Would Paul Morphy had been the first world champion if he didn't get sick?

Hmmm..., goldendog. It looks like we have a 'controversy'! I wonder if I could apply for research money to investigate this? Of course, one would have to travel to Europe, probably have to eat in very expensive restaurants, stay at nice hotels. Maybe even make a documentary about it for PBS?

Really? You think those quotes square with your Morphy is "horribly overrated" remarks?  *groan*  -- Careful with the back-pedalling, you're likely to fall into the hole you've dug for yourself.

By the way, On my great predecessors vol. 1 (which is where I got those quotes about Morphy) does NOT say that the Opera game was played blindfolded. It does mention Morphy playing blind exhibitions with great success just before giving Kasparov's annotations to the Opera game... and it's possible to see how someone reading casually might have become confused.

Was Morphy ever beaten? If not. Well then, technically he was the world champion of his time. Of the known world that is.

Is this proof? Back in those days the cameras had great color but poor resolution.

Paul Morphy did lose, but not nearly as much as he won.  I've also seen him play the Dutch a couple times, no joke.

The only possible money-making controversy, and my wonderful day-dreaming, you seem to have diminished somewhat. Though I can still use Reinfeld for the source of the controversy. The other controversy you seem to anticipate my "back-peddling" on previous statements, which I find amusing, and hopeful, on your part. Morphy, unlike todays grandmasters, had an exciting and understandable way of playing. But he was not keen on chess as a career or profession. It was not as if he died early before the flower bloomed. He went as far as he wished in the game, and would have been quite in awe of the complexities that the grandmasters present today. He is horribly over-rated as one who would be very dangerous at all to a master chessplayer of today, despite what Botvinnik said, perhaps some years ago. Botvinnik paid Morphy a huge compliment is how I see it. But one may go over chess games from the past to see both the strength of the player and his competition. Where I find Lasker's games still complex, I find Morphy's as clever. For a few years, in a time just before chess as we know it today, a game played by professionals, Morphy was quite an event in the chess world. But he would not have been much today, or any time for that matter, when one's competition are not Dukes, but rather someone who would devote his life to the game just to make a living.

And BTW, you act as though people on this thread agreed with what I had been writing. An over-reaction on your part. I did not see any comments supporting my views.

 "But he would not have been much today, or any time for that matter, when one's competition are not Dukes, but rather someone who would devote his life to the game just to make a living."

You overreach a bit here. Morphy did meet such a player in Harrwitz, and he clobbered him, and Harrwitz was a top player at the time too.

I don't think I "overreach" if you can find one or a dozen players that Morphy may have played who were professional chessplayers. Today, it is hundreds at Master level alone, one must face. Let alone the climb being littered with thousands of would-be masters. Once to the grandmaster level, one has to play gifted chess geniuses all the time.

If he dominated one of the best players of the time, who was also a full professional, it's safe to say Morphy would have no trouble establishing his reputation against others, several others or many many others, just like Harrwitz.

And you did say  "But he would not have been much today, or any time for that matter..."

Goldendog, it is because he didn't really think much of the game as a career. I thought I made it clear that Morphy never wanted to be a chess professional. What you see is all he ever wanted to do with chess. He would have never made a career out of it. That is why I say he wouldn't be much of a chessplayer today. It was a gentleman's pasttime is all that Morphy thought of chess.

Obviously, the original question can only be answered by speculation. Morphy was very clearly the best of his time. If he had remained interested and healthy, he would have been the best for years. The only question is how many years he would have been the best. I think he would not have been beatable by anyone on the chess scene until he passed the age at which Karpov declined or Kasparov retired. I think he could have been better than Steinitz until some time in the 1870s. Those who compare his chess to players today should realize that these players have had so much more to study than Morphy did. Saying Kasparov or just one of the many GMs or IMs of today are stronger than Morphy was is like claiming that Einstein was more brilliant than Galileo or Newton. Certainly, thousands of scientists now know more than Galileo just as many chess players today know much that Morphy did not. However, Morphy's talent stands out. If Morphy were here today, he could learn to compete with the best just as Newton could learn today's science. Another fallacy in evaluating players from different eras is to rely too much on the ELO rating. Fischer's top rating was 2785 when he did not have to play anyone with such a rating. On the other hand he did not have the chance to gain rating points without the risk of losing rating points to lower rated players. Were the lower rated players Fischer played really that weak? If that question is either too easy or too difficult to answer, then how easy is it to fairly compare Morphy with the players since his time? It should be easier to compare him with the players closer to his time. It is clear that he stood out and gave players the chance to learn from him and to surpass him in knowledge, if not talent.

I was just reacting to your post, a pertinent part of which I quoted for reference. That you say, rightly, that Morphy would not be a professional, is something else.

That he would not be much today or at anytime in the face of professionals is what I said you overreached on, and what I addressed. Fairly, I think.

batgirl? you there?

wow so intense!!!!!   but i agree with the NM

except for one part...  i think Stienz wouldn't of beaten Morphy at all if he was still healthy and strong, i think mabye only Capablanca would have beaten him if he was still that good.

but most likely morphy would be old and desparate at that time

Who's "Stienz"? Do you mean Wilhelm Steinitz?

yes but we are just lazy so we use the phonetic version of his name

We? Do you mean yourself, or are your posts a group effort?

no, it seems as though everyone is spelling Steinitz wrong so i made that inference