Lasker v Morphy, I found this quite interesting...

1858, Morphy (age 22) v Bird (age 28):  10.5-1.5  (+10 -1 =1)

1890, Lasker (age 22) v Bird (age 60):       8.5-3.5   (+7 -2 =3)

Comparing the time difference between these matches and champions, this is analagous to Spassky playing Kasparov in 2004 and scoring slightly better against him than he did against Fischer in 1972.

Difficult to compare these things though, Lasker had 6 wins and 2 draws after eight games and was not yet considered one of the best players (#10 both at Chessmetrics and Edo, both have Bird as top 30 at the time, not much different from in 1858). Already two years later Lasker won every game in his next match against Bird.

Poor Bird...

Bird scored quite decent results late in his career. In Hastings 1895 he was 65 years old and won against Steinitz and Gunsberg, and drew games against players like Chigorin, Janowski and Schlechter, to name a few title match participants. In London 1899 he was almost 70, and did worse overall but still won against Janowski, and missed wins against Pillsbury and Maroczy (to eventually draw both games). He was something of a late bloomer, that dedicated himself more to chess at a rather advanced age.

Poor Bird??  How many other folks got to play both Morphy and Lasker, let alone score a win against each?

In any event, Lasker is the first post-Morphy player who can be given serious consideration in comparison to Morphy.  It's not just that he was much better than his predecessors, but that he was able to play on even or better terms with all opponents during an era where the game and its underlying theory were evolving more rapidly than at any other time.

Morphy robbed us of any definitive answers to the question of whether Steinitz was stronger than Morphy, or by extension, whether Lasker was stronger.  

It is interesting to compare how Steinitz did against another player of similar strength and style to Morphy. 

Zukertort was known as the Polish Morphy because his style and strength were quite similar to Morphy's. Take a look at how Zukertort did against some of the giants of his day.  Zukertort beat Anderssen 5-2 in a match, and he beat Bird, 6-1 in his lifetime series. Bird won his only game when Zukertort's health was already failing. Zukertort died when he was only 45. 

Sadly, Zukertort passed away before Lasker came on the scene, so there's no direct comparison between those two available either. 

A direct comparison of the quality of moves played has been done. Chess had progressed quite a bit by the time Lasker became world champion, and he was clearly stronger than Morphy. This is in part because he studied Morphy's games and learned from them.

Morphy performance was primarily in 1857-8.

Morphy scored 8/11 against Anderssen while Zukertort scored 5/7. Those two scores are nearly identical. Morphy and Zukertort both scored 5-0 against Bird. Zukertort played a sixth game when he was already ill and lost. So yes, Zukertort didn't outperform Morphy. His performance was nearly identical though. 

And for those who really don't know much about Zukertort, take a look at this amazing combination:

Yes, and Lasker's not-quite-as-good-as-Morphy's performance was in 1890.

… a somewhat more demanding chess world.

"... It was due to [Morphy's] principles of development that he had, in most cases, at the outset a better development than his opponent. As soon, however, as these principles of Morphy's had become the common property of all chess players it was difficult to wrest an advantage in an open game. ... the next problem with which players were confronted ... was to discover principles upon which close positions could be dealt with. To have discovered such principles, deeper and more numerous as they were than those relating to development in open positions, is due to Steinitz. ..." - Richard Reti (1923)

If I remember correctly, that comment was around 1910 or earlier - at a time when there was much still to come in the chess world, including more appreciation of the advance of chess in the last half of the 19th century.

"... The analytical work of Steinitz extends over thirty years and is very valuable. In the Field, in the Tribune, in his publication International Chess Magazine and in his book Modern Chess Instructor, one may find his penetrating and profound analysis. The world did not comprehend how much Steinitz had given it ... the chess world did not understand Steinitz, neither his manner of play nor his written word which treated of his 'Modern School.' ... Now let us turn back to Steinitz and demonstrate his revolutionary achievement from his history and from his writings. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)

"... Steinitz ... started out as an all-out attacking player, as it was common at the time, but then went on to change his approach toward chess and became very positional. Positional, at that time, was very shocking to the rest of the chessplayers, and they actually considered his new way - his new style of playing as cowardly and controversial. It was only, later, his successor on the world champion's throne, Emanuel Lasker, who acknowledged the influence and the impact of the concepts Steinitz introduced. ..." - IM Anna Rudolf (2018)

https://www.chess.com/video/player/games-that-changed-chess-history-part-4

https://www.chess.com/blog/janwerle/finishing-touch-from-the-world-champions-2

https://www.chess.com/article/view/behold-steinitz-the-austrian-morphy

https://www.chess.com/article/view/steinitz-changes-the-chess-world

https://www.chess.com/article/view/steinitz-the-official-world-chess-champion

"Lasker ... didn't understand positional chess." - another Fischer quote from around the same time as his Morphy comments.
Extended discussions of Morphy have been written in books by GM Franco, GM Beim, GM Ward, GM Marin, GM Bo Hansen, GM McDonald, Garry Kasparov (with Dmitry Plisetsky), and GM Gormally. Anyone see any of them express the view that we should accept Fischer's conclusion about Morphy? For that matter, does IM pfren want to express the view that we should accept Fischer's conclusion about Morphy? (Or is he just having fun?) There seems to be general agreement that Morphy was, as GM Fine put it, one of the giants of chess history, but that is a long way from saying that he is the greatest player that has ever lived.

Wow, very nice. I got stuck on move 28.

"[Zukertort] relied on combinations, and in that field he was a discoverer, a creative genius . His opponent, on the contrary, seemed to be nothing but mediocre, and yet--though Zuckertort had lost none of his faculty, he was unable to make use of it, the positions yielding no response to his passionate search for combinations. Steinitz seemed to have the mysterious capacity for divining combinations long before they were realizable on the board, to encourage combinations favorable to himself and to forestall those which were unfavorable. Thus Zukertort, the great discoverer, searched in vain, whereas Steinitz, rather a poor hand at combinations, was able to foresee them.  Zukertort could not understand how Steinitz was able to prevent combinations nor how he could win by such a method, since up to that time -- this seemed to Zukertort indisputable -- games, fairly won, had been won by fine combinations.  Zukertort tried for four years to solve this riddle, but he never approached its solution by even one step, and he lost the mastery that he possessed into the bargain."

-- Lasker (~1925)

Lasker's argument is basically that, while Steinitz was no match tactically for some of the other top players (Zukertort, Blackburne, et al), the chess principles he had discovered and which other players in those days rejected or ignored allowed him to defeat them one by one by neutralizing their tactical superiority and beating them with positional knowledge and ability they did not possess.  Elsewhere in the same work, Lasker makes the surprising claim that Steinitz wasn't even a player, that he was actually a theorist who could also play pretty well.  It wasn't until a player came along who actually embraced Steinitz' theories that he met his match.  Of course, that player was Lasker himself.

All of this is from "Lasker's Manual of Chess," of course.  I've had this book in my library for many years, but I've never read it cover to cover.  I like to skip around and read what catches my eye, and I recently came across and recognized the passage you've quoted in countless threads.  I had no idea it was from that book.

Emmanuel Lasker and Mikhail Botvinnik have both said that they consider Paul Morphy to be the best. Garry Kasparov called Paul Morphy a super genius. Bobby Fischer said that he thought that Paul Morphy was the most accurate player, and he also thought that if Paul came back from the dead...he could beat everybody at chess if he learnt modern chess theory. J.R. Capablanca said that Paul Morphy was a great player.

It is pretty clear that Paul Morphy was better than Wilhelm Steinitz. An ill Paul Morphy played against Anderssen and destroyed him in a chess match. Sure, Anderssen had his moments against Paul, but he got easily beaten. Wilhelm also played against the same Anderssen, but it was more of a close battle...with both Wilhelm and Anderssen having their struggles in the match...a neck and neck match for the most part. Both Paul and Wilhelm defeated Anderssen, but Paul defeated Anderssen in a much more convincing fashion. As for whether Paul Morphy was better than Emmanuel Lasker...I am going to guess that Paul indeed was the better chess player. But you are right, it is hard to say whether Paul was better than Emmanuel because you and I both know that Paul retired from chess early on so there were questions. Emmanuel thinks that Paul was the best ever player, so that is something to take into consideration. I do not think that Emmanuel was just praising an old legend, I think he really meant it. Both Mikhail Botvinnik and Emmanuel Lasker have said that they think that Paul Morphy was the best. J.R. Capablanca called Paul Morphy a 'great player'. Garry Kasparov called Paul Morphy a 'super genius'. And we all know the several praises Bobby Fischer heaped on Paul Morphy...Bobby was saying that either he or Paul Morphy was the best ever. Bobby said that Paul was the most accurate player ever, and Bobby said that if Paul came back to life...he would defeat everybody if he learnt modern chess theory.