Was Paul Morphy the best open game player?

Who do you think was the best 1.e4 player? Fischer? Morphy? Tal?

Who was or is the best 1..e5 open game player? Morphy? 

yes paul morphy was god. he was the best chess player the world has ever known or ever will know and was undoubtedly the best in all phases of the game, in all types of positions. 

Paul Morphy was only the best of his time when there were a lot fewer very good chess players. But there has to be many players today who are even better in the open game then Morphy was in his day.

Theory and quality of play will advance...

Morphy's dominance was due to the fact that he had an eidetic memory. Like a computer, he could run through multiple lines in his head at a glance, and visualize all the possible outcomes without extensive conscious thought. This was where his wild tactics came from.

He was basically of a demonstration of what happens when a genius plays chess.

He then went on to memorize volumes of law texts, though for him that wasn't hard either, he simply glanced at the pages and they were committed to visual memory.

There's an interesting biography of Morphy written by a man who travelled with Morphy and witnessed his matches and feats. Fun read for those who are Morphy fans. I recommend it. *thumbs up*

Interesting.

Morphy taught generations of players how to play the game. When he could get an open position, he was as dangerous as an average modern Grandmaster. Not more dangerous, as dangerous.

That's really quite a feat, considering how long ago he lived. But today's elite GMs are far better, even in open positions, than Morphy ever was. Just a quick glance at the games of Carlsen, Anand, Aronian, Vachier-Lagrave, Nakamura...  any of the top 100 players, will show that chess has progressed a great deal in the last 150 years or so.

Regarding Fischer: Fischer's great strength was his ability to come up with simple plans in complex positions. He was amazingly skillful, and better than Morphy in open positions. But that wasn't really his strength.

Tal's great strength lay in amazing attacks from seemingly quiet positions. He was far better than either Morphy or Fischer in open positions and was perhaps the greatest attacker in open positions until Kasparov and Carlsen.

Here is a game of Tal's to demonstrate his amazing mastery of an open position. This sac would never have been played by Morphy because he couldn't have seen the conclusion. Tal didnt' either, but he trusted in the dynamic potential of his game.  That is one thing that even Morphy did not fully appreciate. Dynamism is a much more modern idea.

I am not sure if your post got deleted, but your game history shows you letting time run out on 30-0 games and other games where you are lost. Very poor showing there.

Morphy was far more dangerous than today's average GM.

As said by the great Bobby Fischer himself:

"A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today."

He included himself in that analysis of players that Morphy would beat. And Fischer studied Morphy's moves extensively. He saw the genius in them.

No, this is utterly wrong. The period you describe ended already before Philidor. At Morphy's time, opening theory was considerably developed by authors like Jaenisch, Lewis, v. d. Lasa, and Staunton. Morphy himself was well-known for his excellent knowledge of contemporary opening theory.

I don't play 1...e5 but Morphy was the best of his time.  The only other person in those days that could have been a match for him was Steinitz. 

Take a look at this incredible game played by Kasparov as Black. Morphy never played anything approaching this game in terms of complexity. Brilliance is a bit subjective, but I'll take this over any of Morphy's brilliancies, and this may not even rate as one of Kasparov's 100 best games!

Was paul morphy the best open game player? In his time ...YES!. But in todays generation where defense now plays an important role than risky bravados, im not that sure.

Amazing vision from Kasparov.

And here's a rapid game Kasparov played against Morozevich. If the game had been played by Morphy or any player before 1920, it would have gone down as one of the great games. Instead, it's barely even remembered.

Bxe4 was a great move. The rest were standard Najdorf Scheveningen moves. :) RxNc3 is one of the first things Najdorf Scheveningen players learn to look for. :D

Not saying that Kasparov wasn't a great player--one of, if not, the best. But I think that game pales in comparison to, say, one of Morphy's:

And for fun, here's a short story of what happened the day Kasparov played against Morphy (Hint, a rook sac is involved).

http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Kislingbury.html

Its pretty common for older-fans in every sport to think our era is worse than past-eras, most of these people just can't adapt to change, its tiresome.

Henry Edward Bird (2100) vs. Paul Morphy (3000).

Looks like Bird played a little panicky in the end. Not sure that would have beat Kasparov who is very good at eeking out draws from lost positions.

Carleson's the best.