Paul Morphy's Rating>2638

You mentioned Lasker. Here's what Lasker said of Morphy:

"How this miracle happened, we do not know..."

You mentioned Capablanca. Here's what Capablanca said of Morphy:

"The magnificent American master had the most extraordinary brain that anybody has ever had for chess. Technique, strategy, tactics, knowledge which is inconceivable for us; all that was possessed by Morphy ..."

Instead of telling me to "calm down" about Morphy, you might want to better educate yourself on his contributions to chess. Many world champions (in addition to the two quoted above) have blustered far more about Morphy than I have.

@Sitl1, it is possible to regard Morphy as probably the greatest player of the Nineteenth Century, as one of the most influential players of all time, an inspiration to generations and an absolute genius while also accepting he was about 2450 strength objectively.

@SmyslovFan, I think 2450 for Morphy is an entirely fair estimate. As you point out, 2450 is an incredible rating, considering the era in which he played.

My issue is with the other poster who said of Morphy: "his contribution was being a good player. he did nothing more than that."

It's ... a description that I disagree with.

With Morphy, it wasn't just that he played "good", but also that his approach to the game was unique, compared to his contemporaries.

He didn't just play aggressively - he appeared to play differently. His moves seemed guided by concepts that his opponents were completely unaware of.

That's where I think Morphy's contribution lies. He showed the world a new way to play.

u posted a buncha quotes about how good he was, expecting me to somehow change my view of him, when, in fact, the biggest contribution that i gave to the man was his playing strength.... he did nothing more than play good. read first, type later. his contribution was his inspirational strength. aside from that, he did nothing.

exatcly. thank you for this. morphy played wonders against players who were more around 2300. i get to see hikaru 10-0 GMs rated 3000 on chess.com pretty much every day. morphy couldnt even do that much to anderssen.

well, najdorf was actually incredibly strong, and probably a super GM (of his time). he was never in the top best players of his time though, but he was close. anyhow, pillbury managed to do more than that, if memory serves me right. 

He was the better in his time.
In the time he lived there was not computers, campionships, chesss associations, so he was more limited than we are today. 
 
Morphy (left of the video) vs. Löwenthal (right), 1858.

@quietheathen1st says dumb things, and he says them in a dumb way. Not worth responding to.

It wasn't just his playing strength - but the manner in which he played. He introduced a different emphasis to the board.

It's easy to glance at Morphy's games and conclude that he was just another Romantic, tactical attacker. Stronger than the others, perhaps, but still no different. Yet great players such as Capablanca, Lasker, Smyslov, Kasparov (et al) all noted that Morphy's distinguishing feature was a deep positional understanding that didn't exist in his Romantic rivals.

It wasn't that he was simply better than his contemporaries - it was that he played from a more evolved understanding of where (and how) to place the pieces.

He demonstrated a grasp on the game that wasn't seen before him, and his play was so instructive that it changed the way the game was played from there on out.

This is why he's so often described as the bridge between the Romantic era and the Modern/Classical era - because his ideas on the board helped the world discover a more evolved way of playing chess.

So you see, with Morphy, it wasn't about him playing "good", or his playing strength compared to his peers. It was about how his play challenged and changed the game.

As odd as it might sound, Morphy was the first player to stress the vital importance of proper development BEFORE engaging in tactics.

Here's an example, from Meek vs Morphy, New Orleans 1855:

u say that as u tag me. interesting lol 

Heh, yeah, I guess so

According to historical accounts, when Morphy played Anderssen, Morphy was quite ill.

He showed up late, was wobbly and pale, and needed assistance to stand up and sit down, as he was suffering from the intestinal flu.

I'm actually surprised that he didn't lose more games.

When Carlsen had a bout of stomach distress, for example, he bowed out of a game on move 5, by immediately offering a draw.

Feeling ill can really disrupt one's playing.

In Morphy's time, though, feeling ill would not have been a valid excuse to back out of an arranged match. Arrangements were often difficult to make, and travelling was a huge ordeal. Back then, you played on, even if you had to excuse yourself to the restroom to vomit between moves ...

Man, what’s the point of debating whether Morphy was around 2450, 2600, 3000A, …?? And comparing him with todays’ best, that’s utter BS!

Probably, yeah, in 2021 Carlsen would beat him 10-0…maybe because of all the books, magazines that Carlsen has read and the access to the best soft- and hardware Carlsen has. But back in 1860…with not that many books and definitely no soft- and hardware…maybe Morphy would beat Carlsen 10-0, pure on talent.

IMHO, elo is overrated…and nowadays we have to deal with rating inflation. Look at the number of players with OTB 2700+ back in 1995 (9) and in 2021 (39)… That’s mostly caused by the many tournaments and games a player can play in 2021 (compared to 1995), not so because todays’ stars are way stronger than the brontosaurs in 1995… Let alone 1860.

“When Carlsen had a bout of stomach distress, for example, he bowed out of a game on move 5, by immediately offering a draw.

Feeling ill can really disrupt one's playing.

In Morphy's time, though, feeling ill would not have been a valid excuse to back out of an arranged match“

Indeed, but there are also a bunch of games one could compare from when both were feeling fine. For example Morphy lost the first games in his match against Harrwitz, and few bring up Harrwitz as comparable to the modern greats. He was a great player in his time but rather few played chess compared to today, and it is only logical if there are more talents and tougher competition today.

“maybe Morphy would beat Carlsen 10-0, pure on talent”

I think things like these are suggested rather often, i.e. that modern players are much less talented than those of the distant past. But why would Carlsen or Kasparov etc be so much less talented than a Harrwitz that could beat Morphy in consecutive games? Barnes won eight games against Morphy and lost 19, was he really on such a totally different level than Carlsen? Difficult to measure such things, but also easy to underestimate the talent of the modern players. Talents didn’t stop being born just because much more people were born than in the first half of the 1800s…

I’m not saying that modern players are less talented, just saying that comparing players from both eras is useless, because of the differences in circumstances and resources.

One reason that amateurs are less impressed by modern players is that the general level of tournament play has improved across the board, especially defensive technique.

Modern masters seldom produce anything comparable to Morphy's Opera game, not because they lack Morphy's talent, but simply because their opponents don't allow that sort of brilliancy nowadays. The standard of modern defensive play doesn't allow that sort of smashing win anymore.

In order to produce a brilliancy, it isn't enough to play well. Your opponent must play poorly.