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

After winning the first American Chess Congress in 1857, Morphy spent 1858 in Europe. He beat all comers—convincingly. I believe the one player he didn’t beat was Staunton, who was past his prime and who ducked all offers to play Morphy.

Kasparov is fond of this quote "every Russian school boy knows... [x,y,z chess strategy, trick, opening move etc]". But there was a time when they didn't know. In fact tere was a time when even the best players didn't universally know such stuff. So, I think that's where these old masters and old games are an interesting learning experience (I also like the history, but that's an aside).

In modern games there's just so much subtext that you don't know. In these old games, however, that subtext often comes to the surface -- it was all new back then. So studying these games gives one a more ground up learning experience.

Always use modern resources to you advantage though. Find a modern book on Morphy and let your engine have its say also.

PS, I think the best era to learn from is probably the 1930s' through the 1970s'. It was balanced between more sophistication and technical skill than earlier and yet fairly clear boundaries between playing styles and the play was so not concrete (usually) as to not be able to follow the principles behind the moves.

I don´t think Morphy could axcess internet.

One of my (many) favorite Morphy games:

White castles queenside on move 17 ... and Morphy glances at it and sees all the attacking possibilities splayed out before him.

This game has been argued over for decades and decades. Could White have found a better defense? Was Morphy's sacrifice the strongest possible move?

But Morphy wasn't an engine - he was a Romantic chess player. He pursued the flash and dazzle of attacking chess - and he created it on the board at every opportunity he could find.

... Rxf2!, followed by ...Qa3! is a thing of beauty.

Among players he beat soundly who would surely be titled today are Louis Paulsen and Adolf Anderssen. Most of his opponents when in England and France were recognized as masters, and Morphy could give them odds and win.

if he could give them odds and win then they weren't good.

I also recommend books of tournaments from 1895-1940. The specific opening variations are dated. But the annotations are useful instruction tools. It is as though the commentators were working out for themselves the ideas of the openings, and so the explanations seem clearer and more accessible than in more modern books.

51 sometimes i get an old chess book and then i start reading it and realise it's not in algebraic notation so now i'm scared to get old books xD

You know, I was once seriously going to try and make a project out of creating a freely redistributable updated ebook edition of Philidor in modern English and algebraic notation

The only edition in English I'm aware of has this kind of super draw-out prose notation.

lol white kings pawne one houfe 😭

Well, it's actually "house". Those are "s" es. Why they did it like that I have no idea

Well, the topic argument is an old and “frequently heard” one. Let’s first try to understand what you mean by “studying”. If you search for modern openings, surely you must get away from old chess games.

However, if you want to study “chess”, old games of masters such as Morphy will be great resources. Not only can we understand basic principles of development and preparation for an attack, we will also have great pleasure by watching king hunts, conducted bravely and aesthetically. That’s something related with pure love of chess, I think.

Another point of view I disagree with, is blaming a master for his opponent’s weak play. For example Gukesh blundered a piece right after the opening against Giri yesterday, but eventually won the game by both courageous play of himself and some inaccuracies made by his opponent. Will we punish Gukesh for winning this? Or shall we ban Giri from playing chess? Ridiculous, isn’t it? No single game can devaluate a master.

Last but not least, never underestimate old openings. Remember how Kramnik revived “Berlin Wall”, which was supposed to be a refuted defense for Black. He crushed Top Kasparov with an old and refuted defense. In the era of computers, thousands of old opening gems are to be found and revived yet.

The US Declaration of Independence has the same letter s that looks like a f.

In some seventeenth century English publications that I’ve read the v and u are switched: if it looks live a v, it’s a u and vice versa.

The image is from Francis Beale’s 1656 collection of Greco’s games. They differ substantially from those you’ll find in databases. However, I created a database that has all of Beale’s collection. Spent a lot of time reading this notation. I did switch colors when Black moves first, as in the example of Fool’s Mate in the image.

BTW, Fool’s Mate and Scholar’s Mate, though in the book, are not credited to Greco. Beale took them from a book by Arthur Saul published about 40 years earlier—1614. There is a copy online that you can read.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A11524.0001.001?view=toc

I agree with much of this.
But for beginners a lot of time can be invested in opening study.
Should it be?
There's other theories and practices.
Prioritize the endgame. Or the middlegame. Or tactics. Or everything together.
Lasker seems to suggest in his Manual that positional play is hardest.
But back in his day they didn't have the computerized tactics puzzles of today.
Suggestion: tactics are key.
-------------------
But having said that - many strong players seem to take the position that tactics are learned by studying 'sharper' openings.
With an argument that openings that begin with e4 e5 and e4 c5 - will be much more instructive than openings that begin with d4 d5. That if the beginner studies 'quieter' openings then he/she 'won't learn anything'.
But would a beginner learn much anyway from openings without the foggiest about what's really going on?
And by extension would beginners learn much from 'GM games' ? -again - 'without the foggiest'.
---------------
Idea: the closer the position is to the beginning of the game - the less 'solved' the position is likely to be.
'Chess is not solved'. More relevant than one might think. With implications.
This means that even the strongest players don't 'thoroughly understand' from move 1.
---------------------
But in 'solved' tactics positions and 'solved' endgames' then 'thorough understanding' abounds and you don't have to be master level to 'get it'.
And from there - build on understanding. On firm foundation. On solid premises.
But many - including many strong players - Reject That Idea.
That the idea isn't to Solve problems - they say
and say instead that its to Enter into problems.
I would say 'why not both'?

I don’t believe that anyone under 1800 would be ill-served playing Morphy’s openings.

Given that one is going to study GM games or openings or both -
then Morphy - why not?
And strong players in the forum seem to be saying that here.
Maybe Morphy's games are so good for this - that return on investment greatly improves!
The site's been very glitchy the last couple of days though.
Morphy's famous 'Opera' game is here on chess.com but I can't get it to post here.

Excellent. Thanks for the info and contribution.

I don't know that this follows. Stockfish could give any human odds, but that doesn't mean no human is "good". It's the difference in strength that matters when giving odds.