I love how your only logical response was to one simply slip of the fingers.

1. I am in college.

2. I am around 1500. 

3. I am an expert in go. A game far more complex than chess will ever be.

I am of course hoping that you have looked at all of Morphy's games with the same insight that would have been used by Kasparov and Fischer and so on when they looked at them.  I understand that you will have analysed them extensively so as to not fall into the trap of repeating someone else's opinions unthinkingly.  I have been playing chess for 34 years now and Morphy is worth looking up to.  In my humble uninformed opinion.  He is not in my top 5 favourite players but I feel for him given the struggles he had in life and the way the world in general treated him.  Yes, Kasparov would beat him, but thats not whats going on in this thread.  What has been going on here is that you have been saying some wildly inaccurate stuff which is only serving to diminish the "Kasparov" side of this argument.  I also pointed out that you had claimed Morphy would be 1300 on chess.com...that is really the point you should have started retracting statements.

You seem to think that Morphy won all his games and won them in under 20 moves. That isn't the case as a simple Google search would reveal. Ah, but writers whose work is available on Google aren't credible ... Never mind (sigh)

Your only argument is that other players have called Moprhy great.

You aren't actually thinking for yourself. You are just repeating what the rest of the sheep have taken to heart.

A 1300 USCF with modern chess knowledge would be equal to Moprhy's level in the 1800's.

Please do show my inaccuracy. As I see it, my arguments are infallible when examined without popular view.

It's like arguing that Lucena or Greco are in the top ten.

He was great for his era, but his method of attack would not work against modern players. 

If I were as smart as you, I'd say you're a desperately lonely person who is seeking attention to stave off feelings of inadequacy and who enjoys getting a rise out of people because it adds drama to an otherwise humdrum life. But I'm not as smart as you so I will refrain from saying that. Oops!

Don't get upset because someone is not following popular opinion. 

I'm not into just accepting the the view of the world without my own thinking.

I'm not mindless like the rest here.

I also never said Morphy was a bad player. For his era he was the best.

In college and rated around 1500? Morphy graduated from law school and beat retroactively-rated 2600s with ease. Ah, but law school was so easy in the 1800s - like junior high school today - and the chess players back then were like today's beginners

1. College blows.

2. I normally play an even game against 1500's.

3. I have actually studied go. I doubt you are anywhere near 20 kyu.

You said Morphy would be rated 1300 on this site. That is a bad player

"No, I said that Morphy, in his 19th century form, would be an average player."

That would hardly be the case.  While playing with such limitations would put Morphy at a serious disadvantage at a professional level, players like yourself he would mop up blindfolded while sipping on water discussing French literature.

Does so-called challenging a popular opinion in itself show insight??  While, indeed there is a certain myth surrounding Morphy - even PW Sergeant noted that back in 1916 - there is much clarity too. The "brain-dead zombies," if that's the case of people who admire Morphy for what he was and appreciate his legacy of games against the great talents of his era, include Steinitz, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Reti, Soltis, Edouard Lasker, Em. Lasker, the great Alekhine, Smyslov, Euwe, Fischer and Kasparov himself.

Kasparov would have beaten Fischer, who would have beaten Capablanca, who would have beaten Morphy, who would have beaten a modern 2200, who would have beaten a modern 1800 who would have beaten a modern 1600 who would have beaten you. Now THAT's the best trolling I can do, I am too tired for this nonsense.

Yes, you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary and so you can appear pseudo-intelligent. Not surprised you're in college - only someone so young and inexperienced in life would be so arrogant to dismiss the evaluations of the best chess players of the modern era. Sorry, but I'm through being a balm for your loneliness. Call up a friend from high school and go somewhere. You'll feel better

Fischer was at the same level as Kasparov. 

That is trolling. 

Try to actually be logical.

If you examine the games of Fischer with an engine he tends to make the recommended moves. 

You must have suffered in school.

I never claimed to be 20 kyu. I said I doubt you are anywhere near 20 kyu.

Do you suffer from autism?

But my friend, I was being logical - I decided to use your logic about players of the past being weaker than players of the present as they had less theory to use!  And Kasparov's workrate was way better than Fischer's.  His analysis, if you actually go over it, was dazzling.  Read his articles.  Play his games.  Fischer IS also one of my top 5 favourites (one of the best, yes, but not for that reason) but he also would have gotten beaten by Big K.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=182832158398382   Her's a little bit on Morphy for all the idiots who think he would play like a 1400 player if he was around today.

In Dr. Brady's "Chessworld" magazine, Jan.-Feb. 1964, Fischer wrote:
"Paul Morphy:
Perhaps the most accurate player who ever lived, he would beat anybody today in a set-match. He had complete sight of the board and seldom blundered even though he moved quite rapidly. I've played over hundreds of his games and am continually surprised and entertained by his ingenuity."

Fischer probably overstated his case, but as any follower of Fischer would tell you, when it came to anything about chess (although perhaps not with anything else), he was brutally honest and fair. So, overstated or not, Fischer wasn't clouded by myth or mystique, and saw Morphy through very laser-intense eyes.

"Fischer was at the same level as Kasparov.
That is trolling.
Try to actually be logical."

It's eminently logical to trace a sequence of relative connectivity. To call it any but logical is irratiional.

Ye are RONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!