To this day Morphy is an unsurpassed master of the open games. Just how great was his significance is evident from the fact that after Morphy nothing substantially new has been created in this field. Every player- from beginner to master- should in his practice return again and again to the games of the American genius
--Mikhail Botvinnik
Just because engines didn't exist don't make him a better player, they just explain why he might not be as good. But transporting someone from that time and giving him a modern rating based on his play relative to people with engines and a century of analysis isn't really fair either.
I have read the houdini guys quote that Anand uses the engine so as a consultation partners. Garry K said that todays GMs train on the MACHINE MOVES(exp Carlsen of course, whom he claims to be original!)
Just because engines didn't exist don't make him a better player, they just explain why he might not be as good. But transporting someone from that time and giving him a modern rating based on his play relative to people with engines and a century of analysis isn't really fair either.
I have read the houdini guys quote that Anand uses the engine so as a consultation partners. Garry K said that todays GMs train on the MACHINE MOVES(exp Carlsen of course, whom he claims to be original!)
What's your point?
If Morphy isn't playing moves as strong, then he will be a worse player, it doesn't matter if he's not playing them because he doesn't have access to engines.
Just because engines didn't exist don't make him a better player, they just explain why he might not be as good. But transporting someone from that time and giving him a modern rating based on his play relative to people with engines and a century of analysis isn't really fair either.
I have read the houdini guys quote that Anand uses the engine so as a consultation partners. Garry K said that todays GMs train on the MACHINE MOVES(exp Carlsen of course, whom he claims to be original!)
What's your point?
If Morphy isn't playing moves as strong, then he will be a worse player, it doesn't matter if he's not playing them because he doesn't have access to engines.
No, chill out man! What I was trying to say is that Morphy can't be put in the same realm that todays' GM are residing. Today chess is a formula, you read books, you train with machines and try your best NOT to induce blunders, so they follow heartless machine moves( Why were table bases and opening books invented at the first place?!). GMs today store games in their MEMORY BANKS and calculate using them as a reference. Morphy's Games are one of those references! In those times there was an era of artistic chess ( romantic, in other words ), People used to see moves ahead ( like today, but more creatively!) and they used tactics ( Howard Staunton is the only one semi positional chess player I know of :-P ).
So, what I am trying to tell is that Morphy hadn't the far scientifically proven and fruitful techniques that We use today to train. SO, MORPHY CAN NEVER BE JUDGED IN THE TERM OF THE GAMES, VICTORIES OR LOSSES HE FACED WITH OTHER LEADING PLAYERS!!!
I had just quoted your statement, nothing too serious or anything. No offence intended :-D! 
The only really fair test would be to bring Morphy back to life, then give him a copy of Fritz and Chessbase, and tell him to take a few months to study modern chess players and games. Then remove him from in front of his computer and put him in front of Magnus Carlsen over a chess board.
So if you can work out
1) How to bring people back from the dead
2) How to persuade the resurrected that the most important thing they can do with their new life is to study chess
then you can resolve this debate once and for all.
No, chill out man! What I was trying to say is that Morphy can't be put in the same realm that todays' GM are residing. Today chess is a formula, you read books, you train with machines and try your best NOT to induce blunders, so they follow heartless machine moves( Why were table bases and opening books invented at the first place?!). GMs today store games in their MEMORY BANKS and calculate using them as a reference. Morphy's Games are one of those references! In those times there was an era of artistic chess ( romantic, in other words ), People used to see moves ahead ( like today, but more creatively!) and they used tactics ( Howard Staunton is the only one semi positional chess player I know of :-P ).
So, what I am trying to tell is that Morphy hadn't the far scientifically proven and fruitful techniques that We use today to train. SO, MORPHY CAN NEVER BE JUDGED IN THE TERM OF THE GAMES, VICTORIES OR LOSSES HE FACED WITH OTHER LEADING PLAYERS!!!
I had just quoted your statement, nothing too serious or anything. No offence intended :-D!
Oh I agree, he can only be judged in his time. If he was around today he would likely take advantage of the same things modern players do, and wouldn't play the same moves.
The game of chess has progressed if Morphy was brought back today alive and as he was-he would not be in the top 150 players.
I agree he can only be judged in his time.
The game of chess has progressed if Morphy was brought back today alive and as he was-he would not be in the top 150 players.
I agree he can only be judged in his time.
That's like saying if Einstein was brought back to life today that he would not be considered one of the top minds today because we know so much more now than they knew in his time; that he would not be able to contribute any of value today. I think that's absurd to believe true.
What if Moses were alive today? Would he bring down from the mountain the 10 Commandments on a iPad?
Losing the first several games of the match purely on theory, Morphy'd have Carlsen's style and worst chessic fears all worked out and steer the games entirely in that direction. Morphy would then bitch-slap Carlsen with pawn's odds using the BDG as white every single game thereafter.
Then Carlsen would whine how he didn't have enough time or databases to analyze Morphy's contemporaneous play and how Morphy had an inherent unfair advantage because he had nothing to lose from this match being the underdog and was too looney to understand the associated psychological pressures.
Carlsen would then withdraw from the rest of the match just before Morphy took the lead. And Morphy would think to himself "and he does this for a living?"
One of the worst posts ever on chess.com
Agreed.
Carlsen has dominated the chess world far more emphatically than Morphy ever did. Carlsen withdrew from the candidates cycle when FIDE refused to grant his request to play with a knights-odd disadvantage. By all current and retroactive rating systems, Carlsen's number-thingy by his name is higher than the current champ's and higher than Morphy's, more objective proof.
The sanest of all retro-rating systems assigns Morphy a rating of 2802 at his peak.
Of course 2802 doesn't say much in itself since it isn't related to Elo, but the site mentions that Elo himself had estimated Morphy as 2690, "considerably lower than my peak of 2802", so it sounds as if one can compare the actual numbers of the two systems. As with most rating systems some results look strange:
From 1901 to 1910 Lasker is consistently rated behind the 16-year-old Morphy (that hadn't played a game for three years). Steinitz is World Champion in 1891 after three successful title matches, but rated behind the 13-year-old Morphy. When Zukertort plays his title match he is 78 points behind Morphy at 12. Capablanca and Rubinstein are also rated behind the 12-year-old Morphy the last years of the Edo ratings, 1909-10.
Imagine being rated 2500+ in a time when there wasn't much to study, unless you thought deeply and came up with it largely on your own. There weren't the great outpouring of books that came about in the 20th century, let alone computer programs to help analyze. It boggles the mind. Whatever his rating, he played some of the most beautiful games I've ever looked through.
It is very diffilcult to compare players of different ages. Today's players has the benefit of so much opening theory, databases, chess software etc things that were totally alien in Morphy's time.
Having them play chess960 might be the only way to get any kind of measure.
As Botvinnik pointed out, Morphy played open games and since there is nothing new in open games--since all that theory we are so fond reciting applies to closed games--Morphy would still knock the socks off today's players.
yeah and he wasn't half bad against the Sicilian. though he might have a hard time in the theoretically thick dragon.
The difference between chess 150 years ago and now is too big to make comparisons meaningful. Morphy was a great player for his time but the chess played then was worlds apart from the chess played today.
This arguement really can never come to any serious conclusion.
I can related it to another competitive area that I know a bit about as well. Look at more physical sports where the changes are more visible.
How would boxers of old fair against more modern champions? There are fighters that were dominate in their time but you can just look at them and see that there have been major changes in training. ALL physical sports have increased in tempo. Athletes have increased in strength and technique which has in turn increased the tempo and strength of any game. Talent has always been a factor of any activity and this is not something that can be taught (sorry Polgars) but this is only a minor factor that can seperate the very top players while most players can be trained to achieve a very high standard of any sport.
With modern techniques and training morphy would have been a great player but its impossible to compare groups since talent is just another variable and the differences would have resulted in a very small differences among top players.
I will say that one key factor that I think might not have him in the top is his emotional stablity issues. Fischer had them too but overcame them long enough to reach the peak level but could not maintain the control for long term.
Just because engines didn't exist don't make him a better player, they just explain why he might not be as good. But transporting someone from that time and giving him a modern rating based on his play relative to people with engines and a century of analysis isn't really fair either.