Steinitz vs Morphy

In the 1870's Steinitz fundamentally changed the game from the swashbuckling attacks of the Romantic Era into the positional modern chess method and he dominated the world until everyone else took note of the new style and caught up.

(Or something like that , I read it a long time ago)

So I would guess that Morphy would probably have the same trouble everyone else did against him. 

Steinitz probably made a greater contribution to the development of chess (although Morphy was also a leader in this field), however there can be no doubt that Morphy was a more gifted player, one of the most talented players in history.  If they played a match I think Morphy might have had difficulty adjusting to Steinitz's style for the first few games, but once he had he would win comfortably.  In a long match - for example 24 games - I would tip Steinitz to take an early lead, Morphy to reel him in  by the halfway point and win confortably in the end.

Nah in a 24 game match I honestly feel 2 or 3 draws to start the match, theoretically important and fairly entertaining too. First win goes to Morphy as does the second, another draw to finish the first quarter with Morphy up 4-2. Stientz gets his first win in game 7 however with Morphy as white in the 8th game he fights back and wins 3 in a row followed by 2 more draws Score, 8-4. Morphy pressing for the match only manages to draw the next 3 games but scores another victory followed by a loss and 2 more draws. 11.5-7.5. Morphy wins the next game deciding the match 12.5-7.5. A respectable score...

Hahahha that was funny thank you, it points out the ludicrous nature of this thread. 

Dodger111 wrote:

jetfighter13 wrote:

Nah in a 24 game match I honestly feel 2 or 3 draws to start the match, theoretically important and fairly entertaining too. First win goes to Morphy as does the second, another draw to finish the first quarter with Morphy up 4-2. Stientz gets his first win in game 7 however with Morphy as white in the 8th game he fights back and wins 3 in a row followed by 2 more draws Score, 8-4. Morphy pressing for the match only manages to draw the next 3 games but scores another victory followed by a loss and 2 more draws. 11.5-7.5. Morphy wins the next game deciding the match 12.5-7.5. A respectable score...

Hahahha that was funny thank you, it points out the ludicrous nature of this thread. 

Partially my point, but I was being serious that I expect Morphy to win a 24 game match. It might be a bit more lopsided in Morphys favor than I have predicted.

Morphy hands down. He was a natural. Steinitz put a lot of work in. Morphy would have won by at least a 3 point score in a match. Morphy knew how to dissect even really good defense, and if he didn't come out with a mate he came out with a better endgame. 

I think you guys underestimate Steinitz.

I go with steinitz. Morphies attacks were mostly based on not a good defense by his opponet, steinitz was an artist of calculation.

Well... Morphy knew how to dissect players with infantile defense.  He never played anyone with good defense by today's standards.  Defensive ideas hadn't been explored yet but in any case most of Morphy's opponents were wood pushers.

ifoody wrote:

I go with steinitz. Morphies attacks were mostly based on not a good defense by his opponet, steinitz was an artist of calculation.

But could stientz refute an attack that uses every single piece of Morphy's.

I'm not sure that they do. What you have to remember is that Steinitz was terrible. Morphy was a genius and Steinitz was by far the worst world champion that there has ever been. Morphy would crush him.

H.E. Bird
I trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. This was in '67. In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw. Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me. Morphy had more science than Steinitz - more imagination. His career was very short, though very brilliant, and, whether or not he could have held first honors as long as Steinitz, is a matter of some doubt; but Morphy never met his match. He was never compelled to play his best game. His resources were never fully tested.


Louis Paulsen
At the tournament of  Vienna 1873  Blackburne (who came in first ahead of Steinitz) was discussing Morphy maintaining that many of Morphy's attacks and defenses were unsound, finally stating, "I think I could beat him."
Louis Paulsen who was present said, "As I have played against both perhaps you would like to know what I think about that. In my opinion Morphy was the king of all chess-players that ever lived. . . and as for you and the rest of us - oh, we play chess."


April 1888 issue of the Charleston Chess Chronicle wrote, quoting Celso Golmayo :
"In my many games with Morphy at odd of a Knight, I became hopelessly bewildered by the brilliancy and the intricacy of his combinations, but when I sit down with Steinitz on even terms I feel as though I have a very respectable chance to win...."

Morphy only got to use every single piece and make fun sacrifices because his opponents would only use 2 or 3 of their pieces.  I can't find tactics as good and as fast as Morphy, but I do the same type of thing in blitz all the time against new players.  They fall behind in development, I sacrifice pieces all over and mate appears for me, yay.

It's not about attacks, it's as blueemu said in #7, it's more a question of who was a better strategist.  Steinitz understood enough to not get blown up on move 20 like a rank beginner.

batgirl wrote:

H.E. BirdI trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. This was in '67. In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw. Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me. Morphy had more science than Steinitz - more imagination. His career was very short, though very brilliant, and, whether or not he could have held first honors as long as Steinitz, is a matter of some doubt; but Morphy never met his match. He was never compelled to play his best game. His resources were never fully tested.Louis PaulsenAt the tournament of  Vienna 1873  Blackburne (who came in first ahead of Steinitz) was discussing Morphy maintaining that many of Morphy's attacks and defenses were unsound, finally stating, "I think I could beat him."Louis Paulsen who was present said, "As I have played against both perhaps you would like to know what I think about that. In my opinion Morphy was the king of all chess-players that ever lived. . . and as for you and the rest of us - oh, we play chess."April 1888 issue of the Charleston Chess Chronicle wrote, quoting Celso Golmayo :"In my many games with Morphy at odd of a Knight, I became hopelessly bewildered by the brilliancy and the intricacy of his combinations, but when I sit down with Steinitz on even terms I feel as though I have a very respectable chance to win...."

Thank you for posting that.

As for the people who doubt Morphy's strength, he used every piece including the rooks in his attacks because he developed them... Sure it was a novel concept even then, but if you look at Morphy's games against his Father, both players developed everything. Now as for Stientz, people who played both said Morphy was better.

Morphy's quitting the chess as early as he did made him fair subject for legend making about his future invincibility. If Tal had quit chess in 1960 many would claim that no one ever would have become strong enough to beat him. As for Morphy vs Steinitz, I think comparing Steinitz of the 1860s with Morphy at his best would mean clear advantage Morphy, Steinitz of his peak was another matter and more difficult to predict.

"I think comparing Steinitz of the 1860s with Morphy at his best would mean clear advantage Morphy, Steinitz of his peak was another matter and more difficult to predict."

Morphy peaked in 18 months of high level chess?  I would imagine that as a Steinitz developed, Morphy wouldn't have stagnated but actually developed faster if public chess continued had continued to absorb him.

Just some clarifications"

"They never played because they were not contemporaries"
Morphy was born in June 1837; Steinitz in May 1836

"Steinitz did not emerge as a chess power until 20 years later in the 1880s. He became the first official champion in 1886."
Steinitz considered himself the de facto champion from 1866 when he narrowly beat Anderssen.

That quote from post #6 is something I contributed to, from "Steinitz actually met Morphy....." to "....life-long friend Maurian."  My thanks to all for leaving that part alone.

To those who think Morphy was so one-dimensional that Steinitz would have simply stopped Morphy's weak attacks and outplayed him positionally, I can tell that you have not played through the games with Harrwitz.  Morphy comes at Harrwitz in a bum's rush like he always did, but Harrwitz defends accurately, wards off the pre-mature attack, and wins.  Morphy had to adjust his style; he learned to attack by increment, a little push here, a little tweak there, accumulating small advantages until the position became overwhelming.  He crushed Harrwitz so badly that Harrwitz resigned the match and never played Morphy again.  The thing most people miss about Morphy is that they think he was just a skilled attacking player in the midst of weak defenders, but what he really was was a dynamic positional player with an eye for brilliancy.

Morphy certainly peaked before he quit playing, and the question of the OP was who was best at their peak.

I doubt that Morphy peaked at a seriously young age he was in 1860, Considering that it took Stientz another 20 years to peak. lol Morphy would have dominated Stientz in 1860, and again in 1880, and probably would have had a chance a gainst Lasker in 1890 (if he lived)