Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen

I think Magnus is better.Who do you think????????????????????????

Morphy, just because his games were more epic 

I think the great Borislav Ivanov was better than both of 'em.

I think Carlsen would have no problem beating Morphy.

Kind of hard for Morphy to reach the board .......

Like Fischer, Morphy was further ahead of his contemporaries... in the sense that there was a wider gap between the #1 and #2 players.

In the sense of "who plays better chess", it's Carlsen.

True that Morphys games where more epic like the game against the Duke.

Borislav Ivanov is only a Fide master and is a cheater.

Plus, a lot of people don't realize that players today face much, much stronger competition every round of every tournament. Back then Morphy would play mostly far weaker players. Who knows how good superstars from then would be if they had the upbringing players today have but it's a moot point. If the Carlsen of today were taken back in time to play Morphy in a best of 20 game match (first to 10.5 points) the score would likely be 10.5 - .5 in Carlsens favor with the draw coming in the last game just to shut the match down & collect his $50 or whatever.

50 dollars Back then was A LOT.But now it isn't that much.

A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today ...  -  Bobby Fischer

 

You can't compare two people that did not compete in the same time period because not only was their training material different, in the sense that Carlsen can look over old Morphy games to see why he did what he did and learn from that, while Morphy cannot look over Carlsen games because Carlsen was not even a thought back then, let alone playing at such a high level.  One kid living in poverty with a certain way of perceiving things could have had surpassed Carlsen and Morphy if (s)he had the right upbringing and formal training, but then again (s)he did not, so that individual will never be the world champion, let alone hold a grandmaster title.

why are you calling morphy a she?

I am not. I used a third person that could have the potential to surpass Carlsen and Morphy if (s)he (which means that I am not specifying if it is a male or a female) had the right formal training.

Often Bobby Fischer would say inexplicably stupid things.

Well, my rating isn't high enough to judge but, in my humble opinion:

Morphy was a genius,in his times... Carlsen is a "today genius". The problem (for Morphy) is that chess has evolved, so many moves/sacrifices made by the great Morphy would be considered, if made today, as mistakes, or at least as dubious, and very probably he would never get his "dream positions" against a "normal" GM, not to mention a super GM like Carlsen...

if they would play today, magnus carslen would destroy morphy in any sort of match. if you're asking whos more talented then maybe morphy.

I don't see the interest in comparing modern players to players of the past, its well known that modern chess is so much stronger.

I would think if you would take any chess player above 2700 they would the wipe the floor with morphy. Morphy played really weak players compared to today.

Well, guess what? None of them is a female, so don't be silly.

Morphy beat many many weaker players, Carlsen beat very strong players.

Paul Morphy was in a class of his own, and Bobby Fischer considered him to be the best of all. Capablanca must go down as probably the greatest, making it all look so easy. Carlsen doesn't rank with these players.

Just because Carlsen is the highest rated player of all time does NOT mean the other players "dont rank" with him. Capablanca had loads of chess talent and would have given Carlsen a very difficult time, perhaps more than Anand.

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