Which proves what? Morphy's superiority! Run Morphy's games through a chess engine. If he simply made fewer blunders than his "weakling" opponents, you have a point. If he capitalized on his opponent's errors and blundered infrequently, your point isn't that solid

I've done that before. The computer gives 5.00- for his opponent instantly before they lose. 

Morphy plays his best moves against glaring errors. Kasparov plays his best moves in complicated position when he build his advantage slowly in a matter of a few moves.

I find that far more realistic. Players who study Morphy's games start to expect a brilliant attack within a matter of seconds, players who study Kasparov think more subtlety and prepare an attack in a much more strategic way.

Romantic chess is just a fossil of chess history. It does not belong in modern competition.

Oh dear boy, I am not beginning to deny that Kasparov, one of my favourite players and the only one I have travelled to watch, is amazing.  I agree partly that Morphy is not in the same league as him.  But you said Morphy would be 1300 on chess.com?  Morphy had an exceptional talent for calculation and was the very pinnacle of the chess world.  A 1300 picks up chesspieces and chews them, metaphorically.  That is overly insulting to the memory of someone who inspired people around the world to take up the game with his dazzling insights.

Arpad Elo, inventor of the Elo chess rating system, estimated that Anderssen was the first chess player to break 2600. The fact that Morphy beat him "95 percent of the time" says it all

No, I said that Morphy, in his 19th century form, would be an average player simply because of the fact that players on this site have had access to modern opening theory. Most of his wins consist of obvious blunders in the opening. Morphy never did play decent games in the middle game.

So I'm a 2600 by that logic. Great thinking.

You must discount the sacrificial attacking style of Nezhmetdinov and Tal as well, along with Alekhine too

You're not 2600 because the rating's based on competition of the time

"Weak" competition. 

I guess you're right and Fischer, Kasparov and all the other super GMs are wrong. You could probably beat Morphy too.

In the 1800's with enough practice I could be the next Moprhy.

Morphy was the first modern player. There is no doubt that he was the best of his time and revolutionized chess, but he is nowhere near the top ten or even the top one hundred.

His modern approach was new for that time and won him many games, but today that is considered average play.

Chess brilliances of that era are considered common play today.

probably blindfold.

All other Super GM's are just repeating the romanticized myth.

Following popular opinion makes you pretty much a brain-dead zombie.

Anderssen was weak? Have you heard of the Immortal and Evergreen games? Games that have stood the test of time and are ranked by Andy Soltis as among the best in the history of chess

That is nowhere near the top ten. Games by Tal and Keres impress me far more.

"The Polish Immortal" is far more impressive. 

The "Evergreen Game" is just a basic win against a really bad blunder.

Agree - you're the one with the true insight. I'm sure you could beat Morphy given that he'd be rated 1300 today. You could probably beat Alekhine too what with his obvious and crude kingside attacks. Do you give chess lessons? I want to learn from the best!

Yes, Andy Soltis and John Nunn are such fools to admire those games. Surely your games belong in their anthologies of the world's greatest chess games!

Alekhine had tough competition.He didn't just sit down and slaughter Capablanca. It was an intense battle that lasted several moves way beyond the opening.

Morphy was just basically playing against opponent who should have resigned immediately but chose to play on.

What a pity, a cruel twist of fate, that you weren't born in the 1830s so you could beat Morphy and dominate everyone in chess! But wait ... then there'd be a troll in 2012 who would say you're a patzer!

How can you call a chess game great when it consists of amateurish blunders move by move?

He didn't even play the best move in most of his games.