Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen

If u give current chess engines to morphy he can be monster

I don't know how you suppose you even possibly determine this. 

I wonder if Poul Morphy would have been better with the all the knowledge we have or about chess today or if that would have ruined his creativity.

Poul Morphy must have learned most of the theory on his own.

I guess based on the knowledge we have today Carlsen would beat Morphy blindfolded.

however if we upgrade Poul Morphy with todays theory I guess he would be about the same strength

Have a computer examine their games to see who makes the lowest percentage of errors, or the most good moves. And other stuff you can look for.

Oh I see, but it is unfair no? Both players were exposed to different sources (including quality) of information? Surely there is no valid means of way to test this. But I wonder what the community thinks too ! 

Simpy set a match between these two guys. 32 games should be enough.

No computers to practice against back then

Morphy 1 Carlsen 0

No jet setting about playing against the worlds best every month or two in tournaments

Morphy 1 Carlsen 0

Playing chess like a man

Morphy 1 Carlsen 0

Morphy 3 Carlsen 0

Morphy wins.

There is breaking evidence that Paul Morphy and Bobby Fischer were the same person. Have you ever seen them together!?

they were born in different times

And you actually believe that?

Pure talent, doesn't Morphy easily win this?  Morphy had 2600 strength without EVER OPENING A BOOK, FOLKS.  He never had teachers and was 2600 strength without aid of 150yrs of chess theory.  If he had all of the chess theory that today's players have....well....you can guess what would likely happen.

"Likely" is not a certainty though. Though that being said, I read Batgirl's blogs on Morphy and he is certainly the more "creative" and "innovative" unlike Carlsen, who still boasts superior skill in our era. 

You can only say likely ( or most likely ) because it can never be completely proven.  The main reason for this is because one of those two rascals is dead.

Therefore we shouldn't speculate at all if we don't know for certainty and don't have a reliable valid way of testing it, rather enjoy some cheesecake 

Not at all - speculating is a BUNCH of fun, my Kiwi'ster!!

It's likely that Carlsen would win in a match between the two, considering how many positions he has seen compared to how many positions Morphy has seen. Carlsen is just a more experienced player. But it's hard to say who is "better".

A bit like how the media speculates which middle-eastern country is "next?" The media has warped humour/intentions.

Never the less, in that case, theoretically speaking, surely Carlsen would win, having access to more sources, including analysis of Morphy's games, tactics etc etc

Some of the posters seem to have forgotten that Morphy had psychological and emotional problems that make Bobby Fischer seem perfectly rational. Anyone remember the "thing" with women's shoes?

If he had been magically transported forward in time by a century and a half, Morphy would have been a GM or super-GM calibre player... for a year or two. Then he would have gone off his twig.

"Some of the posters seem to have forgotten that Morphy had psychological and emotional problems that make Bobby Fischer seem perfectly rational. Anyone remember the "thing" with women's shoes?"

I'm sorry, but that statement completely ignores facts.

I hope Great Britain is next - let's shackle those Brits! 

BUT Morphy is the one with more natural, pure talent.  Head to head, without aid of theory, Morphy would likely lose to Carlsen, true.   I still like the idea of pure talent.