That's just sad, the first rule of being a troll is you never admit to being a troll.
And yet just as many people are still biting.
Not that I'm looking down my nose or anything. I'm pretty bad at noticing a troll myself.
But, feeding trolls can be fun so carry on all...
The signs say don't feed the animals but they look so hungry...
How am I trolling for pointing out (with analysis to support my evidence) that Morphy is a weak player? Please do explain.
You're not pointing out that he's a weak player, you're pointing out that he didn't play perfect chess.
Great research.
So sorry Yereslov but it is obvious that you have no idea about chess, and try to explain you why would be a loss of time
Ok, well if you guys are just going to talk about parcheesi I'm out.
If a man is considered the greatest player in history, then his games should reflect that title. Morphy played terrible moves. What's the point of appreciating a game for its attack on the king, if the attack is just an illusion? All the moves are refuted through analysis. A player of Morphy's calibre has no excuse.
Yereslov, it is an unfair comparison at best. It can be argued as well that had he been alive today, his genius would be as notable. There is an excellent article on his life and fight through chess : (http://blog.chess.com/batgirl/whats-so-great-about-paul-morphy-anyway) and it covers an area you haven't touched on, I think. His overall score is tremendous. HUGE, even. But, the qualifying filter was quite small. However, it touches on the idea that there may have been some over-rating because, this here was a Louisiana boy.
Anyway, good article. Probably a few of these other people may read it, maybe not. Trust me.
It's a good read.
When the forums have declined to where yereslov is the best to be offered, well we better make due with what we have. I don't like having to light a fire with two damp sticks, but if it is the only thing to make the fire, then you have to bite the pillow and take what you have been given.
Well, he's probably young, impetuous. Weren't we all at one time?
Just didn't have a computer contraption machine to holler out to tens of thousands of people...but, that is a good thought.
An opinion doesn't neccessarily need constant defending.
Yereslov, have you ever heard the boy who cried "Wolf!" ? Because your clamoring for attention will gain you less listeners, and less response to real questions.
Tournaments tend to create more stress. I always play better chess in casual games.
That would explain the 930 USCF regular tournament rating. 
Yereslov may be a troll, but his point that by today's standards Morphy is not a great player is valid.
Morphy was the greatest player of his generation by a country mile, but he was terribly weak in the endgame, even by the standards of his day.
Kenneth Regan, using computers and statistical models, calculated Morphy's playing strength at 2344 based on his 55 most important games.
I still marvel at Morphy's fantastic attacking games and his contributions to chess both as art and science. But he really does not rate, in an absolute sense, as a special player by today's standards.
Below is a link to Regan's paper which explains both the relative ratings and the methodology he used to reach those ratings.
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf
Seriously guys are you still trying to argue with Yereslov? Hes just some random troll who found a random game and wants to randomly criticize it for attention
Despite the questionable question mark afforded to Morphy in the questionable analysis, the name of Morphy's opponent is very interesting. Here his name is given as Schrufer. Lawson gave his name as F. Schrüfer. My own assumption, though far from conclusive for various reasons, is that the man was Franz Schrüfer (3-17-1823 to 8-6-1909), the choir master of St. Martin's in Bamberg. Schrüfer about a decade after this game became one of the founders of the Bamberg Chess Club, a quite celebrated chess problem composer and later an honorary memeber of the Münich Chess Club and the German Chess Federation.
Morphy may be bad at endgames, but he rarely got into them
and what's wrong if your opponents are all bad? does that make the player who beats them bad?
In fact, he was the best player OF HIS TIME, not necessarily today.
What an obvious attempt to troll. *Indian accent* Yereslov is a d-bag and needs to go die in the corner. Stupid cuddleball too.
Yereslov is an impetuous child. That makes those who stand there slandering him something not so good, too. But then, maybe YOUR ideas are different than others. WHO is the smarter, wiser, and the more correct? I think none.
If you stand around yelling at the rock because it is too big to move (or too stubborn to move) then just how is that intelligent?
If you insult someone for moving a6 in the CaroKan, even though Benko played it on occasion, what level does that put you on?
If instead of complaining about someone, using your ever so clever insults, and you spent more time studying your game, or your school books, or your family's needs, then you wouldn't have any time to complain about Yereslov. You would be happier. Yereslov would be happier. Everyone would be happier.
But for some reason, a few have taken against Yereslov as if his destruction is the end of bad chess and tall tales. Guess what?
You're wrong if that's your goal. If he's as "bad" as you say, and others say...then why do you wrap yourselves around him so? Does anything he say destroy uyour lives, your opinions, or ceate any real hardship for any of you? No, I would say not. So please accept this in the spirit with which I offer it.
LIGHTEN UP AND STEP OFF
It is clear that the people in this thread have fallen for either a troll, or an idiot, not that there's much difference between the two...
I would advise (because I'm in a position to advice, right?) that people just let this thread die in peace.
I play all my best chess when no-one's watching. ;)