what would be the result if morphy had played up against kasparov?

Despite your best efforts Yereslov I won't even open that bag of snakes.  I agree with the people who say you're asking for it and was considering joining the debate.  In my opinion it would be wise of you to count your blessings for the fact that Batgirl decided you deserve some protection.  It seems her words carry more weight than you could lift with a crane.  Of course this isn't what I expect you to do.  I expect you will take her words as wind under your wings, similar to the guys who act tough because they happen to be accompanied by a friend who is rumored to be the most dangerous man within a hundred leagues. 

Eh, why bother with idiots such as yourself? I'll save myself the stress.

Smart move.

Yereslov asks " Can you name one decent player Morphy played against?"

It is true that Morphy's competition wasn't as strong as other champions but  Adolph Anderssen, Daniel Haarwitz, Louis Paulsen, and Thomas Barnes were certainly decent players. 

But this statement is absurd "Morphy is an average player by today's standards." Im above average statistically (2100 USCF and FIDE) and in my wildest dreams I couldn't imagine playing as well as Morphy.

What is amazing about Morphy is he reached his level with virtually no help. To compare players like Greco and Lucena with Morphy shows a poor understanding of chess history. Morphy's chess abilities were way ahead of their time. And he didn't learn from computers or coaches. That he didn't have good competition upon which to 'cut his teeth' makes his accomplishments more impressive because the best way to learn is from playing stronger players. 

Lucena and Greco were the same way. They dominated everyone in their way.

Lucena especially was years ahead of his opponents in chess knowledge.

The comparison is valid.

I have seen more brilliant games from 2300-2500 FIDE rated players.

He might reach that level today, but I honestly doubt he would get any higher.

No opponent in this day and age would make the kind of blunders made by  his opponents with modern chess knowledge.

Yereslov (1300 Chess.com) writes

"No opponent in this day and age would make the kind of blunders made by  his opponents with modern chess knowledge."

Why don't you examine the game GM Gordan - GM Gones from the British championship which concluded 3 days ago. GM Jones blunders his queen and goes on to WIN the game after further blunders from GM Gordan. Everyone blunders, even if they get good with "modern chess knowledge". 

http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/malcolmpein/jones-inflicts-painful-defeat-on-gordon-in-british-championship-playoff 

Lucena and Greco are mainly remembered for this analysis. People aren't even sure if the games Greco played were against real people or analysis. It is ridiculous to compare them with Morphy. 

I've never been 2300 FIDE but have been over 2200 FIDE and I am certain that I am much further than 100 points away from Morphy's strength. The man played incredible chess.

This is genius -

[Event "London"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Henry Edward Bird"]
[Black "Paul Morphy"]
[ECO "C41"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "58"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Ng3 e4 7.Ne5
Nf6 8.Bg5 Bd6 9.Nh5 O-O 10.Qd2 Qe8 11.g4 Nxg4 12.Nxg4 Qxh5
13.Ne5 Nc6 14.Be2 Qh3 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Be3 Rb8 17.O-O-O Rxf2
18.Bxf2 Qa3 19.c3 Qxa2 20.b4 Qa1+ 21.Kc2 Qa4+ 22.Kb2 Bxb4
23.cxb4 Rxb4+ 24.Qxb4 Qxb4+ 25.Kc2 e3 26.Bxe3 Bf5+ 27.Rd3 Qc4+ 

28.Kd2 Qa2+ 29.Kd1 Qb1+ 0-1 

What was the name of that 2700+ player that blundered a rook away against Nakamura at Biel recently ?

hundreds more examples may be cited.

the darling of chess.com staff strikes again, they must love this nut!

That was GM Bacrot - Donjuan_demarco.

It is not enough to be a good player, one must also play well - Tarrasch. 

If I had to guess 2400 FIDE would be Morphy's strength today. Maybe a little stronger or weaker - it is nearly impossible to say. But this is if we give him the unusual limitation of being unable to catch up on theory. 

Working with a decent chess coach, using a computer database and a computer program, having a few warmup matches he would progress right back to the top of the world rankings. Who knows, maybe #1. 

That his natural talent allowed him to understand chess so well without these tools, it is staggering to consider how far he would go with them.  

The moves are not as technical or precise as those of Kasparov. They are immediate wins. Most GM's would resign knowing that the position is a loss.

Yereslov (1300 Chess.com) wrote "The moves are not as technical or precise as those of Kasparov. They are immediate wins. Most GM's would resign knowing that the position is a loss."

So on the one hand the moves are not precise but on the other hand they are immediate wins? Isn't a move that is an immediate win precise?

Most GMs would not have resigned before the final position in Bird - Morphy. The quality of a game shouldn't be decided by when his opponent chooses to resign. I have in no way claimed that Morphy is as strong as Kasparov.  

Looking closer at your profile Yereslov, I see you are a child. That explains the comments. Good luck on your quest to learn about chess - it is a wonderful game. Study the old time greats and you will improve dramatically. Kasparov is definitly too advanced for you to start with at this point of your journey in chess. 

I'm going to turn off tracking of this thread. 

You mean people actually track this ? 

I just call in every few days in case there are any decent pictures...

it's accurate, but not precise.

Intellectually and mentally I am far above you.

You are the child here.

I have already watched the games of Kasparov and it doesn't take GM level understanding to know what a great move looks like. 

Now, Morphy was a great player, but he is thrash compared to current and previous 19th and 20th  century talent.

I could understand Lasker or even Steinitz, but Morphy?

Please...

There is no use in learning from games that have a blunder right from the opening.

And these blunders aren't even subtle. They are obvious.

It's something even a lowly IM could spot.

Now can we close this thread and chat about someone decent?

Actually it's not even close. You're right. I'm just far too above him.

Yes it does. It's the same argument you presented.

You certainly do have your head in the clouds.....

Yeres, your nano engine must have changed and mutate your way of thinking. Be discreet and be keen in your statements. Your engine must have controlled your way of thinking and you are not aware of it. Don't be too close to the edge.

One must not be carried away by a man made engine. One of this days yours will be obsolete, another system will overtake it's ways.  Better be human and develop your intelligence in a normal way. Humans are not perfect but it is becoming. Too much reliance on this nano engine stuff makes you dull and non creative. Your objectives seems right but the path of your choice of direction will lead you away from the right way. The people you are arguing with based on their stats are higher than yours, surely they play chess better than yourself. With these data, I can say their statements must be better than yours.

Engines are superior to human players. It's very simple.

To keep claiming otherwise is just as escape from reality.