u/WhoLovesTheSun_

Curious to hear people’s thoughts

Game history showing their match: https://www.chess.com/games/archive/magnuscarlsen?gameOwner=other\\\_game&opponent=Lembke407

“Alekhine is a player I've never really under stood; yet, strangely, if you've seen one Alek-hine game you've seen them all. He always wanted a superior center; he maneuvered his pieces toward the King side, and around the twenty-fifth move, began to mate his opponent.
He disliked exchanges, preferring to play with many pieces on the board. His play was fantastically complicated, more so than any player before or since.

Alekhine once beat Lasker in about 23 moves; his pieces converged on the King side, and the game ended with a sudden death blow.
Alekhine has never been a hero of mine, and I've never cared for his style of play. There's nothing light or breezy about it; it worked for him, but it could scarcely work for anybody else. He played gigantic conceptions, full of outrageous and unprecedented ideas. It's hard to find mistakes in his game, but in a sense his whole method of play was a mistake.

Alekhine developed as a player much more slowly than most. In his twenties, he was an atrocious chessplayer, and didn't mature until he was well into his thirties. But he had great imagination; he could see more deeply into a situation than any other player in chess history.
He disliked clear-cut positions. If an opponent wanted to clarify his situation with Alekhine, he had to pay the Russian's price. Then, it was Alckhine's stamina that carried him to victory. It was in the most complicated positions that Alekhine found his grandest concepts.

Many consider Alekhine a great opening theoretician, but I don't think he was. He played book lines, but didn't know them very well. He always felt that his natural powers would get him out of any dilemma.
At the chessboard, Alekhine radiated a furious tension that often intimidated his opponents.”

Would he still be a priority invitation for Tata, Norway, GCT, etc?

A dumb question, but I was just wondering since Elo is relative how high a modern age top player would peak at playing in older fields

Fabi has the advantage of 50+ years of chess theory. If he just played a years worth of super tournaments in the mid 70s, what would his rating be?

Would he hit something crazy like 2880?

(Also obviously not saying Fabi is greater than Karpov because he clearly isn’t)