Paul Morphy's Rating>2638

Take the past champions, time machine them here, take some DNA, clone them, kill the original, and let baby Morphy study chess form age 5 in the 21st century and of course he'd be GM strength... no one doubts that and it's not very interesting to talk about either... too much fiction in the setup and the conclusion is obvious (at least IMO).

People like to quote Fischer, but (again IMO) his quotes have to be taken in context as he was a very un-objective/biased individual.  His chess was great, but his reasoning and thoughts were not so good.  Not just political or anything like that... just day to day stuff, he's not someone whose quotes on any subject other than a chess variation I put much stock into.

I haven't had time to research this exhaustively, but while it is true that some of these made some income, some of the time, from chess-related activities, I would question the designation of professionals. Kieseritsky died a pauper so if he was a chess professional it really wasn't a great financial success. La Bourdonnais "died penniless in London in 1840, having been forced to sell all of his possessions, including his clothes, to satisfy his creditors." In what sense can we talk about people who were not sure where their next meal was coming from as professionals ?

Staunton did make some income from chess but he was also engaged in literary studies, which he gave as one of his reasons for not wishing to play Morphy at that particular time. (He was contracted to publish a work on Shakespeare in the same time-frame.)

Greco was allegedly described by Botvinnik as "the first chess professional" but Botvinnik was not a 'professional' historian. From what little is known about Greco, he seems to have made an income by teaching chess to aristocratic families rather than by playing as such. Also, of course, Greco and Philidor were not Morphy's contemporaries, the period we were discussing was the mid-19th century.

I guess so, but if they never made any significant amount of money from law profession to begin with then I think not. Just because someone did not happen to have another reasonable source of income, and once in a while made a few dimes from chess, does not make them chess professionals unless one is really prepared to stretch the concept. 

Atos, here's the original post to which I responded: "There were no chess professionals in Morphy's time, they all made their living in other ways. Steinitz was the first chess professional, and not terribly successful financially."

"Greco and Philidor were not Morphy's contemporaries, the period we were discussing was the mid-19th century."

I was responding to: "Steinitz was the first chess professional"
Of course Staunton and Harrwitz were professionals in Morphy's time. There's no other way to view them. 

"Kieseritsky died a pauper so if he was a chess professional it really wasn't a great financial success. La Bourdonnais "died penniless in London in 1840, having been forced to sell all of his possessions, including his clothes, to satisfy his creditors." In what sense can we talk about people who were not sure where their next meal was coming from as professionals ?"

Steinitz lived a financially precarious life (remember: "Fame I have, now I need the money") and died broke too. I guess the same holds true for him.

Actually, the idea that a chess professional (which, btw, isn't limited to professional chess players, but chess authors and chess teachers are chess professional too) dies broke doesn't mean he wasn't successful in his time. Many, like Bourdonnais, Kieseritsky and even Steinitz died after suffering an illness and they didn't have insurance or retirement plans back then.

He was intelligent.  He was one of the best players ever, and arguably the very best.  And of course not everything he said was crazy or wrong, but I do disagree with some of his chess statements.

Beating any woman alive at knight odds was incorrect.  I think there were a few master level women at least, and knight odds to a master is more than enough to beat a world champ.

As for Morphy beating anyone alive in match play (did he really say that?).  Perhaps it was so obviously wrong, that no one needed to say anything.

But anyway, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.

"Kaufman has written that Kasparov could give pawn and move odds to a low grandmaster (2500 FIDE rating) and be slightly favored, and would have even chances at knight odds against a player with a FIDE rating of 2115"

So at their best, a world champ would hope for beating an expert at knight odds in match play.  It's speculative on both sides for sure, it's never been done... but I seriously doubt any 2200+ player having much trouble with knight odds vs a world champ.  The better you are, the more material is worth... a master giving knight odds to a class B player is no comparison.  Giving a master knight odds has got to be something like 800 rating points.

Also I did a bit of googling and found that Fischer specifically talked about beating Nona Gaprindashvili giving knight odds, but then backed down when they were willing to set up the match.  She was stronger than master, smart move on Bobby's part.

Oh, and less than a minute into that radio interview posted in this thread (post 83) Fischer comments on how past world champs (from the 19th century) wouldn't do well today against any top player because they would "have bad openings" part of his bit on how opening theory killed chess.  Maybe the quote you're thinking of is when Fischer said Morphy was the greatest?  I don't remember annoying about Morphy being able to win any match.

Please don't just believe this stuff simply on the defense that "well I never heard of anyone saying otherwise"

Here's some wiki stuff I found also
----------------------------------------------------------

In an interview with Ralph Ginzburg published in the January 1962 issue of Harper's Magazine, future World Champion Bobby Fischer was quoted as saying that he could successfully give knight odds to any woman in the world:^[50][51][52]

They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat.

Fischer later claimed that Ginzburg had distorted what he had said.^[53]There is no doubt that Fischer would have failed at such an endeavor.^[54] World Champion Emanuel Lasker had failed at such an endeavor in 1894, losing a match at knight odds to Jackson Showalter's wife; he scored two wins and five losses.^[55]

In 2001, London businessman Terence Chapman, a master-level player, played a match against former world champion Garry Kasparov with Kasparov giving odds of two pawns in each game (the pawns to be removed being different each time); Kasparov won the match by two games to one, with one draw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're still not convinced, like I said before, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I forgot this well known quote by the way... (how could I forget!?)

"Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is a knight!"  - Tal

The reason Spassky never played King's Gambit against Fischer after Mar Del Plata was that Fischer never again played 1. ...e5 against him. I think we might agree that playing the King's Gambit against the Sicilian would be a bit of a challenge.

I always had it as: Fischer is Fischer, but a horse is as horse.

Would be the same word in Russian.

Ah!

Notlesu, you need to spend some quality time with the "reasoning by analogy" concept. Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean he isn't making sense.

I wasn't directly talking about Morphy. It may be that Morphy made some money from chess, but he was from a rich family so he probably wouldn't have considered that a significant amount of money. There was also the issue of him / his family/ social milieu considering chess as a kind of gambling, and feeling a disgust toward making a living from it. Between it having been practically difficult to make a regular / significant income from chess, and it having been considered unacceptable in the higher social circles, I still find it hard believe that there were really chess professionals then. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nona_Gaprindashvili

In 1961, aged 20, Gaprindashvili won the fourth women's Candidates Tournament, setting up a title match against Russian world champion Elisabeth Bykova. She won the match easily, with a final score of 9-2 (+7−0=4)...

If Fischer's statement was made in 1962., the World's Women's Champion would already have been Gaprindashvili, not Bykova. 

I guess if you didn't understand in the first place I shouldn't expect you to get it after someone spells it out either   Not a problem, you can think whatever you want.

In fact it's so bad notlesu, it's one of those blurry lines between stupid and troll.  Although I'm willing to stay optimistic and think of you as willingly ignorant.

Computer analysis shows Morphy was master level. I found the analysis very convincing, and consider Morphy mostly as a hype.

As Notlesu pointed out, in this case correctly, Adolph Anderssen never married, so the story about Morphy "secretly returning the purse to Mrs. Anderssen" could not be true. But as a general point, I think you are right that Morphy detested the idea of being a professional chess player, and rejected such a career even if it was available.

You refuse to consider a distinction between making some money from an activity and being a professional in it. As for babbling, I must have followed your example. A person so convinced that they know everything, so fond of listening to themselves, and so devoid of debating culture is rarely encountered even on the Internet.

Partly there is a battle of sematics going on here.   Professional has more than one meaning.  When we talk about sports, a professonal (vs. an amature) is one that takes any kind of money for playing the sport.  Another meaning of professional is following a caree path.