Paul Morphy's Rating>2638

Sort:
quietheathen1st

honestly, i cant even see morphy beating 13 y/o magnus, considering how he fared agaisnt karpov and kasparov lol

SmyslovFan

Paulsen played a surprisingly modern looking Sicilian in Morphy’s day. What Morphy wouldn’t understand is all the Hedgehog and Indian systems. 

Remember, Morphy was at his best in open positions, but he played before Lasker, Nimzo and Capa codified positional rules of the game. He played without the signposts we all use today. That’s incredible! But his play still shows weaknesses in positions that today we take for granted. 

One idea that he had only a dim understanding of was how to play in isolated Queen pawn positions.

When we consider just how much knowledge has accumulated since Morphy, it’s amazing he played at the level he did!

quietheathen1st

Id like to mention that morphy was studious of chess. He studied positions, games, opening. He wasn't some Capablanca

Ubik42
I imagine the quality of what Morphy could study was not all that great. They was no MCO, I can’t believe there were many tactical puzzle books, and no Alekhine games to review!
quietheathen1st
Ubik42 wrote:
I imagine the quality of what Morphy could study was not all that great. They was no MCO, I can’t believe there were many tactical puzzle books, and no Alekhine games to review!

lol well, he did have a big library, in which he read like, every single book (chess books), and with his carlsen lvl memory, im sure it mustve come in handy. he also study every bourdannais vs mcdonnell game as well, from their matches. they were considered the highest level matches of all time back then. its as if nepo had studied all the karpov vs kasparov games, while reading a lotta rudimentary chess books, and kept it in his head with his perfect memory, while also having a much better understanding of the game normally. 

dannyhume

Morphy was playing Rapid to everyone else’s Correspondence. Hardly anyone talks about what little clock time he used in his games, and yet he still scored >70% against everyone.  That is why it is difficult to put a cap on Morphy’s skill based on the moves he actually played.   

Ubik42
He dominated everyone in his time, yes. But if he time traveled to today he would not.

This is not the same question as "if he was born 20 years ago with the internet would he dominate today", because we really have no way to answer this question.
BlackKaweah
“19th-century Morphy would certainly lose to Carlsen, who has had nearly two centuries of advancements to learn from.”

And exactly what are these advancements that are so critical?
fabelhaft
BlackKaweah wrote:
“19th-century Morphy would certainly lose to Carlsen, who has had nearly two centuries of advancements to learn from.”
And exactly what are these advancements that are so critical?

Let’s see… Opening theory that would win you games in the opening against the best players from much later than Morphy, GM coaching since childhood, elite tournament series that didn’t exist 150+ years ago, engines to study with, databases, endgame theory, online play and practice against top opposition, 150+ years of chess literature and games from the greats of the past to learn from, better pay for the best players, seconds assisting with preparation, professional training for many years etc. Did I forget some?

liftingfaces
BlackKaweah wrote:
“19th-century Morphy would certainly lose to Carlsen, who has had nearly two centuries of advancements to learn from.”
And exactly what are these advancements that are so critical?

Off the top of my head…

Computers? The Internet? Hundreds of thousands of games to analyze?

blueemu

Morphy was a remarkably strong intuitive player.

But he owes much of his success and reputation to the comparative weakness of his contemporaries. Nobody in the mid-1800s could even approach Morphy's accuracy in open positions. He was not notably successful in more closed positions.

In 1858, Morphy stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries... but that was then, and this is now.

Nowadays it takes more than just tremendous natural talent to reach the highest levels. A player with an amazing natural gift will routinely lose to a player with an amazing natural gift AND years of study, millions of Master games in his data-base, proper coaching, and so on.

DrGirkenstein

What is the difference between Magnus Carlsen and the rest of the top 10 players today? Their knowledge of theory, and their preparation is pretty much at a plateau. The difference then, would be that intuitive instinct for the game. Magnus himself has said many he often relies on instinct to play. Morphy had that in spades. All he needs then, is the knowledge of theory, and preparation. Furthermore, of that all he needs is opening theory, as the middle game is often more about calculation and instinct (as most professional games enter unexplored territory after an average of say 15-17 moves), and so is the endgame for the most part. Heck, chess is a solved game with 7 pieces or less. I say this not as a professional (I'm nowhere close), but a logical observer of the chess world's dynamic.

FavelaSwag

Didn’t he say chess wastes your life as well

Simpsonette

favela you suck a checkers bruh

beatboi123436

brrr skibidy dob dob dob dob dobbb

Simpsonette

the difference is the tissue of magnus is sucky i hate him he sucks im sus he not i n =9 his whipmfrom ohio

beatboi123436

in my opinion magnus is a bif fat sigma imposter and sjould be banned

krystofzomer

Morphy Is good Chess player