The notion that there was no theory before Morphy overlooks that Morphy had access to Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843), and also overlooks how two centuries earlier Guilio Cesare Polerio's work was copied by Alessandro Salvio, and the work of both was copied by Gioachino Greco. Greco's work was published in several editions in several languages. As a result, a portion of Greco's theory can be found in databases today.
Ruy Lopez also copied Pedro Damiano, and was copied by Polerio. Many of those who copied the works of their predecessors added to it and argued with some of the ideas.
With Morphy, we get not the beginning of theory, but rather the beginning of theory that still holds some validity and importance today.
Nice detailed history. People often forget there have been chess books for hundreds of years, and also that great players of any era studied the published games of their contemporaries. This includes Morphy, of course.
well then if morphy, too was one of them fools who memorised openings, i dismiss him into the igoble annals of they that pursue theory in the pursuit of greatness.
Why should rules and regulations play a part in a game where creativity dominates?
People misunderstand this all the time. Chess is not about creativity or intelligence, chess is first of all a skill.
Like any skill humans can apply creativity later, but only after they understand some basics. It's the same for anything, music, art, etc.
yes but only the basicest of skills, like how the peices move and how they capture. certainly other facets of theory, like pawn chains etc are a slap in the face of creativity which i contend should be the cornerstone of the game.