Well if the older legends had access to the same books, opening theory, computer analysis, etc before they played the legends of today then yes I think there would be a lot of close matches and maybe the older generation of masters would defeat our current masters (although I have trouble seeing someone other than maybe fischer beating Kasparov in his prime). However if all they had was the knowledge of chess at their era available to them, then I think they would lose most of the games.
The Masters vs. The New Generation
Sort:
I think the similar "on the shoulders of giants" phenomenon occurs in chess as in science and many other pursuits. The Capablanka and Alekhine of their day would surely be beaten by the modern masters, since the modern masters were able to leverage the knowledge of all previous masters by studying their games and analyses. Modern physicists have refined relativity to a greater extent than Einstein's original theory. But of course if Einstein were "reborn" so to speak, he could surely make substantial contributions to modern theory. The same would be true of the old chess masters.
M
With access to computers and all the opening knowledge we have now I'd say the matches would be very close however if the old players would not be brought up to date they'd get a horrible beating. Capablanca would lose because even if he would be provided with the tools he'd be too lazy.
The old masters were the supreme talents of their day. There were no players able to see as deeply into the position as they could. I don't think the era really matters; if you have Hall-of-Fame talent, you are going to be a Hall-of-Fame player. For example, Morphy never faced a master strength player until the visit by GM Lowenthal in 1851. Morphy, at age thirteen, beat him three straight. I beleive that if Morphy had the books and computers to familiarize himself with todays theory he would be just about as dominent as he was in 1859. The same goes for Steinitz, Lasker, etc. Those who were World Champions then would still be World Champions today--talent will out.
Kasparov, when he was still a young WC, said of Fischer that he played "old chess" and that he would "die" if he had to compete against the then current
best crop of players. Reshevsky said that Keres played old chess and that because of that he couldn't compete
on the highest level. (as did others). I think that these old masters would have a very hard time stepping into the latest evolution of chess thinking. You may just have to pick up the foundation for that new stage early on or be left behind.
I have always wonderedhow the old school chess masters like; Alekhine, Capablanca, Tal, or even Morphy would play against modern day players. By modern day, I mean; Kramnik, Anand, Topalov, Kasparov and you know the rest. Would the newer generation get annihilated? What do you guys think? What would the best match up be?