Paul Morphy's Rating>2638

And he has 150 years of chess theory, chess engines, modern GM's and tactical trainers to improve his tactical vision. Morphy had no such luxury.  He wasn't even tested to his full potential and this is while playing casually, doing double degree and chilling.

Wei Yi spent more time on Chess in 1 week than Morphy probably did in his entire life.

Clearly the GOAT aka Fischer spoke highly of Morphy and thought he would beat everyone in 1960s. Kasparov flat out said he is a prototype GM. Capa and Alekhine praised him as if they wished they had his talent. Didn't Anand recently state Morphy played 40 years ahead of his time?

A guy like Morphy would be a TOP GM is any era as stated by Fischer. Wei Yi is a strong GM nothing more. Lets give him more time as he is still young.

Carlsen is a phenomenon. He is a different story entirely.

That's cool.

I think he simply was quite wrong there, regardless how much stronger he was than anyone here. He claimed that the Morphy of the 1850s, as he was, would beat all the best players more than a hundred years later. There's just not much logic in that statement. Morphy was great for his time, but given all the advantages the modern players have it is not fair to compare.

they did not have ratings back then

only pinky swears

There are a few pages about Greco in Great Moves Learning Chess Through History.

Looking at his games--Morphy was not nearly as strong as some posters here indicate.

14 pages of crap.

besides the rating system was started from ~1950 .

If it's a solid guess, it's because you're imagining that Morphy would arrive here via a time machine, having no knowledge of the advancements in chess theory over the past 160 years as well as no knowledge of the games played by the many great masters who followed him.  It's an unfair comparison.  Not that different from comparing a modern scientist's knowledge of electricity to Benjamin Franklin's.

The strength of great masters of different eras should be compared not on an absolute basis but rather a relative basis.  How dominant was the master against the strongest opponents of his time?  Did he have a deeper understanding of the game than his contemporaries?

If Morphy was born 20 or 25 years ago instead of 180, he would surely be among the best today.  And I think he would be the best today.

I agree with everything you say in this post except your last 2 sentences.

Morphy was great but in a very limited world with few chess players and a lot less people. 

How he would do if he was born 20 or 25 years ago is unknown but for certain he would have vast hills to climb which were not present in his day.

Of course you're right. It's unknown.  And we've got to keep in mind that chess wasn't a profession in Morphy's time.  I read that after he retired from chess, he couldn't build a successful law practice because visitors to his office wanted to talk about chess instead of legal matters.  It's hardly a given that he would have any interest at all in a professional chess career today.

No one can become a top-tier grandmaster today without making chess his full-time occupation. Someone who just enjoys running marathons on weekends occasionally has no chance of winning an Olympic gold medal. If we're going to speculate about how strong Morphy would be today, we've got to assume he would be motivated to pursue a career in chess and would put in the required effort to reach the top tier. If we're not willing to do that, there's nothing to discuss.

The reason I think Morphy would be the strongest player today is that of all the great masters in history, I believe he had the greatest natural talent. He wasn't merely the best of his time; his level of understanding was well ahead of his time. Given his natural talent and assuming he would have the drive to reach the top, my money would be on Morphy.

FBLoggs  The reason you think Morphy would be the strongest player today is that of all the great masters in history, you believe  he had the greatest natural talent.

Of course you are entitled to this belief and many would agree with you.

However, from looking at his games, I do not believe he had the greatest natural talent of all the great masters in history.

I can think of about 25 players who I believe had greater natural talent.

So, we just disagree... 

Here are my thoughts on Morphy from 5 years ago -https://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/whats-so-great-about-paul-morphy-anyway - I don't think they've changed substantially since then.

Bobby Fischer (2785 at his peak) played through Morphy's games on a physical board, taking the side of Morphy's opponents. He said that he found Morphy's moves incredibly difficult to play against.

Might it be safe to say that Fischer saw the ideas and resources in Morphy's play better than the rest of us?

"Lasker ... didn't understand positional chess." - another Fischer quote from around the same time as his Morphy comments.
Extended discussions of Morphy have been written in books by GM Franco, GM Beim, GM Ward, GM Marin, GM Bo Hansen, GM McDonald, Garry Kasparov (with Dmitry Plisetsky), and GM Gormally. Anyone see any of them express the view that we should accept Fischer's conclusion about Morphy? There seems to be general agreement that Morphy was, as GM Fine put it, one of the giants of chess history, but that is a long way from saying that he was better than anyone playing today.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history
"... 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. ... Anderssen 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.

Fair enough.  The reason I think Morphy had the greatest natural talent was that he was virtually self-taught and clearly had a greater understanding of the game than his contemporaries.  Capablanca also had great natural talent but I don't think his understanding was well above other masters of his time.

By the way, I'm not a Morphy fan.  He was never my favorite player.  When I first started playing chess fairly seriously, my favorites were Capablanca and Fischer.  I haven't had a favorite in years.  I just give him his due.  But it's just my opinion and there is no way to settle it.  

It's worth noting that the GMs you mention (with the exception of Kasparov) all attained considerably lower competitive ratings than Fischer ever did (by a margin of 200 to 300 elo points each, even).

It's logical to conclude that they all lack(ed) the chess understanding that Fischer possessed.

Even the titanic Kasparov speculated, as recent as 2014, "... no doubt Fischer could have still been at the top."

So we have even the titanic Kasparov pronouncing Fischer's (hypothetical) dominance. 

Then we have Fischer himself pronouncing Morphy's (hypothetical) dominance.

And then we have . . . lower-rated GMs saying otherwise.

Of course, any discussion about Morphy in relation to today is going to be hypothetical in nature, so ... it's all a matter of speculation anyway.

Morphy own five chess books and no chess coach and he turn twenty he was the best player; I like to add no chess culture like in Europe. Morphy beat the best European masters and won every match and did not pick a chess book or consulted with other chess masters, he did not take chess serious but he beat the best players. Morphy is the most natural talented player ever. Who were his opponents when he was a boy, his relatives, friends and other New Orleanians, yeah, that is recipe for success; Morphy had the best players training him to beat European masters. lol

It is one thing to note other GMs being weaker than Fischer. It seems to me to be something else to suppose that all these GMs lack the sense to perceive that we should believe Fischer and that we have to turn to SteamGear to tell us the wisdom of doing that. As yet, I am not aware of anyone having demonstrated an ability to predict what would have happened if a nineteenth century player had been active in the 21st century.

"... [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. ... Anderssen 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. ..." - 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.