My contention isn't, nor ever was, that Morphy was the greatest, however one might define such a term, but that while there's little evidence that Steinitz was stronger than Morphy, given what we know from either facts or the conjecture of those who played both, there is some evidence to the contrary. The Steinitz-Anderssen match of 1866 resulted in +8-6 in favor of Steinitz, not 8-0 and not anything close to Morphy's +7-2 domination of Anderssen.
Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen
Sort:
Batgirl, are you still mad at me?
Dec 12, 2013
0
#125
Just wait for the match between Carlsen and Morphy, and stop with this speculation already. The Morphy-Carlsen match is scheduled for this Spring. Elvis will be providing entertainment, and Mark Twain will be providing live reporting on the event.
Dec 13, 2013
0
#126
Somebodysson wrote:
Just wait for the match between Carlsen and Morphy, and stop with this speculation already. The Morphy-Carlsen match is scheduled for this Spring. Elvis will be providing entertainment, and Mark Twain will be providing live reporting on the event.
very funny
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...
And what is the one that Paul Morphy would crush the current WC ?
Look at that, White to move :
A dead draw, isn't it ? Morphy managed to lose it (playing Kg1). I know no world champion from 1950 onwards who blundered so badly in the endgame that I could see it when analysing the game.
All that does not take back the fact Morphy was an amazing player, and if he was born and trained in 1990 he might be the strongest player today, but we will never know for sure. What we do know for sure is that his play is not on par with today's GMs', so if his corspe was to play a chess match right now with anyone on the FIDE top 100 or probably top 1000 list he would lose badly.
carlsen issssii rhehef;o
chessredpanda wrote:
does that mean
+1
Paul Morphy had more raw talent. He was ahead of his time.
Paul Morphy for sure
I think magnus is better. Have in mind that he remember almost every chessgame ever played within he's watch. That way i can relay on so many good chess players about what they world have dont, to kinda arrgu with himself to "Okai then, i do this move"
And i think he's capable to do very long variations. Well, im not that good at chess, but what i can see inn him, hes a master that want do misstakes. Only if the game isnt that importen.
Dec 15, 2013
0
#135
chessdex wrote:
Paul Morphy had more raw talent. He was ahead of his time.
he was ahead of his time but carlsen has book moves that morphy doesn't know or traps.so much for ahead of time
@chessredpanda, Yes, of course he would know that, and if he played Morphy today, he would have no problem beating him, but if they played in the same time era, Morphy would win.
Tony Miles would beat Morphy with 1...a6. He has after all defeated much better with it.
Dec 15, 2013
0
#138
I think Carlsen would win a ten game match with 9.5 -0.5 and that is if Morphy gets lucky somehow. There's too much romantic mythology about the objective level of strenghts of Morphy and the like.
philidor_position wrote:
I think Carlsen would win a ten game match with 9.5 -0.5 and that is if Morphy gets lucky somehow. There's too much romantic mythology about the objective level of strenghts of Morphy and the like.
Fischer beat Larsen 6-0 and they were closer in strength than Carlsen and Morphy. However, as good as Fischer was that 6-0 was probably lucky on his part as Fischer was great but not normally trounce Larsen 6-0 great.
Meanest carlsen