Morphy vs. Modern GMs

Morphy was ahead of his time. If he was time morphed to this age, he would be ahead of his time still, he would take todays GM's to task, theory advancement is made over the board - that was Morphy's domain!

"... Morphy became to millions ... the greatest chess master of all time. But if we examine Morphy's record and games critically, we cannot justify such extravaganza. And we are compelled to speak of it as the Morphy myth. ... [Of the 55 tournament and match games, few] can by any stretch be called brilliant. ... 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. ... [Morphy's] real abilities were hardly able to be tested. ... We do not see sustained masterpieces; rather flashes of genius. The titanic struggles of the kind we see today [Morphy] could not produce because he lacked the opposition. ... Andersson could attack brilliantly but had an inadequate understanding of its positional basis. Morphy knew not only how to attack but also when - and that is why he won. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

It is perhaps worthwhile to keep in mind that, in 1858, the chess world was so amazingly primitive that players still thought tournaments were a pretty neat idea.

Lawson's Morphy biography indicated that Morphy acquired a few chess books in 1853. Lawson included a report of a Maurian quote:

"... During the two years that we remained at college together, Morphy played a considerable number of games with me at odds gradually diminishing as I improved. ... Mr. Morphy had the following Chess books with him, the only ones, as far as I know that he ever possessed until the New York Chess Congress in 1857. Horwitz and Kling's Chess Studies, which he pronounced a very good and useful book for students, although not free from error; the B. Vols composing the collection of Kieseritzky's La Regence, and Staunton's Chess Tournament. ..."

20 year old Morphy played 2 dozen casual games against John Schulten during the First American Chess Congress.  Morphy won 23, Schulten won 1, no draws.  Lawson speculated that Morphy was simply bored and played without interest.  It's one of the few games into which Morphy seemed to put no effort.

Maurian claimed Morphy only possessed 5 chess book prior to the 1857 Congress:
      "Chess Studies" by Horwitz and Kling
      "La Regénce" collection of Lionel Kieseritzky
      "The Chess Tournament" by Howard Staunton
      "Chess Player's Handbook and Companion" by Howard Staunton
       (owned by Maurian)
      "Treatise on the Game of Chess" by William Lewis
       (owned by Maurian)

Fred Edge wrote in "The Exploits and Triumphs in Europe of Paul Morphy":
In answer to a gentleman in Paris as to whether he [Morphy] had not studied many works on chess, I heard him state that no author had been of much value to him, and that he was astonished at finding various positions and solutions given as novel - certain moves producing certain results. etc. for he had made the same deductions himself, as necessary consequences. 

zukertort..great player..I wish we could have seen morphy vs him.

Comparing Morphy when he was playing to say Carlson today, or Fischer in the 1970's is almost a usless exercise. Not only has Opening theory changed but so has technology -- computers and Digital Clocks -- not to mention the rise of Scholastic Chess. The ONLY way -- were it possible --  to answer you question would be to resurrect ALL the GREAT chess players of the past at their prime, give them 1 year of intense computer assisted training, and then have a massive double Round Robin to answer who *is* / *was* the GREATEST Chess Champion of all time. Trying to compare great chess players who lived in different eras -- mid 1800's late 1888's, Early 1900's, Mid 1900's, Late 1900's, and players of say the last 10 years is impossible due to the rapidly changing nature of the game and its supporting technology, as well as society.  

Morphy is most assuredly not known as the greatest player. His opponents sucked.

Sorry, but it's naive to think that one year of study is enough to get even anywhere near the strenght and knowledge of contemporary grandmasters. And I'm not talking of world-class GMs, any 2500 player is by far stronger in all aspects of the game than the old masters were. 

This is the trouble with trying to compare one set of GM over time -- it can't be  done without first trying to level the playing field ie stipulating a set of conditions. OK lets say Murphy was NOT the greatest player. How about Lasker, Capablanca, or even more recently Bobby Fischer. Are you saying that Boby Fischer in his prime given the *same* tools that all today's GM have available to them such as computers, electronic analysis, electronic Chess engins, etc. could not beat say Carlson?!? Most players would strongly disagree if you said that Bobby Fischer in his prime given *todays* tools could by beat Carlson. Indeed most people would conclude Bobby Fischer in his prime given *today's* tools probably would given Carson the biggest beating he has ever gotten. But we can't go back into the past, so we can't ever answer the question with cetainty. The only way to answer the question would be to do as I said: resurrect ALL the GREAT GM of the past at their prime, equip them with the *same* identical tools,  then have a double Round Robin. Alternatly can you imagine Carson if you were to plunge him *back* to the mid 1800's without the tools he has available to him today? Chances he probably would not be that great. All we can say about any given GM is to say who was the Greatest player of *their* time. Murphy was the GREATEST Player of *his* time; Lasker probably was the GREAST Player of *his* time; Fischer was without a doubt the Greaest Player of his time, and so on all thw way down to the present day.

Now if I were to name the greatest plaers of all time here is the *LIST* I would say were the 10 Greatest players of all time :

Andersen

Murphy

Capablanca

Lasker

Alekhine

Botvinnik

Fischer

Karpov

Kasparov

Carlsen (?)

Morphy was the most naturally talented player of all time - though I still think someone like Kasparov or Carlsen could out-calulate him. He had great chess intuition - maybe better than any who ever lived.

If Morphy played a super GM of today, he'd get in pretty bad opening trouble no doubt and lose. He'd just lose. Top GMs today have the benefit of super-computer calucations and 50 moves of opening theory. If Morphy played Carlsen he might win one game out of 20 and draw a couple - it would be that lopsided.

Now if they played Fischerrandom he'd do better.

Maybe, maybe not.

But I reckon that in the unlikely event of him arriving here tomorrow in a TARDIS he'd still be the strongest player in most chess clubs, even with no study time to catch up, and with his 19th century ideas and his ancient and little explored openings as well.  Against modern openings he'd be making it up most of the time, but that wouldn't matter because all he would need to beat most of us would be to get a disadvantageous position and nurse it along in Karpovian style as we gradually (or suddenly - to  a tactical shot) let it slip.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history