Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen

You are absolutely right. Morphy beat many weaker players.

EVERYBODY was weak compared to him. 

And if Carlsen beat strong players....wouldn't that make them WEAK compared to him?

Adolf Anderssen  beat the entire world  for 15 years , he was considered best before there was an official World Champion , until he met Morphy, who squashed him +7=2-2. 

Anderssen beating the entire world for 15 years before meeting Morphy is a bit of an exaggeration. He didn't win any of his first five matches, played between 1845 and 1851, and the Morphy match was in 1858. He didn't do well in the only tournament he played the seven years before the Morphy match either. Neither Chessmetrics nor Edo rank Anderssen as #1 at any point before playing Morphy. But he was of course a great player and Morphy's beating him as easily as he did was very impressive.

You're right Ubik, Morphy was terrible. You obviously know more about the game of chess than GM Ben Finegold and GM Bobby Fischer.

to echonoble.what does yag mean

Magnus Morphy would have beaten both of them. 

Wow that's a bold claim...

Okay, what if we bring Morphy back and allow him 3 or 4 years to adjust to modern ways. He's surely get into the top 10 at least.

Carlsen could give Morphy pawn odds and still crush him.

I think the talk about Morphy being as good as the top players of today if he just got a few months or years to learn modern opening theory is overly nostalgic. Today's top GMs have been training chess professionally for many years. One can't just pick an amateur, no matter how talented, from more than 150 years ago and learn him some opening theory and suddenly he is as strong as the best professionals of today. This doesn't reflect on Morphy in a negative way, the difference is just too big.

yes, you are right

I wonder how Morphy learned

He learned from watching.

There's no point comparing who is better Paul Morphy was only an amature all he wanted to do was play some games for stakes of honor against the best Chess Masters in Europe and that's it he didn't even want to play for money.

Exactly, alec849.  Not only has the how-chess-is-played changed, but the why-it's-played has changed also.  Some people seem to think if Morphy were raised from the dead and exposed for a time to modern advances, he would cut a swath to the world championship.  While Morphy did study fencing, it's more likely that modern chess would thoroughly disgust him for both its whys and hows. Nearly everything about modern chess either reflect the very things that  Morphy learned to despise in his own time or respesent the style of play he most deplored. 

People tends to underestimate Morphy positional skill. He does usually won because of his SUPERIOR positional skills. Positional sacrifices and dynamic maneuvers are his strength that his opponents could not handle the preassure. Steinitz modern theories are attributed to Morphy positional  plays. K on the center superior pawn structure,piece mobility are all  ruthlessly taken advantage by Morphy. And coupled with his superb tactical skill that makes him a monster on his own era that hes capable of playing 5 MASTERS simultaneously..no player on the history of chess had done playing 5 top ten players of their era.. Hes that good, too bad he did not expound his plays on writing. Morphy vs Carlsen, Carlsen would win.. not because hes more talented than Morphy or any other Legendary players but because of his superior chess knowledge on openings. thats his only advantage. On level of talent ill say nobody can surpass Paul Morphy and Capablanca they are the real pure chess genius.

Oh come on...There are at least 100 players today who can take on 5 masters in a simul.

If Morphy was transferred [per a time machine] to today there would be  more than 200 players who could beat him as chess knowledge has expanded.

Some time ago I wrote an article, "What's So Great About Paul Morphy Anyway."  I tried to give a fair evaluation of Morphy devoid of both the blind idolatry of fans and insipidness of critics.  Before understanding Morphy or any historic players, one has to understand their times, then their place in those times. The 19th century, like any other time, had it's intriguing characters.  Morphy was definitely one of those.

pls before making any ridiculous comments read my post.. 5 of the worlds top ten of his era.. Could Carlsen win playing 5 top ten players simultaneously hell just make a fool of himself. The difference in chess technique between Morphy and his colleuges are a such that its like comparing a 2800 elo vs 2400 player. Many GM including Bobby Fischer states that Morphy is a 100 years ahead of his time. All of the great players of those era.. Bird, Anderssen, Staunton etc.. had remarkable combinative abilities its Morphy superior positional abilities that makes him standout. Please read Morphy history first before making such stupid comment.

So Fischer was wrong?