Carlsen vs Morphy

Who would win?

Chess has improved tremendously since the 1800s. Nearly two centuries of theory and positional knowledge later, modern GMs are stronger than Morphy by a long shot.

A modern Magnus would have no problems dispatching the resourceful Paul.

But in his era, Morphy was easily the strongest player on the planet. He intuitively grasped the game at a level that the rest of the world wasn't yet ready for.

Didn't Paul Morphy retire early? Like in his mid 20's? Then he became a lawyer? Morphy played chess as a hobby and was STILL considered the best in the world at his time. In my opinion, if Morphy was born later, taken chess more seriously, and studied theory, chess engines, and modern chess games, he would have defeated Carlsen...

Paul Morphy's chess career is almost equivalent to Muhammad Ali retiring from boxing at age 25, becoming a doctor, and then still regarded as one of the best boxers who ever lived. Maybe even equivalent to Michael Jordan retiring at age 25, then later becomes an astronaut, and then still regarded as one of the best basketball player ever.

definitely Magnus, let's take it from another perspective, compare 1950s soccer with soccer now, if you search on youtube some 1950s soccer matches , you will see a huuuuuuge difference in everthing. soccer players from past being slighty weaker, and that's only 70 years difference. how about 150 years? when morphy played, in a sport like chess, where theory evolves quickly day to day much faster than a sport like soccer. of course if you can see how "bad" soccer players were 70 years ago, imagine how weaker chess players were 150 years ago. because every sport evolve, like species, but much faster. i mean of course magnus will stand no chance to best chess player from lets say 2100. even Bobby Fischer said that Morphy would lose even to masters , because of the evolution of the theory. so Magnus will crush Morphy exactly like Real Madrid from now would crush Real Madrid from 50s.

Paul Morphy's chess career is like an amateur golfer who plays competitive golf as a hobby and beats everybody, only to retire at age 22, and then being compared to Tiger Woods.

In a Carlsen vs Morphy fight, I don't think Morphy would keep up with his frail body. However, since Morphy is a gentleman, Carlsen wouldn't try to harm him either. But, if we can train Morphy with good martial arts and other fighting methods, Carlsen doesn’t stand a chance. 

     The fact that Morphy so completely outclassed every other player in the world in his time means he understood more about the game than had been cumulatively learned by all  previous players combined. That he did so well without ever studying chess or even taking it seriously indicates he most certainly could have played at an even higher level if he had access to today's accumulated knowledge and had to face stronger competition. No one alive in his time could seriously challenge him so he was never pushed to play his best possible chess.

     Naturally, any of todays' very top players could beat any champion of the distant past because they have had better teaching, more resources, tougher competition, and have studied their predecessors' games, all pushing them to a higher level of play. But I believe that given a year or two to absorb the chess knowledge accumulated since their time, and a handful of top tournaments to sharpen up their play, any of the past greatest players--Morphy, Tarrasch, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tal, Fischer and other similarly-strong players--would soon be able to seriously challenge for the World Championship.

     Of all the past players Morphy is probably the one that could achieve the best results when we consider that he never worked at the game or took it seriously. He had so much room for improvement.

^ THIS

 Comparing Carlsen vs Morphy would be comparing Deep Blue Chess Engine of 1997 vs AlphaZero 2021. If Morphy was born later, didn't retire in his 20's, studied theory and modern chess games, and taken chess more seriously, he would have defeated Carlsen in my opinion.

Also sometimes Paul Morphy's games was played with only 1 rook, a huge disadvantage, and yet he was still beating top players at his time.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgCvsvb6rC4&t

Nikki--

     I'm sure many of today's GMs could play a paltry six simultaneous blindfold games without losing, even against reasonably good players. IM George Koltanowski, long-time San Francisco Chronicle chess columnist, former champion of Belgium, ubiquitous Bay Area chess guru, played 34 simultaneous blindfold games in Scotland (including several strong local players), winning 24 and drawing 10. Later, at age 57, he played 56 simultaneous blindfold games in San Francisco, winning 50, drawing 6. It seems that with a little practice most strong GMs could play a dozen or more.

The hard part about evaluating Morphy's moves, in relation to engine accuracy, is that he often chose "crowd-pleasing" moves, in lieu of more accurate ones.

Such was the era of chess that he lived in.

A quiet, accurate continuation, even if seen, would be frowned upon in those days. You'd be almost obligated to play something else, even if you knew it to be less sound, as long as it created more opportunity for fireworks on the board.

So we can't really analyze Morphy's moves based on engine accuracy, and get a fair assessment of his playing strength.

I think Kasparov's assessment (of Morphy being grandmaster strength) is likely more accurate than the CAPS score. Kasparov could tell, from analyzing Morphy's games, that Paul understood the game at a GM level.

Still, Carlsen would walk all over peak Morphy.

(Though, to be fair, were Carlsen to be born in Morphy's time, Magnus would get stomped to dust by Morphy, like everybody else Paul faced. History has already shown that Morphy had no equal, in his day. So it goes both ways.)