Jose Jaul Capablanca-Mikhail Tal

Yes...spoken in his typically tongue-in-cheek fashion.

Who does? (lol)

Sometimes I think it's a prerequisite to log on to the forums. 

Capablanca excelled in clear, lucid positions. How many of those would he get against Tal?

This is the ultimate match-up as far as I'm concerned. I've always wondered this. To answer your question, 

I don't know. 

For sure Tal would win (if you have any questions, let me know cause I know everything )

But it doesn't mean he knows nothing on complex positions. Lakadwala has a whole chapter dedicated to Capa's tacticak expertise(though he is not the best on this part, he still is of course above average) Also the "Capa on defence" show how Capa can liquidate any imbalance from a complex position.(which he is famous for)

Tal did represent the soviet chess school?? Tal represented the total opposite of the soviet chess school, whos leading figure surely Botvinnik was.

Tal's combinations might be unsound with computer analysis, but he doesn't play computers, he plays humans. Tal was also a great technical and positional player, in the same way that Capablanca was a capable tactical player. However, I think that it is in general easier to complicate a position than to simplify a position. For example, you can refuse to trade pieces, or just play aggressively. Therefore, advantage to Tal.

i always thought its easier to simplify, have to think about it the next times im playing, you are probably though.

Tetsuo, if Tal was so easy to simplify against, why did he do so well against technical players such as my hero, Smyslov and others? 

Btw, every world (match play) world champion excelled at endgames, including Tal. Mihail Marin devotes a chapter to Tal's incredible endgame technique in his book, Learn from the Masters. So, while you're raising up Capa's middle game skills, remember that Tal had pretty impressive endgame skills too. Capa lost endgames to Alekhin in their match.

Perhaps it would help the players to go through every game of the Capa-Alekhin and the Tal-Botvinnik matches. Tal-Botvinnik was played at a completely different level of difficulty.

Think of how much more difficult an opponent a healthy Tal would be compared to Alekhin! As I said earlier, I'd pick Tal to win 7-4 in a best of 12 match. 

Capablanca didn't lose very many games... and the ones that he did lose were often wild tactical melees like this one:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100030

Illyen-Zhenevsky was a Tal-type tactical player, far weaker in playing strength than Tal himself, of course... and he had a lifetime even score against Capa.

Capablanca is regarded by many GMs, including Kasparov and Karpov, to be the greates endgame player. I would believe them more than you of couse. About the Alek-Capa match, Capa lost some of the endgames because he was at a disadvantage brought about by his poor opening and Alekhine's middlegame. 4 of capa's losses in that match where they reach past 40, there are still major pieces(queen+rooks+several pawns). There was even a game with still Q+R+N. While the other 3 he got outplayed in middle game.
Most GMs also said that his lost was also brought about by his overconfidence but it is relative since we would not know if he could have won if he studied better and not become overconfident. Even Alekhine said he thinks Capa just belittled him(he said this after Capa's death). 
As I've said, some may say he just plays simply and has no dynamics, but I still prefer super GMs and world champions who study their game, if his play is outdated, why would they still study his games? 

Before getting his butt wiped by Alekhine,Capa at his prime only has a negative score against Keres +1 -0 =5 and no other player.

thats not even what i ment, i thought in general its just easier to exchange pieces then to prevent it. 

I hope you meant what you said about believing Kasparov about Capablanca.

This is what Kasparov actually wrote about Capablanca:

"On the whole, the reasons for the champion's failure (against Alekhine) are clear: excessive self-confidence, weak preparation, a habitual inclination to try and win with little expenditure of effort, without tension and the calculation of "dangerous" variations, hence the tactical errors, and then, after encountering an incredibly resourceful opponent and a number of heavy defeats -- shock, despair, loss of belief in himself..."

He goes on to point out that the great technician could not win technically won games against Alekhin. Kasparov points out that "technique is first and foremost nerves." And against Alekhin toward the end of a long match, Capa's nerves were shot.

This is what Bobby Fischer wrote about Capablanca:

"Capablanca was among the greatest of chess players, but not because of his endgame. His trick was to keep his openings simple, and then play with such brilliance in the middlegame that the game was decided --even though his opponent didn't always know it-- before they arrived at the endgame.

Capablanca never really devoted himself to chess, seldom made match preparations. His simplicity is a myth."

This is how Kasparov describes the decline of Capablanca's strength:

...[T]he main reason for the decline in Capablanca's results was the increased complexity of chess, which happened precisely during the last period of his career. The hyper-modern ideas had already become establishd and 'Soviet Chess School' had announced itself-- a different, dynamic and genuinely creative game had begun! Capa tried not to fall behind, but it became increasingly difficult for him....

And in general, Capablanca's heyday was... in the period before he became world champion. ... It was on account of this that the myth of his invincibility arose: no one could see the slight, and sometimes serious flaws of his 'ultra-pure' style. But these mistakes were not accidental, and in the match with Alekhine, they already became tragic since they cancelled out all the fruits of his enormous preceding work...

Despite his staggering talent (or more probably, because of it), his real contribution to the creation of modern chess was inferior to that of Steinitz or Lasker.  Their contribution was enormous and fundamental... Whereas Capablanca, by contrast, did everything to simplify the problems facing him..."

(Kasparov On My Great Predecessors vol 1.)

but its still noteworthy that Capablanca survived his first encounter of the Marshall gambit, while Lasker didnt.

You merely supported some of I already stated, and it's a logical fallacy to refute on of my statements when the statement, if seperated from the others, constitute a slightly weaker argument. As I've said you only supported what I commented about Capa's losses.

*Also about Capa being a lazy ass