1.Kasparov
2.Carlson
3.Fischer
4.Tal
5.Capablanca
6.Morphy in that order.
In a couple of years Carlson and Kasparov switch places.
And Reubinstein can beat Philidor blindfolded. So much chess has advanced since Philidor's day.
Fantasy match ups
Sort:
Based on some sources : Tal-Morphy 16-14, Kasparov-Capablanca 16-14, Carlsen-Fischer 15½-14½, Rubinstein-Philidor 17½-12½.
Capablanca-Morphy 18-12, Fischer-Philidor 22½-7½.
The winners Kasparov-Tal 18-12, Carlsen-Rubinstein 19½-10½.
Finally : Carlsen-Kasparov 15½-14½
Or in normal order : Carlsen, Kasparov/Fischer, Capablanca, Tal, Morphy, Rubinstein, Philidor.
What a pity LaylOw did not mention my hero Lasker, he should be on the same level as Capablanca !
Let me add the question : where is Anand ?
What sources? Morphy and Philidor played long before the theories of Nimzovich, Terrach, and Steinitz. We have a tendency to romanticize players of the past, and I've looked at some of Philidor, Greco, and St.Amant's games and they didn't seem all that great. Sure, any of those bastard could beat us mortals, but compared to today's players they wouldn't stand a chance. Although, if Grischuk does an infamous goof they'd win one off him, but they wouldn't have the position on the board to do that in the first place since he's 2750+. I'm confident that Morphy would make GM today, but only after catching up on modern theory and developments, otherwise he might be stuck somewhere between expert and FM.
Hamlin's Dictionary of Chess, The Even More Complete Chess Addict by Fox and James and Warriors of the Mind by Keene and Divinsky were my sources.
You know, all grading retrospectively is largely subjective and makes no claim to statistical accuracy. But please, let more readers comment, it's a nice subject !
Tal-Carlsen, Fischer-Morphy, capa-Karpov.
Results: 1. Fischer, 2. Tal, 3. Morphy, 4. Capa, 5. Karpov, 6. Carlsen.
Why 6. Carlsen? Carlsen relies heavily on computers. I make an assumption on the time before computers were used.
I don't believe a opening theory disadvantage would drop Morphy from Gm to Fm as his opening theory was less but it was superb. A Gm could probably get a theoretical +1 out of the opening against him but as any MOrphy fan knows it wouldn't be long before the heaven born master would begin to outshine his theoretically stronger opponent. Thanks Romy those are very interesting statistics and probably the most accurate guess that could be made and Lasker was in my mind when constructing the list but couldn't decide on a great match up with him, maybe Karpov or anand but I would back Lasker in both instances
Morphy vs tal, capa vs Kasparov, Fischer vs carlsen
What a great match up to witness :(
6 players to play each opponent 2 times.... Who wins ? Morphy maybe at a theoretical disadvantage but he makes up for it in intuitive genius, slightly weaker against 1. D4 could be a disadvantage. Tal at his prime would surely have created headaches and causeed his opponents hairs to curl and split. Capablanca ..... How do you beat someone that never falters? Kasparovs depth of play is so insane with such beautiful attacking ideas and combinations. Fischer on 64 squares was a genius rampant and In my mind he made some of the most beautiful chess moves I've ever seen. But Carlsen has the highest Elo rating in history.....nuff said or is it ??
What do you think or what are the many other great matchups you would like to see. I think I would enjoy a game between philidor and Rubinstein for the unlimited amount of educational points that would appear throughout.