Are they playing in 1900 or 2000?
Capablanca vs Kasparov
Sort:
In 2000, Kasparov would be stronger,
in 1900, i think it would be drawish.
That might be true, but if you watch some of Capablanca's games you will notice that
"He makes his opponents look like children" -Seirawan, author of Winning Chess books and International Grandmaster.
If this is true he must have been around fifty years ahead of the others in his time.
Plus, everyone keeps mentioning Kasparov in 2000, he wasn't even near his peak in 2000, he started waning after like 1995. If Capa in 1921 played Kasparov in 2000 Capablanca would have definitely won.
Oct 27, 2009
0
#5
To whom did Capablanca lose his crown? For what style of play was he noted?
Successful attacking players know positional concepts. They do not just throw pieces and pawns waiting for their opponent to make a mistake.
Oct 27, 2009
0
#6
I prefer Kasparov, but I think that it would be a really good game, either way.
no.. we cant say about it.. this is a CONTROVERSIAL question..
Cause chess hasn't had the slightest progress the last 100 years.
Dumb.
Kasparov would win. He spent his career beating a great positional player, a certain Anatoli Karpov.
Oct 27, 2009
0
#10
Well how are we going to arrange this?
Are we going to have Kasparov at his peak time travel to when Capablanca was at his peak? Advantage to Kasparov then with modern opening theory and computer analysis.
Are we going to take Capablanca at his peak, send him to the future and give him a few months with a team of grandmasters to get caught up on the computer and time to prepare to play Kasparov by going over his games?
Or, are we going to grab them both as precocious children and send them to a pocket dimension where we will train them both in the same environment and port in strong opponents as needed to grow them up right and give them both the same series of challenges against the same opponents?
CarlMI wrote:
To whom did Capablanca lose his crown? For what style of play was he noted?
Successful attacking players know positional concepts. They do not just throw pieces and pawns waiting for their opponent to make a mistake.
But this is true of a lot of amateurs.
CarlMI wrote:
To whom did Capablanca lose his crown? For what style of play was he noted?
Successful attacking players know positional concepts. They do not just throw pieces and pawns waiting for their opponent to make a mistake.
Capablanca was absolutely brilliant, he lost his crown because he was lazy and didn't take his opponents seriously.
Relentless95 wrote:
CarlMI wrote:
To whom did Capablanca lose his crown? For what style of play was he noted?
Successful attacking players know positional concepts. They do not just throw pieces and pawns waiting for their opponent to make a mistake.
Capablanca was absolutely brilliant, he lost his crown because he was lazy and didn't take his opponents seriously.
The end result was he lost....
Everyone falls, didn't Kasparov? Capablanca lost to alekhine, who is in most top five rankings, while Kasparov lost it to Kramnik, who is almost never mentioned in the top ten.
Relentless95 wrote:
What would happen if Capablanca (the master of slow, positional style) was challenged by Kasparov (The Master tactician)? My guess is Capa would win because of how he beat Marshall who was also a master tactician. The reason Capa always crushed him was because he always kept the game slow an simple, would that also happen to Kasparov?
Marshall was nowhere near the layer that Kasparov was, plus you could make the argument in reverse about Karpov. Personally I think the match would be close, impossible to say who would win. I rate Kasparov as a greater player because he achieved more, he was clearly more driven, although Capablanca was probably more talented.
Yeah, because Kasparov's style and strength are comparable to Marshall, it's logical to think that Capa would win...
"I am very much against comparing players of different eras, it's too subjective."
Garry Kasparov
...why do we never listen to our betters...
Jul 1, 2011
0
#18
capa lost to alekhine, whom kasparov recognizes as one of the great chess influences. capa was very, very good but everyone can be beaten.
Kasparov, having access to all the new theory and developments since Capa's time, should be able to play better today; but obviously, we can speculate forever if Capablanca would be better than him if he had the same access. I could probably make this argument for other lesser modern players too who weren't quite world champion level.
Modern chess is simply a refinement of chess in the past: today our moves are more likely to be backed by concrete ideas, refusing to reject a move until such ideas are found. You see people delaying their development a lot more, like in the english opening, often keeping central pawns at home and playing moves like g4 without fear. You see a lot more pawn sacrifices for persistent dynamic pressure, when before people would usually gambit pawns for pure development. The game has simply evolved since Capablanca's time, and even people with less ability can exploit that and possibly beat an "out of it" Capablanca.
Relentless95 wrote:
he wasn't even near his peak in 2000, he started waning after like 1995. If Capa in 1921 played Kasparov in 2000 Capablanca would have definitely won.
Kasparov not even near his peak in 2000? He lost against Kramnik but one bad event in a period of many years doesn't mean that someone is far from their peak. Kasparov won ten super tournaments in a row around year 2000 and reached the highest rating ever on the last list of the 90s and first list of the 00s.
What would happen if Capablanca (the master of slow, positional style) was challenged by Kasparov (The Master tactician)? My guess is Capa would win because of how he beat Marshall who was also a master tactician. The reason Capa always crushed him was because he always kept the game slow an simple, would that also happen to Kasparov?