Krammnik vs. Capablanca Who do you think would win ???

Actually most all players of todays world and generation do have access to more variables than any of the past Masters ever had. Though I see allot of topics floating around such as this I really think they all are like comparing apples to oranges.

I myself would not be so sure to be saying that Either of these would dominate the other. I also would like to add you also have to remember the players of yesterday still played positionally without the help of a computer to help them understand better chess.

Just like most of our younger generation of today relies on calculators when doing mathimatical questions that many of the generations of yesterday had no choice but to do these things in there head or to figure it all out on paper.

What allot of you never mentioned is that most of the players of today have a duped rating which is something that many do not give any credit to the older generation when looking at topics such as this.

Let me explain first before any of you start flaming about all of this as over the years this has had to happen (rating wise) to accomidate the player base of today.

A long time ago back in capablancas days exactly how many Masters in all was there any ideas?

Okay now how many Masters are there out there today playing?

In due to this happening with More Masters as well as a higher player base playing the rating system has had to be adjusted to accomidate this.

In all due to fairness of the players of yesterday and today this for me is very hard to answer in due to this which I have no real true answer for.

It would be nice to be able to see these things transpire but then again it would really be nice to see a Tyrannosaurus rex alive today now wouldnt it.

Which is why I feel these topics are like comparing apples to oranges.

Kramnik would crush Capablanca.

irrelevant question althought got attentions maybe this is all about.

Exactly. I'd bet anyone in today's top 20 can beat Capa.

if capablanca had the chance to learn from kramnik rather than the other way round, capa would kill him.

That is, but have you seen SupremeOverlord's comment? 

capablanca

Hehe, yeah :) 

Moses2792796 wrote:

People don't seem to have learned anything from Carlsen.  You don't need to play uber-theoretical openings in order to compete at the top level.  Capablanca was never big on opening prep is his day, he just liked to get playable positions, much like Carlsen now.  That said I think Kramnik would still outplay him, but it would be closer than people are suggesting.

Exactly

Yes, but 2650 doesn't make you top 100 today, and Kramnik himself is around 2800. To me Lasker and Capa are several classes greater than Kramnik, but chess has changed so much in 100 years that it's unfair to compare in objective strength. In a 12 game match I'd say that Kramnik wins four-five games and draws the rest without ever being in trouble in a single game. Just his opening preparation is far beyond anything Lasker or Capa could compete with.

Leko is much better than Capablanca.

Obviously

I think Kramnik will refuse to play.

Well if Kramnik estimated Lasker at 2650, then Capablanca would be higher than 2650, considering (amongst other factors) Capa didn't lose a single game to Lasker in the WCC match. So let's say 2750 (Capablanca) vs 2800 (Kramnik). You guys realize that's less of a gap than Anand vs. Carlsen?

Anyways, I think the style of old vs. new would be more a factor. Who knows if Capablanca could really compete against precise openings 20 moves deep. He would be at disadvantage going into the middlegame, so he'd have to be good enough to turn the game around against Kramnik if he wanted to win. Which is possible, but who really knows. The answer is nobody knows. The only good things to ever come out of these threads are the tangential bits of chess history.

The first time Capa finished ahead of Lasker in a tournament was when Lasker was close to 70 years old. Capa did better than Lasker in one single event before that, a match when Lasker was past 50 and quite unprepared, so Capa wasn't 100 Elo stronger than Lasker.

I wonder if Lasker really was 2700 level though, that would mean that Lasker of the early 1890s would have been stronger than Karpov of 1981. And that was a Lasker that was far from his peak, who lost no less than five games to the alleged 2400 opponent Steinitz in the 1894 match.

I don't know if Kramnik necessarily meant Lasker was 2700 and Steinitz was 2400. I think he was just making an analogy so that we would understand the difference between them.

Yes, and maybe he exaggerated a bit. Otherwise Steinitz did quite well for a 300 Elo weaker player in that match.