visayanbraindoctor: <Shajmaty: In 23 moves (between 14. ♕f3 and 36. ♗xf7+), Capablanca plays the best move (i.a.w. Stockfish) 21 times!>
That would have been my reaction a long time ago. After I had studied his games in more detail, I'm not surprised anymore.
Capablanca was a real freak of a chess player. Had he been born in the 1980s or 1990s and we were witnessing his games live in the internet, we would all be staring flabbergasted at his ability to replicate the best computer lines again and again in real time while playing more rapidly than any human being we have ever seen, and even in the sharpest of positions. There have already been many computer studies. In all of them Capablanca always places high, usually first or second. If computers were self-aware, they would undoubtdly choose Capablanca as their all-time favorite chess player.
And to think someone actually said this:
<Jonathan Sarfati....Someone in Australia quite seriously said about Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine a few years ago: "IMO, they would play at master level, say 2200-2300, but modern GMs would beat them quite consistently.">
<perfidious comment to the above: Good grief--this is risible.>
Bridgeburner's analysis of the individual games of Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) page made me feel guts to bone that Lasker and Schlecter were playing at the same level field as more recent World Champions and Challengers in their WC matches.
Details are in the individual game pages of the match.
2. Only someone who has not studied the games of the LCA trio, or has blinders, would say this. Unfortunately these 'someones' are occasionally well respected masters themselves.
Even such a prominent GM as Bent Larsen fell into this attitudinal trap. He boasted he would easily crush any 1920s chess master. It was totally ridiculous because as a young master on the rise, he was around and managed to play chess against two of the oldies- Botvinnik and Keres who both started their careers in the 1920s, and who both gave the young surging Larsen sound beatings in their chessic old age. So who got crushed?
In spite of his best efforts, Larsen never won a game against Keres, who beat him two times. How did Keres fare against the only one of the LCA trio that he managed to play in more than a dozen games? Oldie Alekhine would regularly and consistently beat young peaking Keres. This was no fluke. Alekhine also would usually place ahead of Keres on the tournament table. Moreover, and this is what really convinced me, if one goes through their games, it becomes apparent that the archaic Alekhine was mostly beating Keres in highly tactical attacking and counter-attacking games, just where the young Keres was at his strongest. (See for instance Alekhine vs Keres, 1942)
Yes, Alekhine was that good a chess player and tactician. He more often than not crushed the same guy who played most post WW2 World Champions to nearly even records, and for whom Tal and Korchnoi were regular meat.
A prime Alekhine vs Larsen in the 1920s? Poor Larsen would have been impaled though his big mouth.
Yet Larsen was a very intelligent man, who certainly knew his chess. How could Larsen ignore such a clear empirical evidence (as in getting beaten up by two of them) that the best pre WW2 masters were better than him?
The answer is probably the 'narcissistic generation syndrome' (explained in my profile).
Addendum. More unbelievable info in the Capablanca vs J Corzo, 1901 page:
<TheFocus: <visayanbraindoctor> Here are the times for all the games in the Capablanca - Corzo match.
1 Capablanca – Corzo (0:40 – 0:20)
2 Corzo – Capablanca (0:17 – 0:17)
3 Capablanca – Corzo (0:38 – 1:15)
4 Corzo – Capablanca No times given.
5 Capablanca – Corzo (0:45 – 1:10)
6 Corzo – Capablanca (0:21 – 0:10)
7 Capablanca – Corzo (0:20 – 0:40)
8 Corzo – Capablanca (0:40 – 0:05)
9 Capablanca – Corzo (0:24 – 0:43)
10 Corzo – Capablanca (0:55 – 0:35)
11 Capablanca – Corzo (0:42 – 1:35)
12 Corzo – Capablanca (1:02 – 0:19)
13 Capablanca – Corzo (0:28 – 0:40)>
Note game 11, Capablanca – Corzo (0:42 – 1:35), this game.
This 12 to 13 year old played a kind of game that even a super GM would be proud of; and more than that he sacked his Queen in a complicated middlegame and proceeded to play a freakishly precise 60 move ending, all in a freakishly unbelievable 42 minutes. That's less than a minute per move. How can any one play that well that fast? And this a mere kid?
Capablanca would be an unbeatable beast in the World Cup tiebreak quick games and the World Blitz championships.