Look, using mostly Philidor's Analyse du jeu des Échecs, Bilguer's Handbuch des Schachspiels, and Staunton's The Chess-Player's Handbook (about all the chess literature that was available then), and playing less-than master opposition, Morphy (at age 13) beat the first GM-strength player he met (Lowenthal) in 1850. For the next six years, Morphy played little, and studied less, because of a dedication to school. He only played in the 1857 American Chess Congress because he had nothing better to do with his time, having passed his bar exams without being old enough to practise law in Louisianna. The next three years were really just a graduation present. What Morphy did during those next few years are what we are debating still today. And if you only look at his "famous game" menu, the results are admittedly one-sided. But look at his Knight-odds and Rook-odds games, particularly at the Morphy-Thompson match of 1859. Morphy's first win in the match is done with hypermodern principles--the Bishops are on b2 and g2, the f-pawn restrains White's center, and c4! just busts Black hard. It's all done in a way that would have made Reti or Nimzovitch proud. And he played the open game at such a level that even Botvinnik said that the greatest testiment to Morphy's strength is that no one has superceded Morphy in the open game yet. And when players like Capablanca, Botvinnik, Smyslov, and Fischer all agree that this guy was the best, well, then I have to agree that this guy was the best. With so to little study, and no serious opposition during his formulative years, to attain the hieghts that Morphy did is truly astonishing. Others may argue, but it is my belief that this guy would not only beat anyone, ever, in a set match, but he would beat them cleanly and convincingly. Morphy was the best.
Morphy today!?
Hey, you bring out points that most people tend to overlook, particularly his lack of intense chess preparation (whereas he probably played fewer games in his life than even I played last year) and the fact that he conquered those among the best that the Old World had to offer and challenged with little concrete evidence that he should be able to do so, especially with such ease. I agree that his odds-games are usually devalued simply because they are odds-games.
Still, Morphy was Morphy and in his brief time he was clearly superior to others who had the same opportunities. I don't think anything beyond that can, or should, be surmised.
Some people are underestimating Paul Morphy, especially Daniel3 the Canadian gentleman. Paul Morphy could memorize the entire law codex...not even many grandmasters or top chess players of today can do that. It is perhaps the case that he used his huge memory retention skill for chess too. Paul Morphy was already doing blindfolded chess against many players back in his day. Also, we must remember that Paul Morphy was a child prodigy. JR Capablanca, Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, Nigel Short, Judit Polgar, Samuel Reshevsky, Sergey Karjakin and Magnus Carlsen were also all child prodigies with a natural aptitude for chess...and you can see how much they skyrocketed when it came to chess Elo. Like Bobby Fischer said, Paul was quick to move pieces...it was like second nature to him. Sure, Paul Morphy did lose to people in his era sometimes (nobody is perfect, and people always lose sometimes to the people of their era)...but overall, he was the clear number 1 in the world and he was super dominant for a long time. The longevity counts...he wasn't some flash in the pan, he was a genuine and legitimate number 1 super champion.
People are saying that modern chess has a lot of memorization of chess lines...well, Paul Morphy would be perfect for that, it would be easy for him to memorize. I think Bobby Fischer was correct when he gave his thoughts on Paul Morphy, Bobby said that Paul would do well if he came into the future. Paul was something special, just like Bobby...you don't get players like Bobby and Paul often...they come once in a lifetime. Even the great Garry Kasparov calls Paul Morphy a "super genius". So many future World Champions think that Paul Morphy was the best...and those future World Champions have the Elo to back up that they know their chess...so if they call Paul the best then there must be a reason for their claims. I am not necessarily saying that Paul Morphy is the best ever, he might not be (although it is possible)...but if Bobby and Garry are praising Paul highly then Paul Morphy must have been an extraordinary and super chess player. Just like how we awe at Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov and Magnus Carlsen in the modern era, Paul Morphy was the superstar chess player in the 1850s...so he must have had that X factor.
Paul Morphy would just need to learn the modern theory, then he should be good to go...I think he might be able to do well in the modern era if he learnt the modern theory. Maybe Paul would practise with chess engines and stuff to make himself a better chess player, who knows?
Hello All! It's a very interesting topic. I'm really glad I can talk about it.
I think, Paul Morphy was a greatest genius in the chess history. This man is the father of the modern chess theory. He was the inspiration for the best chessplayers living today.
There are people who say,that Morphy would be e weak opponent for today's masters. I don't agree with those people. I don't believe them.
The chessplayers today are stronger, than in the past of course,and this game evolved ,but Morphy wasn't a machine. He was a genius. I will repeat that phrase once again: Paul Morphy wasn't a machine but He was a genius. A genius can change style of his game.A genius can repertoire of his opening. A genius would be able to adopt to today's style of play.
In my opinion Morphy was a magician. He was the Houdini of the chessboard. His genius was incalculable. He would be a champion world today? It is possible. I believe it.