Alex Alekhine vs Paul Morphy

huh?

+1

what do you mean +1?

Because Alekhine knowed what positional chess was.

You mean he knowed what positional chess ised?

Come on, we know Bronstein meant "Alekhine knew", let's have fun playing chess and being compassionate with humanity.

Positional chess has changed, so maybe was is actually OK to use.

I think my friend your comment is a bit rush, any expert or low master will be made a short work of ( in other word; Morphy will crush any expert or low master, even a IM).

Alekhine will win because he love chess and dedicate his life to chess; Morphy run away from chess and avoided  playing the best players after 1860.

 BronsteinPawn is correct. Alekhine was willing to learn from Rubinstein, Lasker and Capablanca; that is why he beat Capablanca in their match, drastically improve in his positional play and endgame technique: Morphy never did that and was relying on talent only, at that high level talent is not enough, Capablanca learned a valuable lesson.

so all in  all which vote has the highest? Paul or Alex?

Alekhine, not Alex.

Morphy should be called a patzer.

i have a friend who plays minecraft named alex but no friend named paul who play minecraft so i would say ale x xd

Bronstein Pawn, thank you very much for the English lesson.

"... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

 Giants of chess history, not giants of chess strenght.

"... 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. ..." - GM Reuben Fine