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

That's a rapid game Carlsen played when he was 13 years old, against Aronian, and lost with seconds on the clock. As for Carlsen needing a computer to beat Anand, I think Anand depends much more on computer preparation than Carlsen ever did.

Capablanca sacrifice his queen just to control the queen file and get  a favorable endgame with two pieces against the rook; such far-sight is amazing and pure genius.

 White: Capablanca vs. Black: Villegas Analysis only from the game above.

Or so Carlsen says.  I think his whole, "I never even heard of a Chess engine until I was twenty" angle is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to craft his own legend.

This is my favorite game of Carlsen, lovely Kosteniuk outplay Carlsen in bad position and wins.

 White:  Carlsen vs. Black: Kosteniuk  World Blitz Championship 2009

If Alekhine or Fischer played this game they would of won. Remember Carlsen is 2800 against a 2500 player.

This game of Lasker is a tactical mayhem that Lasker was able to see through the complication. GM. Fine said, Lasker had the ability to see tactics no one else would were without parallel. This the kind of opponent Capablanca had to play against.

 White: Lasker vs. Black: Napier  Cambridge Springs, 1904

Could Capa draw that when he was 13 though?

@yureesystem: in 2009, Carlsen wasn't '2800.'

"@yureesystem: in 2009, Carlsen wasn't '2800'"

It's a blitz game and the lowest rated player he has lost to five years ago after playing really badly, so i can understand why it is yureesystem's favourite Carlsen game :-) But Kosteniuk is often underestimated in blitz, it's worth mentioning that she won against Anand, Aronian, Grischuk and Morozevich in the same event.

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

Tarrasch scored his first top result in 1885, three years before Capa was born. The decisive games between the two were played between 1914 and 1928, and it was equal until their last game, when Tarrasch was 66 years old. This was Tarrasch's last tournament, and he lost the adjourned game against Capa by withdrawing due to illness, in a drawn position according to the latest engine analysis posted at chessgames.com. Capa did much better against Vidmar, with a career score of +3 -0 =6.

Still, in comparison Carlsen's results against Gelfand and Nakamura don't look bad, he has +13 -0 =12 since London 2010. When he was 15 he did lose a game to Gelfand, but then Capa didn't play any of the "comparison players" until he was well into his 20s and already top three together with Lasker and Rubinstein.

Post #26: I think this is the one where Carlsen tried to play 43 R1e2 even though he had already touched the rook on e3, and also didn't handle the loss well at that moment (no trash talk at least). It was surprising because that's not like him; it's the only time I witnessed such poor sportsmanship on his part.

Capablance would get crushed in the opening, Carlsen is 90 years of opening analysis better

If Capablanca played Carlsen in present time he would beat Carlsen. This is why, Jose Raul Capablanca won a blitz tournament in 1906 and Lasker was competing and was world champion at the time. Jose beat Marshall who was one the top player in 1909. He wins his first major tournament in San Sebastian in 1911 without preparing any opening, players he played against were Rubinstein, Tarrasch, Nimzovitch and other very strong masters. This pure chess talent and no chess player in past or present will ever possess such great talent like Capablanca. On pure talent Capablanca will win Carlsen in a match, even present time. If Capablanca was born at the sametime as Carlsen the spot light will be on Jose not Magnus.

Carlsen would win by forfeit....

Capablancas clock would run out. Over & over.

Magnus would make Jose want to quit playing. The final score would be something like 6.5 - 1.5 with Magnus winning. & the point & a half for Capa would be a generous gift by Carlsen just to close the match out with 3 draws after starting 5-0.

They remind me of each other from a raw talent standpoint, though I think their play is somewhat different. I think you have to consider the eras of these two, to really put it in better perspective. I realize we could make the argument that chess skills that are developed, are relative to their era and that of the opponents but, Carlsen is dominating in an era where the limitations of the human mind have been pushed far beyond that of those in the era of Capablanca, if you ask me.

There something to consider Capablanca was born in a tiny country Cuba and hardly any chess culture and Carlsen is born in Norway in a European country and a lot chess influence and culture. Capablanca when he was about to played in the San  Sebastian he wonder if can compete against the European masters and if his opening were adequate against the European masters: he had a lot self-doubt but he won this very strong tournament and that is chess genius. After winning the San Sebastian, Jose Capablanca challenge Lasker to a world champion match but Lasker decline. I doubt Magnus after winning his first tournament and challenge the world champion to a match; Carlsen wasn't strong enough and it took him a nine years to become world champion after becoming a GM (2004 becoming a grandmaster). Not even in Capablanca's caliber!

Becoming a GM in Capablanca's era was very different fom becoming a GM in Carlsen's era.

Yes, it is true! The standards was much higher to become a GM in Capablanca's era. You had to win a major tournament. The first five grandmasters were, 1.Capablanca,2.Lasker,3.Alekhine, 4.Tarrasch, and 5.Marshall.

Carlsen. You cant compare them because today GM's play much more accurate moves than at this time. Its the time of computers and engines and they really made the way of playing more correct.

Till_98, is chess really much higher standard than players like Lasker, Alekhine and Capablanca. The past masters did their own analysis on their favorite opening: Marshall's own analysis on Marshall Gambit in Ruy Lopez is sound and use in the top level GMs games. Are today GMs (2700-2800) really stronger than Spassky, look at his games or Tal and definitely not stronger than Fischer. I really cannot respect today GMs with their inflated 2800 rating: they have a lot chess material and computer program to aid them. Not so with Capablanca era, you had to be a genius and gifted chess player to be the top player.