Are today's GMs better than 100 years ago?

Man, you really are showing a lack of understanding of what has been happening in St. Louis in the rapids.

There are thousands of people that didn't even get a chance to see Kasparov compete and they are excited to see him play now. The excitement isn't really because he doesn't play "boring chess" but rather because he is considered by many one of the greatest ever, which has nothing to do with his style of play. 

And to the game you mentioned about Lasker. I agree, he played the ending almost flawless and held on to the draw, Dvoretsky analyzed his game and said that the only inaccuracy he did was at move 75, and if there's anyone's analysis I trust in endgames it's Dvoretsky's... But you're forgetting one thing, that same Lasker that played the ending almost flawless was the same Lasker that was down an exchange and had to fight for the draw. 

Really, a simul and that Lasker big lost; every GM will a casually lose a game in a simul. What is worse is drawing a simple endgame, ex-2800 player Nakamura drawing against Kasparov in a easy won endgame, every 2100 elo know go queenside to win that endgame or more embarrassing is having won game and losing it; a real 2800 would not lose that position, Caruana had against Le Quang Liem, viewing their game my instinct told me Ke8 lose, finding 50... Rf2! should not be difficult for 2800 elo, Alekhine, Capablana and Lasker would of found it. These super GMs playing technically correct, I have my doubts, Lasker, Alekhine and Capablanca would laugh at the beginner mistakes. Capablanca with his quickness and correct assessment would of played 52.Kc4! instead of Nakamura mistake 52.Ke4?, like I said any 2100 elo would of played 52.Kc4! its a fundamental endgame principle { if I have to explain it than you guys don't understand how to play the endgame}.

To the Nakamura v. Kasparov ending, it's actually not as simple as it looks. Even Caruana said this in regards to that game "It's a very difficult ending to play because you have to calculate and with two minutes you just can't calculate accurately." Yes, the position is winning but even Yasser, Maurice and Jen didn't see Kc4 was winning right at that moment and Yasser is a very strong GM with excellent intuition, it's not as simple as it looks when you're playing it on the spot. At first glance, it looks like Garry could just sacrifice the Bishop for the a pawn at some point and his king would run to the h file to get rid of white's other pawn. Hikaru probably missed that his knight would be able to successfully block out the Bishop, which is isn't easy to calculate with only 2 minutes.

Besides, I'm glad you bring this game up, because you said "Kasparov was outplaying these overrated so called Super GMs" He wasn't outplaying them, he would waste most of his time and then have a slightly better position and would have to play for a draw because he had no time left, and this was a perfect example of it. 

And to the Caruana blunder, Caruana himself said he did see Rf2, but he panicked and he doesn't know why he played Ke8. He also said he got nervous when white played Rd7 threatening the perpetual. Dont forget that he also only had 22 seconds left, and remember that there is no increment in those games.

GM's today are not better.  They are not worse.  They are different.  To achieve the dominance that Bobby Fisher achieved, without computers or the reams of study available to today's players, is a bigger feat than any achieved lately.  Ratings, as I understand them, are based on your play against others.  The ratings of the players today do not accurately compare to ratings of players 20 years ago.  I do not think that with the technology, study advantages, available schools, and the ability to pursue chess interests for promising players we enjoy today, you can compare their accomplishments with the players of 20, 30, or 100 years ago.  The field has strengthened due to technology, accessibility, and  sheer number of people free to pursue chess interests.

Real endgame virtuosso like Lasker, Botvinnik, Alekhnie and Capablanca don't make the mistakes of current top GMs, Botvinnik told Tal in one pacticular endgame and said I will put my pieces there and here and win the endgame; And Tal analyzing all night and came to the same conclusion that Botvinnik was correct. Capablanca with a glance pick the winning move, Lasker precise calculation was unheard of, he was like a machine dead accurate and Alekhine one the most creative player, he can find moves that today super GMs can't find. 

Carlsen doesn't belong in this category, he is not accurate, no imagination and horrible intuition.   This what GM said about Carlsen horrible move: "39.Be3?, A move that is almost impossible to understand. Basic chess understanding tells us that white should retain his rook, not to allow it to be exchange." Lasker and Capablanca wil not make Carlsen basic mistake. 

Carlsen's move 39.Be3? is not a gifted endgame player like Capablnca and Lasker; Lasker and Capablnca would pick 39.Ba4! And the reason why is, The GM explain, " 39.Ba4 should lead to a technically won game. The rook and bishops will tear apart Black's pawns.    

 Carlsen doesn't even know basic chess, a few lines of analysis should of given him that conclusion; this will never happen with Lasker. No, today chess skills is diminishing.

When one studies the past, it seeks a better solution. Therefore today's GMs are much better than yesteryears. You simply can't deny the fact that the mind also evolves of what's fed into it.

- well this is hypothetical to the max - but I believe bob fischer was an exception - I think he was an idiot savant - he had a chess engine where other people have a brain - however - I feel in the past - the old masters did not have coaches or teachers and very limited books - no chess engines and no computers - so with modern books coaches teachers chess engines these resources I would suggest that modern masters are better BUT since this is hypothetical - I also suggest that if the old masters were here today and accessed the coaches teachers books computer lessons and took the time to get up to speed then the old masters would totally whump the new masters because the old masters coming from a simpler society having nothing no tv or radio etc would dominate because they would bring simpler focused concentration and simpler reasoning - however - in a question like this everyone is wrong and everyone is right because this question is hypothetical ?

Modern GMs tend to play more solid than emotional, so yes, this is something that makes Kasparov stand out, who still has a bit of the romantic spirit in him. That said, I fail to see how being able to play high quality solid chess is not impressive: there is more to chess than just beautiful combinations and reckless attacks.

And you are wrong about modern GMs making mistakes top players in the past didn't. Lasker and Capa blundered quite a few times (remember Lasker's loss to a windmill, a combination every player with some theoretical knowledge knows by heart nowadays?), and those were long games, not rapid mistake-fests.  Nobody is perfect, and trying to idealize the masters of the past is simply being dishonest.

"Misunderstood Genius" - title of a chapter in a 2014 book about Lasker's games by GM John Nunn

It is entirely futile to compare players cross eras. Every player benefits from the giants who went before him. If Morphy or Capablanca had access to the materials & theory we have today, who is to say they wouldn't compete at the highest level.

However, we can say definitively that Babe Ruth was better than Barry Bonds: Ruth used beer & hot dogs to prepare instead of steroids.

But the best home run hitter of all time was either Ted Williams or Willie Mays.

Williams was handicapped by missing years of his prime serving in two wars - as well as his well-known refusal to swing at any pitch outside the strike zone: once facing Whitey Ford, the umpire called a ball. Catcher Yogi Berra held the ball & without turning, asked, "Sure about that, ump?"

The umpire replied he was but Yogi persisted. "How do you know?" Umpire: "if it were a strike, Williams would have swung!"

"He's right, Yogi," Williams added.

Mays had the misfortune to play nearly half his games at the notorious Candlestick Park, whose wide foul areas made many outs of balls that would be out of play elsewhere, and the constantly swirling winds off the Bay that sent many a home run ball back into play. Yet, he still hit 660 HRs, second only to Ruth's 714 in the pre-steroid era. In any other home ballpark, he would surely have eclipsed the record.

I hate beating up on the truly great players of the past. 

These threads aren't about the greatness of past players, they're about bashing today's players as if they were fish.

Well, take a look at this game played by Lasker against Janowski. Lasker only played 537 official games in his career, so it's natural to look at his complete games to see what his real playing strength was. In fact, most chess historians agree that Lasker avoided the best challengers for the title and simply refused to play at times. His longevity as world champion was increased by the Great War. Lasker also managed to compete with the best in the world for many years after he lost the title. 

Lasker fully deserves to be considered one of the greatest players of all time. But greatness is different from comparative chess ability. 

Let's look at his serious games. Sure, he played some fantastic games. I've studied just about every one of his serious games, and every single World Championship game he played. 

Here's a truly classic game where Lasker was on the wrong side of an endgame loss. There were numerous mistakes by both players, but I'm going to start the game at the endgame. I won't provide any analysis. This game has been analysed by dozens of Grandmasters including Alekhine and Tarrasch, to name just two. 

I'll start on move 50. White has a serious, winning advantage. Let's see what happens:

Today's players have learned from the players of the past. Even at fast time controls, today's elites are better than players from the past. They play far more, make some mistakes, but also create many beautiful games.

Please don't let the trolls here ruin your enjoyment of the great games being played today! And, just as importantly, don't let the engines persuade you that today's players are weak. They aren't. 

A bit of a problem here is that we tend to only learn the best games of the masters of the past, while of the top players nowadays we see every one of their games covered. Few people have seen a random Alekhine's game from 1936 which was a long boring positional game with mistake in the endgame costing Alekhine the game. But Alekhine-Janowski from 1913 with a beautiful rook sacrifice is a different matter. And these beautiful sacrifices tend to be an exception, not a norm. Sure, Rubenstein played the incredible Rotlewi-Rubenstein game every dedicated chess fan knows, but he also played thousands much less brilliant games, with a lot of mistakes from each side. 

People tend to remember the brightest moments from any aspect of history, including performance of historical chess artists, forgetting that they are merely a tip of the iceberg, a much-much more mundane and generic iceberg.

A year wouldn't even come close to enough. Today's top GMs grew up with engines, playing with them since their childhood. Nevertheless, that is just a hypothetical, so there really isn't a point in discussing that.

There isn't really much of a debate. It was announced in advance that it would not be a world championship match. It has been argued that it should be counted as a world championship match anyway, but that does not change the record of what was announced at the time.

"... We have the record of [Alekhine's] games, ... What we see there is ... how a player of admittedly enormous talent, by dint of a colossal amount of work, turned himself into a great all-round player, ..." - FM Steve Giddins in his 2015 book about Alekhine