Morphy today!?

Well, I will always rely more on the greats of chess on matters concerning chess than I will someone with no chess credentials. If I had an electrical problem I would listen more to an electrician than say a plumber or carpenter....... most people are funny that way.

Give it a rest. Your arguement is pointless.

Read this post. It too is based off a "religious" quotation by one the "immortals".

Such a silly argument to have.  There is nothing more special about Topalov, Carlsen, Anand (or any of the super GM's) today than Morphy was when he was playing.  Alekhine said that a Grand Master has to have special innate abilities.  All top players have these abilities.  So I would venture to say that should Morphy have wanted to become a chess professional he could have easily made that choice.  Like Carlsen his memory was photographic so I would imagine he would be in the top 10 should he choose to study the game like the Super GM's do with the use of powerful computer programs.

Reb, this is a dumb disscusion. You and I know that there's no chance of knowing for sure unless Morphy "magically" came back from the dead. However, you had no right to insult me by implying that I have no understanding of chess. I think you owe me an apology on that account.

Well Daniel you did call my sacrifice in that game speculative.  Which it was not :)....so I question your chess understanding on that basis.

LOL

haha, one wonders what they might say about us in 100years.

Fischer and Smyslov.....ahhhhh what do they know about chess anyway?

Hey, you can make mistakes too. The only good sacrifices are unsound!

I notice you didn't respond to my actual post in this thread.  Because the logic is rock solid.

I really don't care how Morphy would do nowadays. I haven't been feeling well for the past few days, so this contributes to my crankiness.

That would be a game worth paying for! : )

ADK

put him on speed and i'll tear his A@% up!

An interesting topic.  I have to say he would still do well in today's style.  He may have more of a challenge.  Although think of how everytime you watch one of his games and you think how.  How did that position happen.  You are astonished of the ending position.  I know I am.  A person with that ability to see those positions would still definitely be a challenge today.

Morphy would definitely adapt to todays playing style. Chess is Chess. So would all the great players of the past - staunton, alekhine, capablanca etc. At the peaks of their playing strength,they would all make the current fide top 100 list. I am certain of it.

Morphy wouldn’t be a factor today. He most likely would not bother to study the developments in chess since his day and he most certainly would not play for money. And that’s what chess is all about today…money.

I’ll never forget one former US Champion who was watching us analyze a position and when asked his opinion refused to give it unless somebody paid him a few dollars. And certainly very few people would be playing today if the top prize fund was only $100 first and class players could only win a crappy little trophy or a book.

No. Morphy would not approve of the situation today. He would not be playing.

Firstly, I thank you for being polite so far in this topic, and encourage you to continue to be.

Secondarily, to paul211, I was just curious to know what do you think, and added some interesting facts related to the time when he played, not TOO considering the question, thus never saying my own opinion. I also included a certain fact about his playing style that wasn't really needed (he had to find weaknesses, that's why he was the best in his job), not an opinion. So I don't see why my question isn't fair. And you are right, it's not worded quite properly.

Morphy is god. No, jk =p but anyways, he would not be playing, but he could. He knew how to smother his opponent then mate. He managed to play against 4 GMs of that time and tie. He handicapped against Charles Maurian before he became an adult. The unofficial World Champion. Heck, he even met the Queen! Questioning his ability now is certainly speculative, but look at it this way: they had the sicilian back then too. The Ruy Lopez. The Italian Game. Hmmm?

I definitely aggree with Daniel3.

It's true with most sports.

For example:

The great Packers of the 60's would have no shot winning vs. say, the Cowboys of 90's. 

Athletes are faster, stronger, etc.

It's probably true in all sports ( although, I feel golf MAY be an exception),  I think it's true in chess.  The evolution of the game makes it that way. 

There are certain fallacies concerning Morphy and 19th century chess in general.  The idea that players from that time accepted gambits out of some testosterone-induced code of honor is refuted by the fact that gambits were regularly declined as well as accepted. If players did accept gambits more often, it was because of the precept that claims that the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it.   That Morphy never studied chess is a myth put forth by some misinterpretations of remarks by de Maurian.  Morphy was considered one of the leading opening experts of his day and Morphy himself revealed that he studied even obscure games by the great players of his day and before in his comments to Faulkbeer. Morphy did, however, claim that instructional books held little for him to learn.  Another fallacy is that 19th century players were overall less talented than today's players. They certainly had less practice and had less theory to support them, but tactically, the one area that can be somewhat compared, the best players then were as good as the best players of today.  The next fallacy, which several folks touched upon, but which I feel should be more emphatically stated, is that chess and chess-players from that time can be compared to chess and chess-players of today.  The game of chess, especially that game played at the higher levels, as learned and played today, is an entirely different game as that played in the 19th century, at least up through Steinitz. Players, with very, very few exceptions, didn't devote a large portion of their time and energy to the game. Opening and endgame theory was very limited and a scientific study of such things was in its infancy.  Many ideas that are common knowledge today, such as the superiority of a Bishop pair over Knights, were unknown (in fact a Knight was generally considered more useful than a Bishop). Closed games, at least to Morphy and other Romantics, were dull affairs devoid of beauty. Morphy generally tried to avoid such games, not out of any lack of skill in playing them as some people contend, but out of preference. Open games are more suited to combibatioal chess which Romantics idealized as the highest form of chess. Morphy's contribution was that he raised the bar on chess and helped propel the game into the modern era.  Morphy's greatness is almost impossible to rationally deny, but to compare him to present day players is an exercise in absurdity.