Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen

what even is the point of this 💀

other than trying for most asinine forum ofc

Me

Morphys games were way more epic

Magnus being alive gives him a big practical advantage.

Morphy is the ghost of the Opera. He has had plenty of time to catch up with the latest methods, so I reckon he would give Magnus a run for his money.

Would not be surprised if he beat him.

Magnus is better. Morphy couldn't because there weren't chess engines in that time and there weren't that many strong players. For his time, he did amazing, but Magnus would probably win 95% of the time.

Morphy will soon have learnt the previously unfamiliar lines.

Morphy smashed the other players of his time.

We ill never see these two play, but none of you seem to realise that Morphy was good enough o catch up with that the previous 150 years have taught.

To see the point clearer, imagine capablanca coming back. Do you reckon that he would not be a match all booked up after studying the latest wrinkles.

Morphy alerady showed huge positional skills, which his opponemts could not match. He would simply need longer than Capa to catch up.

It really is an unfair comparison. Carlsen faces stronger opponents and has better resources at his disposal and theory is more developed. Murphy completely crushed his contemporaries but that doesn’t translate to today. In terms of sheer playing strength, it Carlsen. But if we mean talent, then that’s a different story.

The strength of today's players is the result of decades of collective improvement. There is no reason to believe that had Carslen played in the mid 19th century, he would not have outplayed the rest like Morphy.

On an equal playing field, Morphy and Carlsen would had all you guys on the edge of your seats.

I cannot say Morphy would have necessarily won, but I have no doubt it would have been great Chess by two greats.

why is this back

whatever

Carlsen knows Morphy's Chess. Morphy knew nothing of the last 160 years of advancements in Chess theory when he died. It's easy to see what would happen.

Greco would crush both of them in a simul.

Carlsen is surely better but Morphy is much more instructive for the beginner and intermediate player.

Wilhelm Steinitz, who was actually older than Morphy, stated that by the time of Morphy’s death, chess had progressed beyond the level that Morphy played. He did agree that had Morphy continued to play he would have kept up with the changes.

IM Willy Hendricks agrees with Steinitz in his book “Ink Wars”. Hendricks makes absolutely clear that the level of play even at the time of Steinitz was far below the level of chess in the second half of the 20th Century, let alone now.

This comparison is like saying Isacc Newton was not as smart as a Edward Witten. Does Witten know more certainly. Does Newton have greater contributions certainly. Morphy was probably the greatest Chess talent the world has ever known, could he beat Magnus without current theory no. With current theory I think he could be world champion. He was that gifted!

Carlsen studied the games of Morphy and became better. He cheated by memorizing.