Morphy was an overrated CAVEMAN PATZER

So, Morphy is patzer, Fischer is delusional.. you got names for others as well do u?

Back then there was no "Steinitz school", that's just a term coined -long after the fact- . Have a look at the Tarrasch wins from let's say his "300 chess games", there you can see for yourself that Tarrasch played much like Morphy, but with better opening ideas, still playing active chess but with more safety, for instance Tarrasch avoided playing gambits with black, which Morphy didn't avoid

I already said Tarrasch had amazing attacking games, and as anyone sane human, he tried to attack, but he did it with a better approach. Not like a caveman.

Attacking is not for cavemen, unprincipled attacks like the ones I posted are for cavemen.

Fischer is talking about talent. Im not. Im talking about chess skills. Morphy was a patzer, and he could have given a fight to Steinitz and Tarrasch, but players after that would have just destroyed him.

Also, why no one mentions how Morphy was a big sissy? He backed up from some matches and decided to make this little lie about being mentally ill so he wouldnt be called a sissy and told to grow a pair.

Sure, but let's remember Morphy played during an era where caveman-chess was quite widespread, what set him apart was his understanding of swift development and central control, and those are strategic undertakings as long as they are what the position actually calls for. You have shown 2 examples of caveman-Morphy, anybody could show MANY MORE examples of him outplaying his opponents positionally. Developing and attacking ARE strategic undertakings, as long as it's what the position at hand calls for

Prove me wrong. MORPHY WAS A PATZER! 

Outplaying his opponents positionally? LOL, I doubt he knew what pawn structure was.

He just developed, and if he was lucky enough his opponents would not develop, then, he would find a pretty combination, and end of the game.

The style of play from the romantic era was to attack with your queen supported by other pieces often with sacrifices for open play.
It is not quite fair to judge history with better contemporary knowledge.

It is not fair to give Morphy a 2400 rating and offend all IMs in this world.

Why dont people like @urk praise Janowski instead?

This looks way more convincing than Morphy's trash:

And guess who was on the other side on the board, the dude that almost beats Lasker in a match for the World Championship...

Morphy was overrated, everyone talks about him as some sort of god when he hung pieces all the time!

Positional chess simply means playing in accordance with the requirements of the position. It could be a swashbuckling attack, or a Karpov like constriction, it all depends on the position, not playing style Morphy's opponents were mostly a lot weaker than him(and why should we blame Morphy for that?) So he mostly didn't need to use deep strategical ideas, development+central control+attacking play was enough to win against most. Why do any more than what was needed, in order to win. I'm 100 percent sure if Morphy was resurrected, given 3 years to study some modern strategy manuals and new opening theory, he would completely wipe the board, even against Garry or Magnus.

Are me and BronsteinPawn the only ones who are having some sense of humor? At least I have been laughed a lot in here. Hey guys, enjoy your lives and don't take everything so seriously

What are you talking about? Im 100% serious, studying Morphy's games made my rating go down.

239 187 191 115 072 072 044 032 068 079 078 084 032 076 069 084 032 084 072 069 077 032 075 078 079 087 046

I seriously doubt it, 3 years is too little.

But hey, I guess it is cool to believe we had a chess demi-god on earth!

Any chess study will initially make your rating go down, as your brain is struggling to assimilate new info and patterns.