I agree that players now are simply better than the greats of the past. To clarify my view, I think that Lasker or Capa would, today have medium GM strength. They would lose to Carlsen or Vishy or Caruana or Nakamura or any top level modern GM.
Magikstone wrote:
What it comes down to is this. The current top 20 players in the world as of right now using FIDE ratings, these grandmasters would beat Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvitnik, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, and the great Kasparov. Anyone who denies that chess players are stronger thanks to computers is failing to understand the progress chess continues to make on a yearly basis.
Capalanca's understanding of chess was flawed. Petrosian conceded a lot of space and that is supposedly why he lost that 2nd match to Spassky. Lasker had a deep understanding, even by today's standards. So did Alekhine. With some of these past players, the only hole would be modern opening prep.
Now Kasparov losing to today's players? That is idiotic crap. Even with rating inflation, he has the 2nd highest rating ever. If that guy came back today, he would be a top 10 player. Karpov's old peak rating would even put him in the top 10.
The current top 20 players beating Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer? Totally idiotic. Here are their peak ratings: 2851, 2780, and 2785 ... just go to 2700chess.com and you see that those three ratings, which are not inflated, would place them in the top 10 on an inflated list! Kasparov at number 2! If you think Wojtaszek and Jakavenko would beat Kasparov, Karpov, or Fishcer in a match, you are hardcore stupid or out of your mind.
Well, everybody who knew Lasker and Capa said they didn't study much. Probably they studied some, but they were not workaholics like Alekhine and Fischer.
I read that Capablanca studied 10,000 rook endgames while in college.