Paul Morphy is the greatest player of all time.

No doubt Morphy was just great, but how you can tell "greatest player of all time" when all his recorded games are against mediocre players (at best) or plain woodpushers (at worst)?

IM pfren we have just said its NOT THE COMPETITION that defines him. It's the accuracy of his moves and beautifully he ends games. It's the ideas and tactics that he had when chess had no theory

I don't think it's very difficult to play precise moves if the opponent makes it as easy as the guy in the game posted above. Sure, Morphy was ahead of his time and everything. And I can see why some people why many find his games aesthetically pleasing. But comparing his playing strenght to modern grandmasters is still like comparing Björn Borg to Roger Federer. (In fact not even that.) He was a great of his time.

And the opinion of jew-hating and russian-hating psycho Bobby Fischer is certainly interesting, but only under psychiatric aspects.

I don't agree. I think it is difficult to play engine moves against low rated players. Dont forget you can only do your best to beat the man in front of you and Paul Morphy played almost perfectly to beat his opponents. Just because there weren't any Kasparov's or capablancas or Fischer's at his time doesn't make him any less of a player.

Really? My impression is that it takes two to tango.

Maybe it's less difficult for better players than you. I personally find it strange to be awed to such an extend by someone pounding weak players, when you have a Kasparov doing the same thing to the world elite for about 25 years.

Kasparov was amazing no doubt one of the greatest players ever but he got there with a Russian team of grandmasters behind him. Once again remember he had the help of a coach when he was young he had a lot of theory books and opening lines. Morphy had none of this help.

Well, take as example "The Opera Game".

- Black managed to play no less than three very bad moves within the first seven. What are the odds for any semi-decent modern player doing the same?

- The game became immortal because Morphy missed 8.Bxf7+ Qxf7 9.Qxb7, which ends the game in a pedestrian way. Or he may not have missed it, and he was just playing carelessly, as he knew that he was more probable being hit by a meteorite than losing to that woodpusher.

Do you know in how many Morphy games the very same scenario is repeated?

And sure, Morphy's games are more pleasant to most than Kasparov's:

Even very strong players have certain difficulties understanding quite a few of Garrik's moves. Russian GM Evgeny Bareev has said "when playing against Kasparov, you realize that his pieces are moving in a different way".

Yeh but once again your missing the point. No one is doubting Kasparov's ability. With Kasparov and the rest of the GM's nowadays there is nature and nurture present. They were coached and groomed to play chess at a very high level. Morphy was just nature! It's just pure ability. Why are there so many nms and GM's and ims nowadays. So many. Because of coaching and the internet and books. How did Morphy play such brilliant accurate moves, many of them blindfolded after learning the game from watching his dad and uncle play chess. Could you respond to the 'bad moves' of Morphy's opponents with the accuracy of Morphy with any help from coaches or theory or any help?

@FMRumo75, u think Anderssen whom Morphy crushed like peanuts was a player of 1300-1400 strength? Impressive.

smithmike wrote:

Yeh but once again your missing the point. No one is doubting Kasparov's ability. With Kasparov and the rest of the GM's nowadays there is nature and nurture present. They were coached and groomed to play chess at a very high level. Morphy was just nature! It's just pure ability. Why are there so many nms and GM's and ims nowadays. So many. Because of coaching and the internet and books. How did Morphy play such brilliant accurate moves, many of them blindfolded after learning the game from watching his dad and uncle play chess. Could you respond to the 'bad moves' of Morphy's opponents with the accuracy of Morphy with any help from coaches or theory or any help?

Definitely!

After 100 years, when the chess theory will be at its peak, people will say even Kasparov wasn't strong enough. And the mere fact that theory wasn't developed, but that didn't affect his quality of play makes him "THE GREATEST"

WHEN FISCHER SAID, MORPHY CAN DEFEAT ANYONE IN A FIXED MATCH TODAY, HE MEANT IT.

Bobby Fischer was amazing for sure. One of my favourites. But even he spent his childhood absorbing and memorizing 100s of chess books at the new York chess club. Watch his bio. Would bobby Fischer have been so good if he had been stuck with the chess set his sister bought him? Definitely not. And the same goes with anand Kasparov carlsen. All have immense ability but are only at a high level because of coaching and theory. How did Morphy get so good? God knows

Dick Cavette asked Bobby Fisher in 1971 "is chess a gift", Bobby's response was quick, and to the point.  It's on the video @2:14
Did Morphy have a 'gift', you damn right he did.  And if he hadda had the databases and communication we have today, he'da probably been one of the best.
Is he the all time GOAT though?(as far as just flat out skill and power?) Not IMO. But, he was the greatest of his time, by far. 

And I thought the Capablanca fans were crazy! :)

The thread opening game was against Anderssen? Now that would be a surprise. Of course Morphy was great for his time, but any modern grandmaster would of course beat him like a drum. Which means no disrespect to Murphy, I suppose he became about as good as it was possible at his time.

As theory develops chess players will always get stronger and be able to beat players 50 years previously. When considering the GOAT its hard but you got to imagine what players like Morphy and capa would have been like if they had today's resources and theory. Could B Fischer beat carlsen in 10 years time. No. The world champ in 50 years time could put a beat down on Kasparov easily. Chess players are always getting better with the forever improving theory out there. But raw talent and pure ability undoubtedly Morphy is king

Stop trolling, it has become obvious you're a troll, and it would be VERY easy to test your 10 games to see if you used an engine.  So stop trolling, it's ugly, and I don't wanna see it.

All we gotta do is run a few of your games using a few engines, and that = ban.  But, I'm sure you already know that.

There's also a thing called trolling.  

It's interesting how chess can have some sort of religious impact on people. There are Alapin believers, Morphy believers. How you "undoubtedly" know that someone is more talented then others, when they lived in completely different eras, under completely different conditions? Noone knows "undoubtedly" how strong Karpov, Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik or Carlsen would have become in Morphy's shoes.

Anyway, the thread opener's thesis was that Morphy's playing strenght back then would have been good enough to beat the world's best players today. It seems like at least you agree that this is about as likely as Björn Borg winning Wimbledon 2016 with his wooden racket.