Kasparov would walk in with his most dangerous weapon -- an opening repetoire unmatched by anybody anywhere in the world.  Morphy would be handicapped with opening theory which is 140 years out-of-date, playing lines which have not been sharpened through decades of practical master play. Kasparov would dominate.

(If we are talking about chess960 however, Gary may just have that smug smile wiped off his face.....)

You might find this posting interesting - My Conversation with Steinitz.

Harold Phillips, once president of the USCF (in the 1950s) recounts a conversation he had with Steinitz around 1896. Steinitz touches on Morphy.

If Morphy is to play with Kasparov instantly today surely Kasparov will win the game.  The following reasons are:

1.  Kasparov knows more about Morphy style and tactics;                         2.  Morphy has to do a lot of learning Kasparov's ways;                                                           

This is a silly question, Morphy would be over 150 years old, and age would have taken its toll.  Korchnoi may have been GM level into his 80s but I think it would get increasingly hard after your 120th birthday.  The young Kasparov would take this match easily.

(btw love batgirl's comments).

Morphy in his 19th century form would lose.

Morphy with the same knowledge as Kasparov would play at the same level as Kasparov.

That's not counting the nature and nurture debate.

What is the situs?  Starbucks?  Garry could get into trouble...Morphy could "morph" and bring it on...the jury is out...I think one of the Polgar sisters could kick both of them....I just like girls.

I've always thought both Fischer's 1964 list and arguments sounded as if he was very much of a chess romantic. That Morphy would beat anyone more than 100 years after the Anderssen match is quite an extreme statement. I don't think any top player today would agree with the assessment that Morphy of 1859 would have beaten Tal of 1959.

Fischer's top five are all players that peaked in the 19th century, but there's no place for Lasker in the top ten. Tarrasch and Chigorin are ranked far ahead of him. Also Reshevsky is ranked ahead of Lasker (and ahead of Botvinnik as well, in spite of Botvinnik's certainly being the strongest player of the last 30 years in 1964 if one had to pick one single player for that position).

Philidor is rarely mentioned in this type of threads, but just like Morphy he was in a class of his own in his time. I think Soltis wrote approximately that Philidor was 200 points stronger than anyone else for a period of 50 years, or something like that.

fabelhaft,

I would go along pretty much with your assessment. Fischer did overstate his case, but I think the point he was really trying to bring out was that Morphy had, in 1860, all the qualities, in superabundance, that one would need today to be a strong master.  I also agree that Fischer tended to admire Romantic players and players he liked.  But, on the other hand, Fischer did understand chess and had played through 100s of games of all the mentioned masters.  So, it seems there might have been a mixture of cold analytical evaluation with some personal preference,  Romantic choices.

A Morphy may give anyone currently living a good game, and may have all the qualities, other than perseverence, to become great even today, but the Morphy of 1860 lacked the time-tested theory, the  training, the knowledge and the experience to compete seriously with today's masters. However, at skittles, he might be a blast.

Philidor's another bird altogether.  The problem with trying to evaluate Philidor is that we don't have any of his games other than a handful played later in life (68 games from his last 8 years) and that his chess was limited to the Cafe de la Regence and exhibitions in London. His book, "l'Analyse," while THE best seller for 50 years, criticized as well as praised by contemporaries, contained some nonesense as well as originality and a hint of looking at chess from a positional standpoint, for instance:
"You are to observe, that when your Bishop runs upon the white squares, you must put your Pawns upon the black ones; or, if your Bishop runs upon the black, you must have your Pawns upon the white because, then, your Bishop may prevent the adversary's pieces getting between your Pawns. This rule is hardly ever to be dispensed with, in case you attack, and have some Pawns advanced; but, in case of a defence, the rule must be reversed, and the Pawns set upon the Bishop's colour."
Philidor never played the Italians, Lolli, Ponziani or del Rio, and his disciples Bernard, Leger, Carlier, Garnier and Verdoni, considered to be second (P or P&move) behind Philidor, were easily swept away by Deshapelles who arrived on the scene right after Phildor, totally uneducated in chess.
Philidor was definitely great, innovative and important to the development of chess.  Morphy, on the other hand, added little to theory, but much to style and the way chess must be looked at in the future and really influenced modern chess far more than Philidor, not for anything he said or wrote, but through the efforts of later players to understand why Morphy was so invincible, leading to deeper understanding of chess.  Morphy was also the first real "world champion," in that he played, or made himself available to play, the best players of most of the countries where chess was advanced.

4)  And you behave like a punk-ass Troll, unfortunately.  

So get a life outside these nutty forums.  Maybe you will learn a little integrity.

Then return here with an improved character.  One hopes. 

High hopes.

"Go"?  I never reached that one.  I always get sent to jail and told not to pass it.

High Ho Silver, Away...

Who was that masked man, who "doesn't count the nature and nuture debate?"  @Yereslov, of course.

Well, BG, you said a lot.  From what I understand, Bobby did have a romantic side to him, but you have to remember, he was a cold blooded killer.  Your observation that Fischer understood chess is very intelligent.  Of course Morphy was great, however, he did not have the advantage of deep blue or Fritz.     That is what makes these masters such great masters….they did it without computers.  Look at the Saavedra position from ROOK ENDINGS by Gigory Levenfish and Vasily Smyilov.  Then you will understand.

Garry would start the clock and wait for Morphy to make his move. When he still hasn't moved for a few minutes, Garry would realise he was dead.

Batman has a kryptonite ring, learned that on reddit the other day.

Fischer would beat them both.

Nah, he gave it to chess.com's Batgirl so she'd go steady with him.

Morphy is only likeable from a fictional point of view. As I watch his games, I can spot several blunders in the opening alone. 

It's as if I can predict his moves five or six moves ahead.

Are you still trying to troll a dead guy?  Give it up.

You do realize that a blunder does not result in mate, right?

It just leads to a bad position.