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

"Carlsen miss play some attacks that a past masters would of won. They seem to be avoiding main opening because they want to avoid risks and everything is to play safe; in the past masters wanted to create beauty and they took risk to create this aethetics masterpiece."

No, the reason why we don't have Morphy like games so often anymore is because players of today aren't naive enough to give away massive development advantages on a platter. Probably because they saw Morphy's games, as well as those of his successors, and learned from them.

One thing I like about Carlsen he just play chess, there is no crazy demands like Fischer. I like this picture a lot, it show the human side of Carlsen.  

The only relevant question would be, "If Capablanca were 24 years old today, versus Carlsen, who would win?"  The Capablanca of 1924 would get completely crushed by the Carlsen of today, because chess theory (openings, middlegame, endgame) has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past 90 years.

NM Jonmeista, I completely I agree what you wrote. I made this thread because these two great players have similar style and a match between them would be one the greatest match of century.

I always favor the attacking players, look at my avatar one the greatest attacker. Alekhine study Capablanca to become a stronger player, the positional player like Capablanca, Karpov and Carlsen you can learn a lot from the way they handle simple position and a player will have more ideas to win more games; any player who limit themselve to attacking only will not progress. I have to thank Alekhine, he open my eyes to more opportunities in the chess board. A good example is attacking genuis Marshall, he could have of gone further if he could tame his imagination and not always going for an attack and his dislike for draws ( he seem to prefer to lose than draw).

Exactly. It's really beautiful how he doesn't have to come across as more dignified than the rest of the players -- he's just sitting there playing, in normal clothes. His skill does all of the talking.

If it hadn't been for Fischer's "crazy demands" top players would be paid peanuts today.

Man, if I just had the NM beside my name, this thread could have been done ages ago. Yuree agrees with you despite my saying the same thing numerous times. The only discernible difference is the "NM". 

Compare this to just about everything yuree wrote before this.

SmylovFn & bb_gum234, I might of look some games of Capablanca but they were very few. You guys think these past masters were just mere woodpusher and be crush todays GMs. Well look at Alekhine the way he defended a very difficult endgame against Capablanca, most today modern GMs would lost in this endgame. Alekhnie defended with such ingenuity he earn a draw, most 2700s and maybe some 2800s would of lost. You only have to look at Anand losing to Carlsen in the fifth game and it should of been a draw,and if it was Alekhine, Lasker and Capablanca. would drew.   

How do you know most 2700s and maybe some 2800s would have lost in this endgame? For what it's worth, as of the last rating list, the only 2800s in the world are Magnus Carlsen, Viswanathan Anand, Veselin Topalov and Hikaru Nakamura.

Maybe I can help. I agree with everything Smyslovfan said in this thread. (And he has an unusually beautiful cat displayed in his avatar.)

SmyslovFan, you mention this game to improve of Capablanca inaccuracy in the opening and you thought it lost a pawn but you were wrong. I play the Slav Defense and I look this side line and black save the pawn by Bc8.  

I think it would be a wash to be honest.  Capablanca and Carlsen remind me so much of each other its uncanny.

It will be interesting to see if Carlsen can bounce back after his disaster in Norway.  I am correct to say that it is his worst tournament result ever ?

To me what defines a true champion is how they handle adversity !

bb_gum234 wrote:Also, it's incorrect to compare the best of one player to the average or worst of another. If Capa (or Alekhine) played a stunning endgame, we can't use that as the standard when they themselves might have misplayed such an endgame 9 times out of 10.   

Where is prove? You can't make statement like this, first you are too strong of player to make patzer comments. Even though we our disagreement, you can't make outlandish comments to prove a point. Let say I agree with you and SmyslovFan, the past masters and present GMs play great endgame according to their  cummmulative knowledge; would that be a fair statement?

Confirmation bias.

You say you agree with Fezzik (SmyslovFan) ... So what? I disagree.

Both Carlsen and Anand are noticeably weaker players than Tarrasch.

Two questions, "Who taught Capablanca to be a world class player" and " Guide and help Capablanca to become world champion" ?  Alekhine, Botvinink, Karpov, Fischer, and Carlsen study Capablanca to world champion, especially Carlsen. Capablanca had no teacher or trainer to be world class player; his first international tournament he won, like Pillsbury, he beat Lasker without a lost or never being in danger of losing. Not so with Carlsen, Magnus in his first match against Anand twice was in danger of losing against Anand and on tenth game Carlsen miss a win, sloppy endgame technique for 2800 elo. I agree with Polar_ Bear paster masters were more talented and gifted, relying only on their talent to wn games, not like the current GMs with trainers and seconds and computers.

Now you're just messing with us.