Paul Morphy vs Wilhelm Steinitz

But Morphy went nuts first!

A match between them in middle 1870s would have been interesting!? By that time Steintz would have gained credibility. I think Steinitz's improved defensive technique would have eventually stopped Morphy. In a match the first to win ten games, it would be close,. Steintz had a strong constitution as exemplified in his match v Zukertort 1886. Morphy i think would have needed pre match tournaments or matches to get him up to speed. I think that is one of the reasons Fischer did not defend his title in 75, though i do not think Fischer would have played anyway.

Beating Anderssen in 1866 didn't give Steinitz credibility?

morphys endgame skills trumph steintizs' (play over their games). The great american can even play solid positional chess. Steinitz sticks to his principles win or lose while morphy sticks to his plans and emither mates or gets a formidable position. Morphy would have definetly beat Steinitz but not crush him totally.

@ konhidras.

Your description is correct but you interchanged the players. Pls read Kasparovs "My predecessors" part1 to know who Steinitz was. Steinitz is like the inventor of positional chess. He even took geat risks by having cramped positions & accepted all gambits just to prove his theory that chess is not just about attacking. Steinitz formalized all the chess principles that we use to day. Although im more of a Morphy fan, I believe Steinitz in their peaks has the edge because of his more matured chess knowledge.

Boris Spassky vs Howard Staunton

Discuss!

Steinitz vs Nakamura seems a good idea too.

while this is correct, most people tend to forget that Morphy while he didn't quantify his ideas and his genius, he was more of a positional player than anyone at the time he played. He wasn't all about attacking it was just it was easier to attack when the option was given to him.

Interesting read:

http://www.chess.com/blog/KetilWig/steinitz-vs-morphy-the-style-of-systematic-strategy-vs-impulsive-genius

I'm guessing here but Steinitz would loved to have played a game against Morphy when they met in New Orleans.

Think about it, Morphy's reputation and legend had grown since his retirement, and Steinitz would have wanted to test that reputation and legend.

Like Kasparov with Fischer, every champion wants to rate himself against their predecessor.

Steinitz against Morphy and the outcome? I'm too biased to see past Morphy winning. He always won!

Steinitz wins, stronger positional player, better in the opening, incredible defensive skills and much stronger in the endgame.

Jhorwin wrote:

Interesting read:

Interesting, the stronger players always seem to side with Steinitz; the reason is Steinitz contribute were incredibe, his white side of Ruy Lopez was more modern than Morphy , Steinitz also had a greater understanding in Queen's pawn opening, Steinitz played the whiteside of French better than Morphy. Morphy prefer the exchange variation and Steinitz was correct to increase space (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5! the way for white get an advantage.) and plus Steinitz endgame technique was stronger.

Got a better one. Star Wars or Star Trek?

@chesshole he would both own him at tactical and positional

Wow! Steinitz did meet Morphy. Interesting read:

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

quote from Steinitz Interview:

"Well, the game has made immense strides since his time. For one first-class player then, there are twenty now, and the science has developed. Morphy would have to alter his style to suit the new conditions. For instance, Morphy considered the king as an object merely of attack and defence, while the modern view is that it is itself a strong piece, to be used throughout the game. You see how frequently I will move my king all over the board to capture a pawn. In the old days that was never done. It sometimes loses me a game on account of the extraordinary foresight required. That is, in a match game it may do so, but in a game by correspondence never."

Morphy didn't like Steinitz's gambit he said it was no good.

Here - http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Zukertort_Morphy.html - You can read that Zukertort claimed to have met with Morphy. Of course he didn't.

I disagree with Bird because of Steinitz chess was modernize, if you look at the later games of Morphy, he still was stick in the dazzling combinative and attacking era, not like Steinitz who through his concept of positional play advance chess to higher level.

  "Paul Morphy would have gone through that tournament like a meteor. He was head and shoulders above every player taking part in it." He further remarked:
   "Probably, with the exception of Steinitz, Blackburne is the finest living player. Steinitz is a slow player and is always pretty well crowded for time, and I doubt if he could have made as good a showing against Zukertort had the latter been less confident and arranged the match at a time limit of twenty moves to the hour instead of fifteen. I trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. This was in '67. In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw. Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me. Morphy had more science than Steinitz - more imagination. His career was very short, though very brilliant, and, whether or not he could have held first honors as long as Steinitz, is a matter of some doubt; but Morphy never met his match. He was never compelled to play his best game. His resources were never fully tested.