Morphy vs. Modern GMs

Wow, I would have never guessed Fine was once among the top 4 players!

Throwing my two cents in, as a fan of Morphy I have to state that if he was magically transported into the 21st century to play a random game against any 2400+ player he would lose.  Coming in cold to chess today would be too much even for a genius.  That being said, I strongly feel that in a 24 game match against anybody, anytime, anywhere, the Morphy of 1859 would win, and not in a squeaker--it would be by two or more points.  Those who haven't looked deeply into Morphy's games would be suprised to learn that Morphy was aquainted with "hypermodern" concepts (playing against the classical center), that his ideas of sacing a P to disrupt the harmony of his opponents pieces was something Alekhine finally re-discovered after he was champ, and that in the ending he was as good as anyone ever.  The reason for the endgame inaccuracies was that there were no players like Rubenstein or Capablanca to force exactness, but Morphy was capable of finding the hard moves to acquire the advantage--which means he found (in 1859) the harder part of the ending.  Morphy had all the foundations of the modern player, and he learned quickly, so I feel that while he would not be good in an individual game, in a set match he would prove that he was the best ever.

If you honestly believe some genius who trashed every amateur chess enthusiast in an age where chess wasn't even a profession and no one studied it seriously would come and beat the Kramnik or Anand of today, who are not only amazing geniuses beyond my mortal comprehesion but also are among the hardest workers of performers in any similar board game, sport, whatever you call it, you are seriously mistaken.

Kramnik has survived through 3 study camps that involved around 6 months of 12 hours of work per day. This is only his match preparation. He probably also studies 8+ hours in a regular day. Anand has been preparing against Topalov for around 6 months, studying 13 hours a day (that's what he says anyway). Polgar was known to study 6 hours per day starting when she was just a kid (the number obviously went up as she grew). Kasparov was probably the hardest working chess player of all time with Fischer. And trust me, these are all geniuses too.

I mean, these people literally invented chess theory as we know it, especially Kasparov.

So Morphy would come and deal with all that, not only missing the 10+ years of consistent & professional painstaking work but also 6 month preparation camps for matches, and demonstrate his incredible genius against these elite players and win in a 24 game match huh. Seriously. Wow. He must be inhuman or something, because otherwise this sounds like a joke.

Sorry I don't want to be so hard on Morphy or his fans, but I get really sensitive  when people hugely underestimate the incredible amount of work the elite players have put into this game.

To philidor_position

It amazes me that someone who doesn't study the games of Morphy can pass such harsh judgement on him.  LOOK AT THE GAMES.  Morphy was playing chess 60 to 80 years ahead of his times.  Look at the fourth game of the Thompson match (yes, the Knight odds match).  That looks more like Nimzovitch than Morphy.   For a "modern" game, check out Morphy-Lowenthal, match game 14, London, 1858.  As GM Valeri Beim states, "Morphy was so far ahead of his time that this game would be a treasure even by modern-day standards!"  And this is without the books, theory, Internet, computers, and competition of our time.  Put him in today's world, with all this knowledge, and he would excel.

I put it to you: Do you understand opposite-colored Bishop endings?  Do you understand weak-color complexes?  Do you understand isolani positions?  I take it from your rating that you do.  Do you really think that any of this would be over Morphy's head?  Frankly, I think Morphy knew more about these positions than we suspect he did, but the majority of his games were not recorded, and so that can only be a suspicion of mine.  And while you get "really sensitive" about the incredible amount of work elite players put into the game, I am astonished by the lack of appreciation for players such as Morphy or Capablanca or Lasker, like they would be chumps on today's scene.  And, yes, considering what he had to work with, and who he had to play with, to get to the heights he did, Morphy was "inhuman or something."  That "something" was the greatest natural talent the world has ever seen--he learned chess by watching his father play (no one ever showed him the moves), he beat a master (Eugene Rousseau) in a match at age eight, he beat the first GM he ever met (Lowenthal) three straight at the age of twelve.  He did almost no study or playing between the age of twelve and twenty, then went and crushed everybody in the world.  With all the resources at hand today, he would absorb them like the sponge he was and improve on them like he did with all that was available in his time and he would beat all (Anand, Kramnik, etc.) in a set match.  No doubt.

It's clear Morphy had the natural talent.

Morphy did not work anything like the modern GM's of course, but he can't be blamed for that since there was little for him to work on, except form the basics of chess strategy (perhaps unintentionally in his games), as it was clear back then they didn't appreciate development for example.

Morphy had vast natural talent and was perhaps further ahead of his contemporaries than any other player.  As to his absolute strength?  If you could pull him out of a time machine and sit him down at a table with Kasparov I think he would get crushed, the game has simply advanced so much from his day.  If he had lived in our time and had all the opportunites of modern masters for study and training, who knows?  He certianly would been a very strong player.

Some of what Fischer ranked the top players was because of other reasons players like Lasker did not make his top list.However with Morphy Fischer checked his games out an a player as good as bobby  could go over the game see the depth of the combos an   i trust Bobby when he tells the world how good he was.I play around 2000 level blitz an when i go over his games it stuns me at times how good he was.

I can appreciate dashkee94's answer. Post#75. Personally, I put Fisher and Morphy in the same raw talent league.

We will never know what Morphy could have done. He never faced the pressure of a grueling match like the Kasparov-Karpov affairs, or even Kornoi-Karpov. What would he have done against defensive geniuses like Karpov or Petrosian? Sometimes there have been arranged computer simulations of matchups like Mohammed Ali vs. Rocky Marciano. Too bad we can't do that for Morphy vs. Fischer, for example.

"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

"The magnificent American master had the most extraordinary brain that anybody has ever had for chess."--Jose Capablanca

 I think Morphy in modern times would do just fine.

I think if they played a game, Morphy would sac a rook for an attack, the GMs would defend well, then offer a draw cos they're chickens.

One of the reasons why Morphy was such a brilliant player was that his mind was able to focus on chess.

If Morphy had been alive today, and participated in an internet chess forum, he would be over at chesspro.ru, having long since mastered Cyrillic and Russian. He would be unlikely to be off on tangents into global warming and the big bang theory.

One sometimes fails to see statements in context, and it might be useful to understand the purpose behind both Capablanca's and Fischer's use of Morphy's achievements - they wished to establish credibility around a chess legacy of the Americas against European haughtiness, and in Fischer's case, Soviet domination. It's good to have predecessors that did what you yourself dream of doing - crush the opposition.

As to how Morphy would fare today? Does it really matter?

From what I know of Morphy's personality, I doubt he would put up with the process of modern tournaments and matches. I do not doubt his chess genius; but there is reason to doubt his psychological resilience. He was, after all, a player in the gentleman/amateur mold. He did not think that chess should be a profession. What would Morphy do today is rather a moot point when Morphy would not even keep on playing to face the emerging players of his own time. His whole glorious chess career occupied a very short span of time: impossibly short, by today's standards.

It's still not. It's rarely a profession for anyone outside the super GMs.

I think that Morphy would do very well against the modern players. I also think that it would take longer that a few months to absorb the changes in the game since he ruled it.

I also think that the past World Champions (Philidor, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca) could do likewise. In chess like other sports, a champion will find a way to win!

Paul Morphy is one my great heroes in the game of Chess. His games are awesome, his wild sacrifices and unprecedented positioning makes him a tough to beat Chess player during his time. But I guess, ancient players and ancient games like ones of Morphy, Anderssen and Bird have a lot of different compare to games to day. Particularly in terms of defense and positions. Nowadays, it is rare to see a Grandmaster use King's Gambit where in which it is popular during 19th Century (time of Morphy).

I would be surprised if many modern GM's could beat Morphy but Morphy didn't have Rybka,Chess Databases of All the best players games for 100's of years, Fritz,coaches,2nd to do some work to help them etc etc.It doesn't seem to make much sense to compare their playing skills as modern GM's have a huge advantage.

If Morphy had been born in this time, his talent would be about the same as a GM today.

I decided to look at some Morphy games I haven't seen before, and he consistently shows he is fantastic when it comes to piece play. His tactical skill is really really good. Earlier I had "speculated" that if he was born in these times he would become (not be, become) a strong grandmaster.  He would of course have to adapt to the changes in chess but I think he would be able to do that very well, being exposed to all the new theory, positional ideas, etc, with a talent like his. He may or may not try to adapt, but I think if he tried he would succeed.  I think philidor position said that he doesn't appreciate Morphy as much as the modern masters, because of how much work they put into the game, and that's perfectly valid. I don't think he was the number 1 contributor to chess either (some pretty games teaching us to develop our pieces, but there's more to strategy than that of course!), but this is about how good he would be or be able to become, not how much effort he puts into it. I tend to think he doesn't do what the masters do in opening theory because he thought attack was just so important, but a really good attacker can go a long way, as long as you're not a positional imbecile, which he wasn't. If he had challenges where he had to try very hard, he probably would, but nobody could give him enough problems to force him to step it up, maybe discover new strategies to win a chess game as others did. Can't know for sure of course, just a wild guess.

If he just tried to play precisely the same way he did before, yeah I think he probably would be nothing special, but he is at an absolutely colossal disadvantage to the modern players. But if he put in the effort to adapt to the times, my guess is he would be right up there with the top.

Eh, there's always going to be some tough encounters (well actually not in Morphy's case until he comes to our time), nothing a huge talent couldn't get through if enough effort was put in.