But who is better at bumping old contentious threads?
Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen
Sort:
Obviously.
Every gen of players are significantly stronger than the last.
Aug 21, 2020
0
#285
Morphy was more naturally talented and pure genius. He put little effort into studying the game...it mostly just came easy to him. Carlson dedicates every day to chess and memorizes theory and engine lines....and is also genius but not on the same level as morphy. If morphy was born in today’s world he would be the best if he wanted to be. If he put in the work and made use of today’s resources. But he would probably be like nah I’m just gonna throw all my pieces at you and win
"Accuracy" is a misleading measure of playing strength. Most human players will play the first clear win they see. It is frequently the case that players like Morphy and Lasker have low computer-accuracy ratings, but the inaccuracies mostly come during endgames which they won anyway. They took a few moves longer to finish, but the finish they played was nonetheless clear and simply won. Players back then often played through to mate, whereas GMs today resign as they recognize hopeless positions sooner. Thus the portion of the game where computer-like accuracy is not needed simply does not get played anymore.
Morphy's true playing strength can't be determined, simply because there were very few strong players to test him. Anderssen alone forced him to think. Lasker, on the other hand, reached and remained at the top of the chess world for decades, even as the strength of competing GMs was growing in leaps and bounds. This indicates that his true strength was much greater than simple computer analysis of his individual games would suggest.
That's what makes these debates pointless. There is no reason to believe that the all-time greats (I count Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Petrosian, Fischer, and Kasparov in this category) could not, at peak form, raise their level of play at will as circumstances demanded. Carlsen, like Morphy, has not been seriously tested during his reign, so assessing his true strength is likewise difficult.
Magnus is better at playing chess. But Morphy was WAY better than his contemporarys.
I think Carlson
To be clear, I don't think Carlsen would stand a chance in a match against the old man (Lasker), but that's more of a match-up thing than an assessment of overall playing strength. Lasker would needle dead-drawn positions for 50-75 moves looking for advantage, he'd purposely play counter-intuitive (but not unsound!) moves with multiple deep, hidden threats, and he did not ever display "mental fatigue". Carlsen clearly does wear down, and in a long match would fall off in a match with no quick draws.
Carlson although when he was 7 years old he was not as good
I think Carlsen is better of course. That’s because he is a player in the modern 2020’s and Paul Murphy played nearly 200 years
Aug 22, 2020
0
#293
infestationPit wrote:
dfmaaa1 wrote:
infestationPit wrote:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history
Carlsen is obviously much better than Morphy
dude carlsen learnt from morphy and so did the other players we learnt literally everything from morphy so you cant change the truth if you ask magnus himself then he would reply the same
Carlsen has higher accuracy than Morphy, which means Carlsen is better at chess than Morphy.
i meant that morphy was more creative and magnus learnt from morphy!!!
I think that if Morphy learned as much theory as Carlsen he would have been better, but Carlsen lives in the engine era, so if Carlsen vs Mophy Carlsen would win.
It is a silly question. Of course Magnus much better!
dfmaaa1 a écrit :
infestationPit wrote:
dfmaaa1 wrote:
infestationPit wrote:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history
Carlsen is obviously much better than Morphy
dude carlsen learnt from morphy and so did the other players we learnt literally everything from morphy so you cant change the truth if you ask magnus himself then he would reply the same
Carlsen has higher accuracy than Morphy, which means Carlsen is better at chess than Morphy.
i meant that morphy was more creative and magnus learnt from morphy!!!
Yes exactly, Carlsen learned from Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, and all those engineless geniuses you have to give them credit!
Aug 22, 2020
0
#298
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
In reality of course, if Morphy were alive today he would not be in the top 50.
Wow that's a bold claim...
Well there aren't many 163 year olds in the top 50.
Morphy was extremely stronger than his contemporaries, he was absurdly strong.
He would be a 3000 rated player today, comparing the ages. (Considering that the difference between him and his opponents would be the same as they were when he lived.)
But if you only consider brute playing strength, Carlsen is just way stronger. We are in 2021, chess has evolved.
Carlsen is better than morphy in chess, (Every generation of chess players is improving) But morphy is more important as in that time, They had to make their OWN strategies and they were so good without all the chess training we have today.