Jose Jaul Capablanca-Mikhail Tal

If Jose Raul Capablanca and Mikhail Tal were able to play a game against eachother, who do you think would win?

Tal

Tal

It would be a 21-move draw.

If these two giants played during their prime, say ten games...I say Capablanca wins 4, Tal 1 and 5 draws.

i agree; with you fxdog. capablanca would win the majority of the games

Capa.

Capablanca.  

it really depends on which year the games were played in.

Tal was 5 when Caps kicked the bucket, so i'm guessing maybe Caps ???

Tal would win, convincingly, given that his health was good.

Capablanca had losing records against Keres and Botvinnik. This wasn't just due to age, it was due to the new Soviet style of chess. Capablanca just didn't understand the new dynamism. 

In a twelve game match, Tal would win 7-4, the last game wouldn't need to be played.

Capablanca considered his prime to be around the year 1914. Tal considered his prime to be around the year 1979, when he won the Riga Interzonal and the Montreal super-tournament. Of course it depends what year the players are taken from. If the 1914 Capa played the 1979 Tal, I completely agree with SmyslovFan.

all we need now is a Timecop.

Capa's the most accurate player ever to lived according to a site that i've visit before BUT based on Tal's capabilities, I guess most of the games will be drawn and I'll give it 3 to 1 for Capa out of 10 games.

Tal's skill, restinpeace, was in luring his opponents into a forest where 2+2=5 and only one would get out alive. In a place where "accuracy", as determined by a computer loses, you should prefer Tal by a country mile.

Capa all the way!!

So far (15 posts) 7 say Capablanca will win and 5 Tal.                                  

Fox and James ( in The Even More Complete Chess Addict, 1993 ) give a list as follows : 1 and 2 Kasparov and Fischer, 3 Capablanca, 4 Lasker, 5 Alekhine, 6 and 7 Botwinnik and Karpov, 8 and 9 Ivanchuk and Tal.

They calculated 55 Elo difference, should be approx. 6-4 for Capablanca, or in twelve games approx.  7-5 ...

In the same book they quote Lasker, Alekhine, Botwinnik and Spassky, saying : " ... Capablanca  ...  the greatest ... ".

Also : " ... Capablanca the greatest positional player ...  and   ...  Capablanca the greatest natural genius ... "   and Tal : ... a great attacking player ..."

Retro-calculating is difficult, in fact impossible ..., but nice to do, what about Lasker-Botwinnik 5-5 and Karpov-Steinitz 6-4 ...   ugh !

your right, capablanca was the greatest positional player, and most gifted 

These posts have been most interesting and we'll never have a definite answer to the question. But I offer the following: one of tal's contemporaries, petrosian, had a plus record against Tal. 5-4 with a bunch of draws. As improper as it is for me to comment on the way these guys played (I am no expert), I have come to believe that petrosian played in a style somewhat similar to Capablanca. I also believe that Capablanca was historically greater than petrosian...at least by a little, and with only the utmost respect to the Armenian great. And so perhaps that is a good measuring stick on Tal vs Capablanca. Again, I favor Capablanca, even as much as I appreciate tal's great dynamic play that has influenced so many later greats.

lol

The soviet grandmaster would win because of better opening preparation and theoretical understanding. Natural talent is almost irrelevant on GM level. What most amateurs consider "natural talent" is actually passionate hard work and dedication to the game. When facing Tal, you're facing the whole Soviet school.

Also, arguments about playstyle are somewhat invalid as long as the masters aren't playing something ridiculously dubious. All masters are virtues - generally great at every aspect of the game.