Let Dvoretsky and Yusupov get ahold of the kids and Steinitz would feel embarrassed for losing to children so easily. They'd have too many advantages at their disposal such as modern training methods, making school like exams (such as, In Duras-Teichmann 1906 was 20.f4 sound? Why or why not? What was the idea behind it? What idea if any was more appropriate in this situation?" or, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of a bishop? A knight? When is one better than another? Which piece is better overall?" Or, "What is the proper method of composing a plan in critical positions" "Is the Ruy Lopez better than the King's Gambit? Why or why not?" etc., to foster critical thinking and understanding of the game. Steinitz, as great as his chess contributions were, would have trouble against a 10 year old 2300 rated FIDE master given the modern advancements.
I don't know... 2300 seems low. I know Steiniz would be far behind in all the theory, but due to tactical ability I think he'd beat the 2300 kid. I think they'd get into some sideline neither of them knew much about, the kid would handle it better and have a good position, but ultimately lose due to tactics.
Even children today could defeat the likes of La Bourdonnais, Anderssen and Steinitz given that there are 10 ye
Every generation believes that it is superior to those who came before them Negyesy once boasted that the Masters in his time were far better than Geza Maroczy's he played a match against him and guess what? Negysey lost and found out otherwise.
It's a mistake to underestimate the powers of these great masters and not show them some respect.
It depends on what you mean by "better." Fischer discussed this in an interview when asked if he was better than people like Morphy, Alekhine etc. He stated, if I recall, that he would beat them but that it is not a fair comparison because they didn't have access to the computer and theory of today. When asked if he was better than Kasparov, he changed the subject!