Are today's GMs better than 100 years ago?

Carlsen missed one move (Ba4 instead of Be3) in a very difficult position. Lasker would never have gotten to that position in the first place. Don't be too hard on Carlsen in that game. 

Take a look at the game with GM commentary.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/sinquefield-08-carlsen-forgives-nakamura

In the year 2117, a hundred years from now, the future GMs will be far greater than our present day one, including chess ingines. Chess players will be debating the same thing again. Who knows, in two or three hundred years from now, GMs like Fischer & Kasparov etc might be the great ones now but could be viewed as better than average patzers & not the GOAT, imo. Just saying.

the ancients are the real players, they actually came up with stuff. today's chess dudes play better, but their moves are mainly just a mechanical regurgitation of their training.

@bishoptakesrookpawn Interesting, I didn't think of it in that way.

In my opinion, yesteryears masters are the thinkers and inventors of many games. Today's masters studied those games and enhanced it to the modern times..more precise, solving more complex positions. Computers made it easier. They would be of no match of today's GMs.

I don't understand why so many people diss today's great players. These guys are creating some amazingly beautiful games. They aren't just following machine lines. They're tactical monsters who rarely miss a shot. These guys are playing rapid chess at a higher level than Alekhine or Lasker could play classical time controls. 

I'd say GM's are a lot better in the old days because the GM's these days play for draws and get draws about 80% of the time. The old GM's went for the win because they weren't afraid to lose. I'd take the old GM's any day over this current group.

Take a look at the games from the St. Louis Rapid tournament going on as I type this. Those guys are going all out for the win in every game.

Not only would the contemporary players you named crush the players from the past, but so would any of the other 1000+ contemporary grandmasters. It's an entirely different game now.

Well, first of all, today's top players don't draw 80% of the time, and most of the draws are because the standard of play is so much higher today. As far the "went for the win because they weren't afraid to lose" part, that isn't how elite chess is played. If the position justifies pushing for a win, today's top GMs will push. However, they aren't thinking about winning at all if they're worse in a simplified position, simply because playing objectively bad moves just to avoid a draw doesn't work at the 2700 level.

Obviously today's best masters are stronger than the best masters 100 years ago.  They have the advantage of all the advances in theory (especially opening theory) and the ability to study countless instructive games played over the last 100 years.  Today's masters would be considerably stronger than yesterday's even if they didn't have the additional advantage of chess engines.  Would Einstein have come up with the general theory of relativity if he hadn't started out with the knowledge gained from the pioneering work of Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton and others?

"COMMENT DELETED" makes it appear as though I posted something chess.com found offensive.  I just removed an unnecessary word.  

It's not that today's players only play for the draw, they always try to play the best moves. After all, they do compete for money. For example, look at Levon's game vs Nepo in round 1 of the Rapid. Aronian said that if it was a classical game he might have not sacrificed the Knight, not because he doesn't like to play agressive, but because he knows how well today's GM can defend. Look at it this way, today's GMs are so precise that most of the games end in draws. If no one makes an inaccuracy mistake the result will likely a draw. 

People who think that today's players are striving for the draw just haven't bothered to watch any games live. These games are full of weird openings, strange sacrifices, and positional gambits that are mindbogglingly complex, all in the hope of catching their elite opponent unaware. 

Take a look at Garry Kasparov's tournament so far. He has played six games and drawn five. He fought for the advantage in every one of those games. He lost one game when he missed a single tactical shot. Even 12 years ago, there weren't this many really great players who were all active at the same time. If Lenier Dominguez had been around and playing the way he is now in Capa's time, he would have been the great Cuban that everyone today idolizes. 

Today's players are absolutely amazing! Take Aronian as one example. This year alone, he will have played more than 100 rated games by the end of this weekend. He is making fewer mistakes per game than his illustrious 20th Century predecessors. And, he's creating some real works of art. 

Take a look at a game he played yesterday. I'm sure he will create more beautiful games this week. 

GM Garry Kasparov is ourplaying these overrated so call super GMs, I believe if it was standard time control Garry will be crushing all these duffers. There nothing expressive with Carlsen play or the top ten players; Kasparov bring a element of excitement and daring in his games, something lacking Carlsen and the top ten elite GMs.

You have not look at the classic games, these old masters bring element of creativity; Alekhine in tedious defense against Capablanca in rook and pawn endgame { New York 1924} or Emanuel Lasker defending in a minor piece against a rook endgame against his nephew Edward Lasker { New York 1924}, one GM said, NO current top GM ( this include Carlsen) could draw the same endgame. Like I said there nothing impressive with current top ten GMs, they play boring games and very few games are imaginative. This is why everyone is excited Kasparov is coming back to play chess, his games are exciting and not boring.

No, everyone is excited because Garry, in the events he has played, has played at arguably a 2750 level, extremely impressive when you consider that Garry is 12 years retired.