is there any value to studying the games of Paul Morphy given the evolution of the game

thank you for the response

Yes! If anything, I believe that studying classical games from 100+ years ago is actually more instructive for intermediate players than studying modern grandmaster games.

Firstly, classical games followed basic principles. People would usually fight for control over the centre, try to develop their pieces quickly, attempt to gain the initiative, look for tactics, etc. These make the games very easy to follow and also teach you attacking ideas.

Secondly, the games are a bit simpler and easier to understand. They're usually more tactical in nature and don't involve really subtle, nuanced positional moves that will go way over your head. This makes them perfect for intermediate players.

Thirdly, the games involve more creativity. Rather than just some random grandmaster memorising 20+ moves of opening theory in the main line of the Catalan, you've got people playing the King's Gambit and exciting styles of play that you just don't see at the top level anymore. This makes them way more entertaining, which is important because chess is supposed to be about having fun, and you'll give up learning if you find it dull.

Certainly! It is very unlikely we will run into players booked up like today's top players. Instead, it is probably best to focus on principles, finding practical moves, building pressures, etc. which all the top masters 150 years ago showcased really well

There is no "evolution of the game" since Morphy. Players amassed a lot of information from practice, since Morphy, and call it theory. Players evolved not the game; that's the same game. Currently top chess engines of the Artificial Intelligence kind don't even care about that information and theory, they just play the game and gather experience from their own practice.

Physics students need to learn about Newton's work before studying relativity or quantums.

This is Max Euwe's view in Development of a Chess Style. Now, a new book by Thomas Engqvist is grounded in the theory, Chess Lessons from a Champion Chess Coach (2023).

I see beginners studying Tal and Kasparov before Morphy, i mean how can you learn how to walk before crawling?

I’ve played entire games that were recorded by Greco, have used ideas gleaned from Morphy in more games than I’ve counted, and have played on this site eight times a miniature that Emanuel Lasker gave in Common Sense in Chess, which consists of abbreviated versions of lectures he gave in the mid-1890s.

There is definitely value in looking at Morphy's games! what I like about Morphy's games is that he is a nice attacking player who clearly was passionate about showing beautiful combinations.

When you look at enough Morphy games, you see that he always gets all his minor pieces in the game before he attacks. That’s true even in the extremely short Opera game.

Is it worth listening to Mozart considering how music has evolved?

There aren´t enough Morphy games.

Have you been through all of them? I haven’t, but I’ve probably been through 100. Three dozen of his games, more or less, I’ve been through many times.

Great musicians like Sting and The Beatles all studying Bach, you can hear references of Bach in their music, example All You Need is Love by The Beatles and others.

In 300 Most Important Chess Positions, which I am reading this morning, Mozart is mentioned in the context of analysis of a game played by Bronstein.

”In the same way as a Mozart symphony, where no bars can be exchanged for any others, the bishop had to find the truly correct location and consider the prospects of the whole position and not only its own.” (51)

That looks like a valuable insight.
Regarding going over grandmaster games -
I'm thinking a chess student has to have already achieved a substantial level of play to benefit from doing so.
Related: the stronger the player the more he might benefit from going over a GM game.
That might be true all the way to the top.
And a stronger player would be more efficient in his going over the game.
---------------------------
When going over games of the greats you're going to see tactics.
Or - much more difficult - see that particular lines were played because of the tactics that would have happened otherwise.
But then there's games from much further back as opposed to modern games.
There would be a parallel with math and science.
Because the best players of centuries ago didn't have the benefit of the information available to their more modern counterparts.
They had to work with what they had.
As far as pre-study is concerned.
---------------------
for most players - can you benefit from going over a big game between top ranked GMs ending in a draw?
Idea: go over a lesser game where a fairly shallow mistake was made resulting in a loss.
How are players most likely to do this?
Going over their own games.
Does that mean that's best?
No claim.

Morphy’s penchant for sacrificing a pawn to rip open the position against an uncastled king is standard technique today for all masters. It is easier for most of us to learn this idea from Morphy’s games than more recent games. One must first build the foundation.

This game against his father is worthy of study.

Games of Morphy are absolutely must know for intermediate player who do not want to be intermediate forever. I actually think that studying games of actual super GMs is absolutely senseless for intermediate player.