Morphy vs. Modern GMs

I believe that computer analysis of Morphy's games indicate that he played on the level of 2550-2600, ie on the level of a modern GM but not of a top GM. However, these estimates are based on the existing games against his contemporary opponents. I doubt that he would really be able to attain even a GM rating today because his opponents would not oblige him to play Evans Gambit or King's Gambit, they would use openings that he wasn't familiar with and there is no way he would be able to perform on the level of a modern GM in those positions. Of course, if Morphy spent some years studying modern openings and endgame theory, positional concepts in middlegame etc then that might be possible.

What if... what if... what if...

What if Morphy was time-travelled to our time and got hit by a car? And where do those discussions leads us to? There's no way to accurately compare the strenght of top players living over a century apart.

Umm, using our brains after analysis and comparison.  Also we have computer's unbiased evaluations.  Both of these together do a pretty good job.

My point is your level depends on the level of the players around you. If you never have the opportunity to play chess with good opponents you can't get better. I highly doubt that the chess scene during Morphy's time (and in the location he had access to - at those days you can't finish a tournament in Berlin on Monday and start another on in NY in Wednesday) was as strong as today.

Additionaly, the speculative ratings that are used for players in the 19th century (and the first half of the 20th) don't account for many things - one of which is the development of chess theories.

Absolutely correct.

"There's no way to accurately compare the strenght of top players living over a century apart."

All we can say if Morphy never existed then the game would be a lot poorer. It's development may be 20-30 years behind what it is now.

The modern game started with Morphy and it has not looked back since.

He left us many beautiful games played 20-30 years ahead of their time. He opened the eyes of Steinitz who in turn influenced Tarrasch and Lasker.

He also increased the  popularity of the game in the 1850's, without him the game may have stagnated and died. We shall never know.

Let's be sincere with ourselves. Even though Morphy was a genius and had great natural ability, he'd be slaughtered today, as modern GMs have many more resources than Morphy ever did. Also, with openings like Evan's Gambit and King's Gambit, which are outdated and refutable, I'm  pretty certain the even IMs could probably take Morphy down in a game. It's just unrealistic to say that just because he was a genius back then, that he'd be one now, after all the advances in all around chess theory.  

What would Isaac Newton think of the quantum mechanics? In the same way what does Morphy knows about the solid positional play of, say, Petrosian?

To be "better" is to know more and to be able to use this knowledge. Who cares if you have the talent if you can't use it?

"Unlike science" ?

Science is always changing.

So the much harder question to answer is "if he had the same resources available to modern GM's, how would he stack up?" and a lot of that question is a matter of opinion and hard to answer. But looking through his games, it's clear he had incredible natural talent and feel for attack and development, and in the modern world he would realize he needs to get a more universal style, and that's what Kasparov did in fact. He was very much an attacking, dynamic player, but as he became older he became about as good at positional play as Karpov, but much more willing to take risks and get into complicated positions that he thrived in of course.

Morphy never needed to adjust his game to anyone at the time, so he didn't. In those days they thought Morphy played almost ideal, perfect chess, so why change it, he was probably thinking.

This is the point in which we get into wild speculations. Who knows what he will do. Some great attackers like Rashid Nezhmetdinov (1912-1974) never make it to the top of the top simply because they can't manage to adapt. Botvinik said that "nobody sees combinations like Rashid Nezhmetdinov," Polugaevsky added that he is "the greatest master of the initiative." But Averbakh also explained why Nezhmetdinov never made it past IM: "if he had the attack, could kill anybody, including Tal. But my score against him was something like 8½–0½ because I did not give him any possibility for an active game. In such cases he would immediately start to spoil his position because he was looking for complications."

Don't assume anything.

Ok, but "science" is too general, more like "scientific laws". Because there is alot of stuff that hasn't been 100% proven!

True. Kasparov did it, but that doesn't mean Morphy would. He would have to be able to shake off his style at least a little bit and make use of the new strategies available.

Very off-topic, but the Earth is not flat anymore - a scientific law that was refuted.

that wasn't a scientific law but a theory

Ask the Inquisition about that

I agree with chry3841--that was never a scientific law, but only a theory. However, there is one scientific law that I recall that has been refuted--the law of spontaneous generation.

Now, back to the topic. I don't find it entirely unlikely that Morphy would have been a great player had he been born 100 years later, but there's no way to know for sure.

The Laws of Motion didn't change but they are seen to only apply in certain conditions, as I understand.

it was generally known by educated people that the world is round since ancient greece, they estimated its circumfrence fairly accurately in fact. and newtons laws of motion hold in all cases.

on topic I see no reason to believe that the most gifted member of one generation would be significantly more gifted than the most gifted member of another generation, morphy was pretty clearly the most gifted of his. and he was able to memorize the entire louisana legal code, I doubt he'd have much of an issue absorbing theory. as for his style the bulk of his games have very solid positional play, his dramatic attacks and sacrifices are more well know because well.. obviously they are more dramatic and exciting, and so from those he developed a reputation which was not neccessarly accurate.

Yes, this is how I feel.  The 99.9999% best of one generation won't be much superior to the similar best of another.  But strategic, opening, and endgame technique have all improved, and players today have also gained defensive technique.  Morphy would beat some GMs, but fresh out of a time machine it's not too hard to see that 2700+ players would do very well against him.