Get used to the fact that topics may drift. I think their discussion is fine.

PS: I was born with talent and I developed it over the course of my life: I can drink beer like no one I've ever met.

It still takes hard work to attain a high level. Yes, perhaps some find it easier than others. Stating that a regular person will never be able to surpass them though, is not facing reality. Sheer determination and willpower, the drive to succeed and annihilate all obstacles, this mindset is very difficult to stop.

If the more 'talented' person eases off the gas, the more determined person will surpass them.. and quickly. It's easier to understand once you have actually put your heart and soul into something, gone balls deep in it, then come out the other side as a victor..against more 'naturally talented people'

Oh, okay. Well...maybe you can close your eyes?

Maybe you can stop trolling, and show people some respect?

Hmmm...are angels real, woodshover?

You have womanly hands! 

 Cripes! you're the one who keeps bringing up angels. Has nothing to do with this subject.

I was going to address that guy but you seem to have taken care of him for me. Thanks trysts!  

In other news...

In this case "better" is objective because of the results of the games. The fact that Paul Morphy was better has been quantified.

Then address me, when you have actually achieved something with your life, and can talk from a personal experience, then come back. Children trying to push there half baked reasoning's hold no power whatsoever. You all talk like you've been there and done it, yet I see no evidence of it.

The truth is, life is what you make it, and what you put in you eventually get out. if you want to go through life thinking people are born geniuses and can never be surpassed than go ahead. My philosophy is we should at the very least give it a damn good try. 

It was my pleasure, mrguy888

If the criteria for, "better" is the quantity of wins one has, in chess during the era Morphy played, then "better" would still have to be "judged" by the "quality" of the opponents faced. Plus there will be more variables added to the word, "quality". This appears quite endless to me.

You sound so ridiculous mate, I've never seen anyone talk as much gibberish in all my life. It would help if:

A: It made sense,

B: It was actually going somewhere,

C: You had any kind of evidence to backup your theories.

You seriously need to think about what your saying.. It's just complete nonsense! 

I'm done arguing with someone who obviously has serious issues, and clearly demonstrating their inferiority to put a point across seriously or maturely..

One day you may achieve something then realise how stupid you sound mate. 

God you must be broody!  I hope that's your child your hugging..  

hi

The criteria for better is the quantity of wins. And the quantity of wins is large enough and across enough players that there is no problem with the sample size. The variable were accounted for by actually play many games. Just because there are a lot of variables does not mean the the wins were subjective.