Alex Alekhine vs Paul Morphy

Or he'd get into some murky position where the engine says you're winning, but it's not easy.

You'd make a mistake, and he'd find the mate in 10

Alekhine should win just because he knows more, but potentially Morphy is a better chess player IMO.

"A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today."

- Bobby Fischer

"He is known to have been familiar with such books as Bilguier's Handbook and Staunton's "The chess hand-book", among others.These books are better than modern ones; there has been no significant improvement since then in King Pawn openings, and Morphy's natural talents would be more than sufficient for him to vanquish the best twentieth century players."

- Bobby Fischer

"Morphy had the talent to beat any player of any era if given time to study modern theory and ideas."

- Bobby Fischer

Now I'm not qualified enough to criticize Fischer (same goes for everyone on this forum and most chess players), but I do feel he exaggerated or maybe Morphy was just that good. He did specifically say: in a "Set Match".

The magnificent American master had the most extraordinary brain that anybody has ever had for chess. Technique, strategy, tactics, knowledge which is inconceivable for us; all that was possessed by Morphy fifty-four years ago.

- Jose Raul Capablanca

Even Capa thinks Morphy is the GOAT in terms of pure chess talent. 

Thanks for the compliment lol.

lol

"Lasker ... didn't understand positional chess." - another Fischer quote from around the same time as his Morphy comments.
Extended discussions of Morphy have been written in books by GM Franco, GM Beim, GM Ward, GM Marin, GM Bo Hansen, GM McDonald, Garry Kasparov (with Dmitry Plisetsky), and GM Gormally. Anyone see any of them express the view that we should accept Fischer's conclusion about Morphy? There seems to be general agreement that Morphy was, as GM Fine put it, one of the giants of chess history, but that is a long way from saying that he was better than anyone playing today.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history
"... Morphy became to millions ... the greatest chess master of all time. But if we examine Morphy's record and games critically, we cannot justify such extravaganza. And we are compelled to speak of it as the Morphy myth. ... [Of the 55 tournament and match games, few] can by any stretch be called brilliant. ... He could combine as well as anybody, but he also knew under what circumstances combinations were possible - and in that respect he was twenty years ahead of his time. ... [Morphy's] real abilities were hardly able to be tested. ... We do not see sustained masterpieces; rather flashes of genius. The titanic struggles of the kind we see today [Morphy] could not produce because he lacked the opposition. ... Anderssen could attack brilliantly but had an inadequate understanding of its positional basis. Morphy knew not only how to attack but also when - and that is why he won. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine
It is perhaps worthwhile to keep in mind that, in 1858, the chess world was so amazingly primitive that players still thought tournaments were a pretty neat idea.

By the way, Capablanca did not live to see any of the 1948-and-after chess world.

KINDASCRIPTY ATTACK.

Morphy was good, but everyone after him was better, why is it so hard to accept, it is the same as me saying Fischer is better than Carlsen... 

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708233403/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review782.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708234327/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

"Request denied!" - Captain James T. Kirk

What do you expect from a script chum?

Nah, Morhpy hung pieces back and forth, no finding mate in 10.

Alekhine was a god. The only "downside" he had was that he supported the Nazi regime but if you ask me that was not a downside, that was just what he had to do. If some social justice warrior wants to get his head chopped off for not playing chess he should go back in time and replace Alehkine.

Morphy is probably the most creative chessmaster of alltime!!

   Alekhine would need to do some serious middlegame preparation and solve alot of creative chess compositions and have good wellbeing to win this one... 

   Todays chess is still the same as it was in 1905 = Emanual Lasker would beat Yasser Seirawan  truth

What?

But that does not not mean that everybody alive right now can not all beat Morphy of Fischer for that matter.

Morphy would beat Alekhine blindfolded , by naming the coordinates...

yeah

Do we first need to calculate the decompensation rates for each of their corpses?

what do you mean by that?