen.

Anyway. A good hypothetical to ponder, if one is into such things (which I am)...

Re: yureesystem

I don't think the win/loss/draw stats are very relevant. Capablanca was playing against much weaker competition than Carlsen. I'm not talking about the elites of the time -- it's not at all clear that Alekhine, Lasker, or Nimzowitsch were weaker relative to Capablanca than Aronian, Anand, and Kramnik are to Carlsen. I'm talking about all the other guys they had to play. Capablanca was playing against a lot of nobodies. Carlsen hardly ever plays against their modern equivalents (low level GMs and IMs).

If Carlsen were regularly paired up against people rated 2400-2600, then I don't doubt his win/loss/draw stats would resemble Capa's. 

how can you say capa has more raw talent then magnus?

Carlsen would certainly win with a much bigger margin than Alekhine did, the difference between chess in the 1920s and the 2010s is huge.

I think Tarrasch, Vidmar etc in relative strength are equivalent of the Gelfand,Nakamura etc that Carlsen reguraly play.

Tarrasch and Vidmar is one thing, but look at the last tournament Capa played before winning the title, and the first he played as World Champion. In the latter most of his opponents were ranked outside top 35 (and back then the elite was quite small, and much stronger than those a bit below). In Capa's last tournament before winning the title he faced Cole, Conde, Marchand, Scott, Olland, Winter, Michell, Wahltuch, Thomas, Yates and Kostic.

All Carlsen's opponents in his first tournament as World Champion were top 10, and his last tournament before winning the title wasn't much weaker. So comparing winning percentage says little when the opposition is totally different level.

This some weak opposition Capablanca had to encounter, 1.Lasker 2.Rubinstein  3.Schlechter 4.Nimzowitch, 5.Tarrasch 6.Maroczy 7.Janowski, he is a fine endgame player and he can calculate extremely well. 8.Reti, 9.Carlos Torre, who beat Lasker and drew Capablanca and the firstMexican Grandmaster. 10.Reshevsky 11. Kashdan, A fine endgame player. 12.Paul Keres 13.Salo Flohr 14. Reuben Fine 15. Botvinnik and Alekhine who beat Capablanca in the world champion match.

 Carlsen study Capablanca's games to become a strong player and needed a trainer and computer to win the world champion. Capablanca rely only on talent and his genius to be greatest chess player.

 Here is a position from GM.Carlsen losing in draw endgame that Capablanca would draw easily.

 White: Carlsen vs. Black: Aronian

Fide World Championship Knockout Tournament 2004

Capablanca can't pkay Carlsen. They're the same person!

Just reincarnated.

If bob poo poo played carlsen, i wonder who would win.

Here Capablanca masterpiece from Buenos Aires 1914.

 White: Capablanca vs. Black: Villegas ; in  Buenos Aires 1914.

yureesystem: Look, obviously I'm a big fan of Capablanca. Big fan! But there's a limit to idolizing historical figures. I absolutely agree that Capa was something very special, but 18. Nxd7 wasn't really very bold or aggressive. It was a little surprising, since he does leave his Queen en prise, so it maybe deserves an exclam for being cute. But it's not risky or attacking chess -- there's no attack. If Black takes, then it's forced mate. Capa is just using the tactic to exchange material -- exactly the opposite of what you're trying to demonstrate was his tendency. 

And I should point out I've never heard of his opponent, Villegas. No doubt there were good players during his time, but it's really difficult to make the case that the overall quality of opponents that Capa faced was comparable to the quality of opponents that Carlsen faces. Carlsen has it much, much tougher.