what about you ?
what would be the results of Lasker vs Carlsen
Sort:
Lasker would probably win, and Lasker is the only one that i believe should have an advantage over carlsen. I am not a fan of lasker , i prefer cape
yeah I also think it would be a draw
Carlsen would wipe him off the board
MAgnus would totally crush him i believe.
Carlsen would win without any doubts. Carlsen would have supreme opening preparation, since chess theory improved greatly since Lasker's times together with understanding of certain theoretical position. Thus, there isn't any argument.
Maybe so.
You need to ask Carlsen himself !
yeah your right. 
Both in knowledge and calculation ability Carlsen is vastly superior. He would win undefeated
Savage wrote:
Whenever a question like this comes up, in the replies there is always a big bias in favor of the modern, as if being born later automatically makes one a better player.
That's because modern players are stronger. They start earlier, train harder, with better methods, and more information available.
Magnus would chicken out :|
Savage wrote:
If you take it as a given that theory has advanced so much that any modern GM would have a huge advantage due to this alone, then it's a pointless question.
The real question should be who would win assuming equal knowledge and preparation? We'll never know. But please note that Lasker was WC for 27 years, and Carlsen hasn't won a thing yet.
Yep.
Nope.
If the modern top GM with all their up to date knowledge were to play one of the pioneering greats of chess such as Lasker (and there were loads of others) with their limited knowledge of the game of yesteryear then the modern player of course would win. However one should not forget that that players such as Lasker, Nimsowich, Reti, Capablanca, Alekhine (need I go on?) did far more for the progression of the game than is required of the modern player that has had all that groundwork done for them. Put them all on a level playingfield and then I think things would be much different and who knows Lasker may just have the better of Carlsen.
Question: In these hypothetical matches with a great from the past playing a modern player, is the player from the past given adequate time to study what has happened in chess since his death prior to the match? ... Or do we give the modern player the benefit of decades of other peoples' study and innovation, while handicapping the older player?
Could Babe Ruth have hit Bruce Sutter's split fingered fastball?
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
Bur_Oak wrote:
Question: In these hypothetical matches with a great from the past playing a modern player, is the player from the past given adequate time to study what has happened in chess since his death prior to the match? ... Or do we give the modern player the benefit of decades of other peoples' study and innovation, while handicapping the older player?
Could Babe Ruth have hit Bruce Sutter's split fingered fastball?
My point exactly, chess players over the decades have done loads of work, study and play from which the current players benefit. One cannot possibly campare a player from the early 20th century to one a hundred years later. It defies common sense to even try!
If Lasker were given Carlsen's games to analyze before the match I am sure he would be able to prepare psychological motives which would upset Magnus during the game.
Lasker played against different generations of great players, starting from late romantics, then classics, hypermodernists and scientists. He was able to beat them all!
By analysing opponent's games he was able to learn his strongest and weakest sides and then make use of this findings during actual game. Lasker avoided positions where the opponent mastered and felt comfortable. Instead, he steered into areas where the opponent disliked and played inferior moves most frequently.
As for the openings, Magnus uses a very similar approach as Lasker did. He avoids main lines and chooses less known, older lines. He does not try to obtain better position since the very first moves. Instead, he just wants to get a playable position and waits until the opponent plays a weaker move.
This is how Lasker crushed everyone. He played simple openings and did not change his repertoire much during the long decades. Look how he outplayed hypermodern Reti using his favourite London setup at the famous NY super tournament.
Therefore, I would expect Lasker to win the match. Not only was he much more experienced than Magnus is now, he was one of the greatest chess scientists who developed new ideas and improved the game immensely.
This is of course under the aforementioned assumption about letting Lasker prepare against his opponent. Otherwise the conditions would not be equal because Magnus knows Lasker's games for sure.
I'll tell you more: after the match everyone would learn how to beat Magnus but none of the current top players could make use of this method as effectively as Lasker!
draw