Paul Morphy's Rating>2638

"... 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. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

As far as I can see, the good-match-searching was in New York, England, and Paris.

True, he certainly was (at least) twenty years ahead of his time.

Which is even more notable because, twenty-plus years later, the main reason chess players began to understand the ideas that Morphy intuitively grasped was because they studied his games.

There was pre-Morphy chess, and post-Morphy chess.

After the Staunton match refusal, Morphy went on to play Anderssen.

By 1858, Staunton's major chess competition successes were more than a decade in the past. He played two games against Loewenthal at the Birmingham tournament and lost both of them.

Which was akin to traveling the world in that era.

Keep in mind that traveling back then was time-consuming and taxing on the body. It nearly resulted in Morphy's death.

Also keep in mind that there were few (if any?) other locales that proclaimed the presence of strong chess players willing to challenge Morphy.

There was some major chess activity in Germany at the time.

I do not blame Morphy for not going to Germany. I just think that the "traveled the world" thing might give some the wrong idea.

Nearly 3 generations post-Morphy, players who played his contemporaries were still competitive on the world scene, but some folks seem to want to imply that because Morphy played dubious moves here and there against the top masters in the world (that he still easily dominated), that this shows he was weaker than a 2300 today?   That "he was hardly tested" is hardly a detraction, and is testament to his skills, especially when his contemporaries revolutionized openings and strategy.

How did these "players" do against Morphy's "contemporaries"? How did these "players" do in the chess world, "3 generations post-Morphy"?

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1295510

Some of what GM Reuben Fine actually wrote: "... 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. ..."

This discussion is still going on?

Anyone who is really interested in this (beyond random comments and quotes) should read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Paul-Morphy-Perspective-Valeri-Beim/dp/1888690267

That was a double-blindfold game (and quite a game, too!). Morphy's play was near engine-perfect the entire game.

44.Qb7 was a thing of beauty.

You got Steinitz, the 28 year long champ (mix of official and unofficial), in his decrepit old age putting up a strong match against a young Lasker, the next guy who would rule the chess world for 3 decades. That guy, the 2nd official world chess champion, held his own into the 1930's when guys like Capablanca and Alekhine were on the decline, and Botvinnik, Keres, and Smylov on the rise (Euwe in the midst).  The same Botvinnik and Smyslov who had even records against a young Fischer who was already being colluded against.  And we all seem to agree without controversy (only haters) that Fischer was the greatest ever, and now we are 100 years past Morphy.

SteamGear wrote: "... That was a double-blindfold game (and quite a game, too!). Morphy's play was near engine-perfect the entire game.

44.Qb7 was a thing of beauty."

The opening: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019039

Did Morphy ever play Steinitz? After 1858, how many years went by before Steinitz was generally recognized as world champion?

Yes, those were the opening moves played. The Paulsen Countergambit.

Batgirl wrote an interesting article about Paulsen and his impact on chess:  https://www.chess.com/article/view/louis-paulsen