If you want to be greatest you don't have to be the best ever (because advances over centuries will always invite arguments if you were the very best). To be the greatest you need to be the FIRST, and the first to do it in a manner never before seen. And Morphy was the very first who utterly and overwhelmingly dominated his peers, and in a manner that has only been replicated by a handful of those who followed him.
Paul Morphy is the greatest player of all time.
Sort:
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.
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.
pfren and many others never take into account the historical aspect of the game, when they criticize Morphy, and other great players of the past, so their reasoning is flawed to begin with.
"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."
This pretty much sums it up.