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

No one is blaming players of the past for not having as much information available to them.

Smyslovfan's post about Capablanca's blunders is starting to make me worry. I'm glad we've had this discussion. That Qf1 was apalling.

Stavros, this isn't boxing. In chess, you can actually see the complete move list of every game and compare like to like. Back when Kasparov and Karpov were playing for the world championships, Tal, Spassky, Petrosian, and other former world champions were all analysing the games live! There's no comparison to other sports that is like chess. It's almost as if great hitters could measure themselves up to the best fastballers of the past and see if they could hit them. 

Carlsen has more  resources at his disposal.

And that comment also seems to be a bit much! (to me, at least). Carlsen seems to be no one's patzer in the ending... I think there's enough evidence to back up Carlsen's dominant endgame presence in today's game and in chess history as a whole :)

Of all today's elite players, Carlsen relies on engines the least. He is so far ahead of the rest of the field that he can play indifferent openings and still expect to win. His advantage is similar to the invincibility Capa thought he had, or Fischer at his very best. Fischer himself often got into trouble in the openings, even during his famous run to the title, but he managed to outplay his opponents from even and some slightly worse positions. 

Carlsen is like that today, only his opponents have learned from the previous world champions. Sure, the best GMs are standing on the shoulders of giants. But they're pretty special themselves. And Carlsen dominates them. 

In fifty years, if you're still alive, you will remember with fondness how great Carlsen was in 2015.

Historians know that the "golden age", no matter when in the past it was, is never as beautiful as those who remember it claim. We're living at the time of the best chess players in history. Enjoy the moment!

Well, Kasparov disagrees with you, but what does he know?

Karpov may be the last WC that didnt rely heavily on computers , Kasparov maybe the first that did ... 

In my chess club there was a little revolt, the experts did not want to play against lower rated players and wanted it exclusive to experts and masters: I was against this because a mark of strong player is the ability to beat a low rated player. Today top ten players there is exclusive club and they play against each other over and over and the risk of losing a lot rating points is eliminated. It is proven when you force this elite players to play against low rated grandmasters ( 2500-2600 elo); two things happen their rating drop or they start play real chess, there is no short draws. That is why there is rating inflation the top ten players don't mind drawing and play passive opening and defense (Carlsen the king of passive opening and defense) and that is why there is low winning ratio in their games.  Ivanchuk vs. Carlsen game was a boring and a quick draw, typical Carlsen no risk and hope my opponent makes a mistake to win.

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.

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.

Ivanchuk loses too many games while on Planet Chuky. His rating is a reflection of his flakiness, and his genius.

Anand is number two and Curuana and Aronian being a lot younger cannot hold second place. Maybe Anand chess understanding is a lot deeper than Curuana and Aronian. If chess has advance so much the younger generation should be dominating but Anand is able to beat the younger players and become a challenger instead of Aronian and Curuana.

Yuree, stop bashing today's players and start studying them.

A couple months ago you claimed you were making a push to become a master. Since ratings are so inflated now, this should be easy for you.

I suggest you take a look at how elite players have changed the game though. You may have a hard time maintaining your rating unless you're willing to learn from the best.

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!

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.

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.

Yawn....

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.

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.