Paul Morphy the greatest chess player A.K.A god of chess

From "The Pride and Sorrow of Chess" :

   "On the morning of June 20th 1858, Morphy arrived in Liverpool.  He was not a good sailor, and the twelve day voyage affected him adversely.  No doubt, as expressed in the English and German press, his debilitated physical condition affected his playing for some time.
   After his arrival in Liverpool, he entrained as once for Birmingham.  In an article in the New Orleans Times-Democrat of June 18, 1899, Alderman Thomas Avery, President of the Birmingham Chess Club, tells of meeting him at the Curzon Street station:
   'I was never more astonished by the appearance of anyone.  Having formed my opinion of the man by the strength of his chess, I expected to see a tall broad-shouldered individual, with a big beard and a ferocious expression.  And there he turned out to be a slight, beardless stripling of a youth in a broad-brimmed hat, a black tie and a meek and mild manner.  I took him at once to the photographer, and had a poitrait taken which is now in the Birmingham Chess Club.  He was a very gentlemanly young fellow; no talker, and as it seemed to me, a player who preformed all his wonderful feats by instinct without any visible effort.'
   Advised by Avery of the postponement of the meeting, Morphy proceeded to London the next morning and arrived there that afternoon, June 21.  Edge Morphy's companion in Europe, writes of Morphy being ill in Birmingham and of his getting up from a sick bed to go to London.  In London, he registered at Lowe's Hotel, owned by Edward Lowe, an accomplished chess player.  And so it happened that Lowe, with whom he played next day, became Morphy's first opponent in England.  Morphy won all six games they played.  Following this experience, Lowe rushed to the Grand Chess Divan to tell of Morphy's arrival and what could be expected of him.
   The following day, June 23, Morphy visited the Grand Divan and the St. George's Chess Club.  At the latter, he met Thomas Hampton, secretary of the club, who was the first to engaged him there.  Just how soon Morphy met Staunton is not known, but evidently it was on the twenty third or twenty fourth of June because he enjoyed Staunton's hospitality as his country home at Streatham that weekend, as Edge mentions in one of his letters.
   After friendly greetings, Morphy renewed the challenge of the New Orleans Chess Club, which Staunton conditionally accepted, requesting, as Edge states, a month "to brush up on his chess openings and endings" To this months delay, Morphy readily assented, adding, as he wrote Lord Lyttleton, that my stakes [will] be forthcoming the moment desired. This matter of stakes should be kept in mind for future reference."

and

   "Barnes and Boden were the first strong players Morphy met in England.  He met Boden at the Divan, and of the first two games played, Morphy won and drew the other.  Edge says that thereafter they played in a private room, Boden being sensitive about his chess playing.  The final score between them stood at Morphy six, Boden one and three drawn, not counting another game played months later when Morphy played Boden and four other masters simultaneously."

and

   "With Barnes, Morphy played a series of twenty-six games.  Surprisingly, at the beginning, each scored every other game of the first ten played.  Edge describes their encounter as follows:
   'His [Morphy's] next antagonist was Mr. Barnes and the result of their play was, at first, most surprising.  During several successive days they scored alternate games, and the London chess world consequently measured Morphy's powers by this antagonist.  Ultimately the former recovered from the effects of his voyage, and the proportion was established of Morphy 19 to 7 for Barnes, the last ten or twelve games being scored without a break.'"

H_Staunton wrote:

"... This is only one of several examples of Morphy’s ability to adapt to a different style of chess."

In the historical record, how many post-1858 examples do we see?

Thanks Batgirl, that helped clear things up for me. Apparently Edge, the author of Paul Morphy The Chess Champion was unaware of Paul having played any chess before arriving at The St. George. The quote of Edge in the Pride and Sorrow of Chess can be found on page 56 of Paul Morphy The Chess Champion. You will notice it starts exactly with the same words that ends my quote of the same book. By reading the earlier section of that quote it can be clearly see that according to Edge, it was Alter who proceeded Barnes as Mr. Morphy’s opponent.

kindaspongey wrote:

H_Staunton wrote:

"... This is only one of several examples of Morphy’s ability to adapt to a different style of chess."

In the historical record, how many post-1858 examples do we see?

Kindaspongey

I’m not sure what you are asking. Are you asking how many examples there are of Paul Morphy’s ability to adapt post 1858? Or are you asking who other than Paul Morphy showed the same ability?

kindaspongey:
If Fischer and Bronstein don't count, then I will leave it to others to find what you are looking for, but regardless, their will be causing opinions. Kasparov called Morphy a prototype for the modern player, but I get that that is not an ultimate endorsement.

Maybe the greatest player in history then has to be the current champ, but that is boring.

If we are talking about absolutely dominating the rest of the field during their era, it looks like Morphy, Lasker, Capa, and Fischer take it. Lasker and Capa each dominated for a longer time period (Lasker in the first half of his reign... well he had that drawn match, so maybe not so), so had either Lasker or Capa quit as quickly as Morphy and Fischer did once at the top, who knows how they would have been remembered for this type of a (who is the GOAT) discussion?

Karpov was dominant, too, except for that close match with Korchnoi, and perhaps Kasparov can be argued as dominant, but Kasparov always had Karpov nipping at his heels before the competition all-around got tougher and he was eventually beaten by Kramnik (did Kramnik duck him for the rematch?), but he still retired number 1 and a guy who he had an overwhelming plus against became the next champ.

Fischer and Morphy had shorter reigns, though Morphy doesn't give the impression of "quitting" out of fear or "ducking" anyone... Seems like he quit legitimately on top, unchallenged, others ducking him, and he no longer had much interest in chess.

I was replying to a comment about "examples of Morphy’s ability to adapt to a different style of chess". In the historical record, what is the number of post-1858 "examples of Morphy’s ability to adapt to a different style of chess"?

I have not seen a Bronstein quote identifying Morphy as the number one player for all time. I also have not seen a date for the post #183 Bronstein quote, or any other reason to believe that it was made in the last sixty years. As for Fischer, one can ponder the difficulty of finding GM agreement with the Fischer "ultimate endorsement" in the last six decades.

"Now we can basically draw two conclusions: Either Morphy was some godlike superbeing whose brainpower supercedes everything that ever was and ever will be. Or this level of play is what a highly talented person can achieve under unfavourable circumstances.

Which conclusion do you think is more rational?"

I don't care what you think is rational. Genius at that level is like a second sight. How the brain works in specialized fields like this has been described like wheels of a lock aligning. I think Morphy had this kind of genius, like a photographic memory combined with a way of "seeing" the forces each piece exerts. To say he blundered a move here or there is not a valid argument as players like Tal seemed to say (to me at least) that they lead to opportunities. I would rather take the side of the argument that Morphy made a pact with the devil for this talent than say that a modern blitz player could beat him because of superior tactics training. He sure paid a devil of a price to have the talent and not be able to use it to any advantage in his life. You could say that lots of people can play the stratocaster like Jimi Hendrix, but only because of Jimi Hendrix. How would he be playing today if he was alive? How would people be playing if he never existed? These are questions and ideas which I think make sense in this discussion. To me he was the greatest player. You can think what you like.

One can ponder the difficulty of finding GM agreement with the Fischer "ultimate endorsement" in the last six decades.

It might be helpful to consider the part of the Fischer comment about Lasker not understanding positional chess.

Nothing New Under the Sun

excerpted from "Morphy's Games of Chess" by Philip Sergeant, 1916:

     There will always be two extreme schools of thought among chess-players concerning Paul Morphy, that which considers Morphy perfectly justified in his confidence and looks on him as the greatest genius at the game there ever was or ever is likely to be, that that which- while, of coursem admitting him to be a genius- refuses him a class to himself and attributes his phenomenal success to the weakness of most of his opponents and the poor form of others. In the former school is naturally found the "laudator temporis acti: ; in the latter, many a would-be Morphy of to-day who is not free from that worst fault of chess-players, jealousy.
     The present writer has o ambition to take part in the controversy as to the exact status of Morphy in the chess hierarchy. He prefers to call the evidence of two masters who succeeded Morphy in the world's championship, Steintiz and Lasker, of whose competence to form an opinion there cannot be a doubt. As they hesitate to embrace extreme opinions, we may be content to follow.
     Steinitz says: "Morphy's carreer marks a grand epoch in the history of our pastime, and a careful study of is games will always be essential for the purpose of acquiring a complete knowledge of the direct attack against the King, which forms a most important element in mastering our science . . . . If Morphy were alive and were to be the leading spirit of our day, as he was the superior of his own, he would of necessity cultivate and extend the system which has been developed since his time. He would probably have been the very first to make improvements or to perceive and acknowledge them in the practice of others, instead of reverting to the methods of the old school, as maintained by some critics (it is interesting to note, in this connection, the verdict of the "Regence players, as reported by Edge, the Morphy was not brilliant like La Bourdonnais, but "solide," close and analytical). 
     Steinitz also says: "There are clear indications in his match-style of that steady pressure and studious regard for the balance of position which requires an almost instinctive judgment in its application, and which has been cultivated and trained to a much higher degree since the Morphy period....It appears that Morphy, as far as his match-play os concerned, has received credit and praise for faults which he did not possess [such as creating positions, against his strongest opponents, in which sacrifices formed a distinct feature], while his really admirable qualities have been almost ignored."
     Lasker attributes Morphy's success to the scientific application of logical principles and his victories not to subtle combinations or a natural intuition, but to a gradual development of forces which crushed his opponent with cumulative effect. "This rather controverts the popular belief that Morphy was a genius and owed his success solely to superior natural gifts and powers of intuition." To Lasker Morphy is "the rational player."
     The cynical will note with amusement that both masters attribute to Morphy's play the characteristics pre-eminently associated with their own. But, in truth, there is a common motive power in all great chess, however it may be disguised by such labels as "intuitive," "analytical," "logical," "rational," etc. These labels are only false in being insufficiently descriptive.

The last few pages of this discussion has really been good, I also appreciate the added excerpts, and insights from the Previous WC's which I wasn't ever  aware of, that I remember. So those that provided such, it is appreciated. I just know I liked Morphy's games when I first saw them, I don't even remember how long ago it was. I never Idolized him though. I personally thought his games were incredible, I didn't care who he even played either.

I was amazed at how far he could calculate, which I was dumbfounded by him, more than any other games I had ever studied.

kindaspongey:
Point taken on Fischer's disregard for Lasker, but I hear patzers like myself talk about Lasker deliberately playing dubious moves to trip up his opponents (psychological), so maybe that style didn't mesh with Fischer's obsessive compulsiveness and his skill at finding refutations for dubious moves. The fact that he didn't think so for Morphy is even more amazing. Of course, Fischer's opinion and any GM of the last six decades' opinions are just that... opinions, not proof or refutation.

And see how difficult it is for athletes in the same league to predict who is going to win their respective sports' championship (for both team and individual sports)

"If we are talking about absolutely dominating the rest of the field during their era, it looks like Morphy, Lasker, Capa, and Fischer take it. Lasker and Capa each dominated for a longer time period (Lasker in the first half of his reign... well he had that drawn match, so maybe not so), so had either Lasker or Capa quit as quickly as Morphy and Fischer did once at the top, who knows how they would have been remembered for this type of a (who is the GOAT) discussion?"

People always underestimate Lasker for being good for so long, and are more inclined to value players with short careers. Lasker won every tournament he played between S:t Petersburg 1895-96 up until Moscow 1925, with one exception, when he finished second. All these tournaments were played after he had become World Champion. Fischer, on the other hand, didn't play a single event after becoming World Champion. This is enough for me to rank Lasker ahead of Fischer.

I think Capablanca's alleged dominance is exaggerated. He won the title match in 1921, finished behind Lasker in the top tournaments both played in 1924-25, and then he lost the title in his first title defence. Kasparov was rather dominant too :-)

Botvinnik is another player that probably would have been considered greater if he had quit after his amazing results during the 1940s. As it is it doesn't matter that he even played title matches in his 50s and was #3 on the rating list when he was 60. He is still more remembered for not doing even better than he did when he was 40+ years old.

Keeps coming up Morphy never study chess, it flow through his fingers like magic and he place each piece in the right squares to win his game and no effort at all. Its pure fantasy, no prodigy is that natural; Morphy did study and at times was a copycat in the opening. In his match against first rate master Anderssen, Morphy wins the opening debate and Anderssen needs to avoid the open openings and go for 1.a3 and now the drama starts, who is better positional player?  For me Anderssen is more innovative and creative, its astonishing he had a deep understanding in the Sicilian defense, Paulsen must of learn a lot from Anderssen. 

  

Morphy copy Szen opening setup exactly and fails to understand  why he did not get the advantage, the opening rule knight before bishop. 

  

 Anderssen fail to win the above game and was looking to mate Morphy but he  was not looking at positional pluses, Morphy won because his opponent fail to find the correct plan, Morphy did not outplay Anderssen at all. Too bad Anderssen did not play the Sicilian defense the way he did against Szen, Morphy would of had a lot problems solving the Sicilian pressure, the match would of been much closer.

@ Teichmann, how do you explain Morphy exact opening setup that  Master Szen use against Anderssen in  Sicilian defense, and Morphy fail to grasp that the bishop on d6 did nothing to the gain the opening advantage. I study Paulsen's games against Morphy and it was Morphy who was better prepare in the opening and Paulsen was going on natural talent alone and fail to to do better in a match. Sometime the games don't tell the real truth. Paulsen realize being unprepare in the opening against Morphy caliber was doom to fail against a Morphy or Anderssen; after the match against Morphy, Paulsen study his opening. This ridiculous myth that Morphy never study is plain silly; Morphy with his gifted talent in chess and diligence study in chess made him a world class player. 

"... 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. ..."

I gotta get me that Horwitz and Kling book.

If I remember correctly, there was an olms reprint of it, a decade or two ago.