I think kasparv ..will defeat morphy.

I think their time machines would collide in 1925, possibly injuring Capablanca.

Kasparov would beat anyone pre 1960s.

Kasparov would win X games, where X is the number of games they played.

Kasparov would have annihilated Morphy, not to diminish Paul's natural talent and amazing memory (I think he had the entire set of law books memorised or something) but he never faced the same level of competition nor learned from experts or their works. Morphy was born into a void, Kasparov was born into the most competitive, intense chess environment ever.

Well, Kasparov accumulates the knowledge of past and present, while Morphy the knowledge of early chess theory!

Logically, Kasparov is winner!!!

If you just pulled Morphy from the 1800's to play against Kasparov of like 1999, Morphy would lose horribly.  But this is unfair to do because every player gets to learn off of players of the past.  It is pretty clear based on Morphy's record and games that he was far ahead of his time, and this is the proper way to measure a persons playing ability.  Morphy in the 1800's was far better against his peers than Kasparov of 1999 was against his peers

Give Paul Morphy a copy of Fundamental Chess Endings, Modern Chess Openings, and Pawn Structure Chess (for some light reading), one year to study them, and I think he would have a very good chance. 

Remember that Morphy and Philidor were the best not only of their time, but by far the best out of centuries of players. Kasparov can't make that claim, since one could easily argue that what Fischer did back in the 60s and 70s, was better chess than Kasparov ever played. Carlsen is still very young, and he could yet start to dominate like Kasparov did. Morphy on the other hand, and Philidor in particular, had noone either before or after them that even came close. There was Howard Staunton I suppose.  

Morphy chess is very romantic!

Kasparov chess is Technical, Professional!!

Morphy will play Giuoco Piano, King Gambit

Kasparov play Grunfeld, Sicilian Najdorf, King Indian, Nimzoindian, Catalan, Benoni, Benko Gambit, Ruy Lopez, etc.

"Morphy chess is very romantic!" - Yeah and if he buys Kasparov flowers, he might let him win one...

Hardly, the difference between the chess of the 1850s and 2000s isn't just three books big.

Centainly fabelhaft! You are correct!

LOL!

Morphy would be absolutely murdered as the knowledge of chess has increased so much.

Even the average  IM would beat him.

Of course, it is an unfair question.

It's a completely unfair question. Any strong master would beat Morphy. It has nothing to do with talent or greatness; all of Morphy's brilliant insights are now the common property of any strong master, along with the newer insights by Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnink, Fischer, etc. 

Now if Paul Morphy were to be born into a chess-loving family in 1980, he would probably be one of the greatest players in the world today, but that's not the question.

Kasparov wins hands down

I don't think most opening variations, particularly the Indian defenses, were even around in Morphy's time. If it was a timed game, Kasparov would crush him even worse than if it were a correspondence game without computer or book assistance

Do you mean Morphy being magically transported to the present infused with all the benefits and knowledge Kasparov enjoys or Kasparov magically transported to the past will all those advantages and that knowledge  stripped away??

The two big Ks worked hard to obtain knowledge others do not have--Morphy would have to be able to do this and even with all the modern advantages he could not do this as well as the two big Ks.

Morphy was best in a world with little chess knowledge--how well he could accumulate todays knowledge is unknown but it stands to reason he could not accumulate such knowledge as well as the best in the world now.

What does it take to acquire knowledge?