Paul Morphy is the greatest player of all time.

Morphy made a challenge to face any New York player (with Thompson specifically in mind) to a match with pawn+move odds.

"I see fit to challenge any New York players to a match at a pawn and move. ... Do not, however, infer that there exists the smallest degree of ill feelings between myself and most of the New York players. The truth is my challenge is directed solely to Thompson who possesses no small amount of chess vanity." — Morphy

Eventually, Thompson agreed to play Morphy with knight odds. Even missing a knight from the opening in every game, Morphy won the match. :)

Also, from Encyclopedia Brittanica: "He returned to the United States in 1859 and issued a challenge, offering to face any player in the world at odds of pawn and move (where Morphy would play Black, thus giving up the first move, and would play minus one pawn). When there was no response, Morphy abandoned his public chess career."

I agree.

Morphy was playing at a master level without the help of any engines or decent theory.

In my opinion, most of today's players would struggle to match Morphy's level of play, if you took away all the training and study they've done using engines and modern theory.

Which isn't a knock against today's players, or a knock against chess study. Both have advanced greatly over the years. Today, players are stronger than ever.

But it does show how strong a chess mind Morphy was, considering he was playing intuitively at a level that today's players generally spend years studying and practicing, with computer assistance, to reach.

Combine his intuition with a chess engine for him to study with? He'd be a monster to face over the board.

As far as books go, I'm making the assumption that Paul had access to any chess book in New Orleans--not just his father's or his uncle's library, but Rousseau's as well as others.  I'm sure that if Paul wanted to read or book or borrow a periodical, people would be eager to cooperate.  So I think it's pretty safe to assume that Morphy had read or been exposed to anything that was worth reading at that time.  But a point that a lot of people seem to miss about PM is in 1852 Morphy (aged 14) gave away all his books and sets--the books "couldn't teach him anything," and he only kept the silver and gold set his parents gave him for his 13th birthday.  Between age 14 and 20 Morphy played almost no chess, and the few games he did play were against players no where near him in strength.  For him to come out of retirement and play as well as he did in 1857--that just amazes me.  When you talk about an effortless rise to master, this guy wrote the book.

Lawson's Morphy biography indicated that Morphy acquired a few chess books in 1853. Lawson included a report of a Maurian quote:

"... During the two years that we remained at college together, Morphy played a considerable number of games with me at odds gradually diminishing as I improved. ... Mr. Morphy had the following Chess books with him, the only ones, as far as I know that he ever possessed until the New York Chess Congress in 1857. Horwitz and Kling's Chess Studies, which he pronounced a very good and useful book for students, although not free from error; the B. Vols composing the collection of Kieseritzky's La Regence, and Staunton's Chess Tournament. ..."

There is a big difference between a challenge to New York and a "challenge to the world".

Sadly, there are many misconceptions in chess history. Lawson's biography quoted many accounts of Morphy's abandoned chess career. A challenge to the world is conspicuously absent from the accounts quoted from the time.

"... Mr. Morphy has again and again declared ... that he would play no more even matches without having been first conquered at odds. ... He has said that ... the larger portion of his future years would be devoted to graver studies and more serious avocations. ..." - New York Saturday Press, October 20, 1860

As can be seen, the playing of a match at odds with Morphy was an obstacle placed by him in the path of those who sought a match of level games.

Morphy may very well have been the best ever. He certainly makes the short list. ;p

^ true indeed. 

I feel that's as eloquent a way to express Morphy's intentions as any.

Morphy was so great... It makes me sad to read how he spent the last years of his life. Walking all alone in the streets of New Orleans... And dying all alone. Kasparov and Fischer were absolutely right about his chess genius!

It is sad to think how Morphy's final years were. He was like a brightly burning comet in his younger days and maybe he expended so much concentration during that time, that his mind simply went in to overdrive as he got older? Like Bobby Fischer, Morphy's entire life seems to be captured by his chess career. Rightly or wrongly their chess careers defined both men. In Morphy's case, his obvious academic ability was not utilised as fully as it might have been after he stopped playing chess. He could well have gone on to successfully practise as a lawyer, but apparently it was not to be.

You don't know what you're talking about. Adolf Anderssen was his best opponent with an rating of around 2000-2100 and Morphy beat him 6-2 in the first match and the second match 6-0

adolf hitler lost

ikr stop staring at me with that look

Morphy played far better chess in blindfold simuls, than people in this thread who criticize him, will ever do otb.

     Morphy was an opera devotee, attending every performance of the New Orleans Opera. Box seats at one of Europe's premier opera houses was a great treat for him; it's likely he didn't pay much attention to the chess game the Duke of Brunswick sprang on him unexpectedly after inviting him to share his box. It's not likely that he missed the pedestrian win; playing for the spectacular attack was just part of the game's ethos at that time.

But if he were in a situation where there were a relative challenge that could actually punish him for "playing to suit the ethos" wouldn't and play  3 terrible moves 7 moves in, the Opera Game becomes another draw.

You cannot use your imagination to just assume that Morphy would automatically maintain his spectacular ideas AND augment the ideas of the engine alike. Morphy's competition is extremely crucial to determining how good he is. If you're playing 1200's at a 2000+ level, you obviously will be playing at 95+% regularly because you pretty much have to wait 15 moves AT MOST before your inferior opponent makes a bad move that can give you a decisive advantage.

Using this logic, if GothamChess played chess in the 1860's and had access to handbooks that few others had from the best legends of chess at that point, he'd be smacking everyone easily simply because they're booty cheeks modern-day. Obviously, Morphy is much better than Gotham because of his innovations in the name of chess, but you cannot credit him for understanding how to survive and attack in chess, when it was apparent that many of his opponents did not. 

I watched a random Paul Morphy match, in which he squared off against a supposed 2300 rated chess player. 2300. By move 12, this 2300 rated blundered TWICE and lost hastily. Do you know what someone would say to you if you told them you blundered twice in the opening? "This is why you need to see what your move does: look for checks, captures, and threats." They'd think you are a 900 rated. The ratings were EXTREMELY inflated back then, and in reality, many of Morpy's opponents would be 1200 rated while he would be much -- MUCH -- higher.

     WALKINGLOSS: My point was that Morphy didn't take that game seriously, and probably looked for some spectacular way to punish the Duke of Brunswick for trick him into a chess game by inviting him to share his box at the opera. 

      Naturally, the Duke and a lot of Morphy's other opponents didn't know any opening theory as there wasn't much in their day. And positional ideas started with Morphy so those were unknown to the rest of the world. Morphy sought out the best opponents he could find in Europe, including the man (Andersson) generally regarded as #1 in the world, and handily defeated all comers.

     Incidentally, ratings weren't  invented until after World War II, the system had to be fine-tuned a couple of times after that, and is totally unreliable guesses for players from previous eras.