Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen

i maybe wrong but as i read Paul Morphy biography, he left chess because of lack of competetion that he will give odds to anyone in the world but still nobody would dare face him? I belive if Morphy is raised from the dead, he may not be able to compete on top ten level for his lack of opening knowledge but given time with his spectacular memory and innate chess talent, no doubt he can be world champion level player. Plus given the level of competetion this day. Motivation would not be a problem.

Yes, that's wrong.  Morphy's refusal to play anyone even unless they first proved to be too strong for odds was, or at least strongly seems to have been, his way to gracefully exit public chess, something his family (his mother especially) pushed him to do, but something he wanted for himself after having grown disillusioned with the world of chess-players.  Morphy was a sort of polymath who excelled in many areas, chess being the most obvious and public area. He had absolutely no desire be accepted as a chess-player other than as a minor part of his person.  Chess, to him as an amateur was a recreation or a diversion, not a career or a calling and something that should never involve money.  The demand on him to play chess in public bore heavily upon him, so much so that he started refusing engagements in Europe and then on his way home from N.Y., he finally had to bypass places that planned to honor him (and force him to play).  There is no way that Morphy, who btw cared nothing for tournament chess and saw match play as the only judge of skill, would play in today's environment that is both tournament-based and professional - and still be Morphy.  Morphy also didn't always try for the best moves - though the best move was quite often played - but for what he perceived as the most artistic moves. Artistry, or his image of beauty, in chess was tantamount, just as he was equally concerned with creativity as with accuracy.  He was a man of his times, but not for our times.

In many of these discussions comparing 2 players from different eras we address what would happen if the player from the earlier era came to the later era.   To some extent that makes sense because we generally know a bit more about what it’s like to live in eras closer (or contemporaneous) with our own.

But how good would Carlsen be if he lived in Morphy’s time and place?    What if he had the same amount of chess exposure as Morphy?  I think by considering this we see that these types of questions can only lead to wild speculation.   

The most detailed computer study ever conducted has uncovered evidence that the best player ever was Bobby Fischer – by far.

http://nypost.com/2008/10/12/bobby-still-no-1/

...only they forgot to include Mr. Paul Morphy, of course:)

And to decide who is better Carlsen or Morphy. When I first saw some of Morphy's play it was like I was in awe for at least several following days. The play of Carlsen didn't have such effect on me, though he deserves to be respected for his achievment.

I saw many Raffael games live at playchess.com and was thrilled. However I believe nothing can compare to Morphy's play if only for the fact he spent all his energy(potential) on the play whereas pro players are distracted by thoughts and concerns about other things like results etc., which must have a weakening effect on them. To me Morphy's legacy is yet to be appreciated in future. There is much more than his chess. Like a glacier you see only the top of it(his chess), but under the sea-level there lies the truth about his size.

The problem is that Morphy was able to play these very nice games due to the fairly weak players he played.  Morphy's play is easy to understand.

Carlsen's play can really only be understood by very high rated players.

Thus the general chess public will tend to understand and like Morphy's games better.

Somehow you state this more diplomatically than I did!

Morphy was certainly an unbelievably talented guy, it actually boggles my mind how he could get so good before there were computers, internet, good books, and other good players to learn from.

But yes, if he travelled here in a time machine, I think he would not break the top 50 players of today.

Thank heavens we have actual games between two players with victory and defeat to show which one is better! Beyond verdicts over the board, any other comparisons are sterile.

maybe some thing like howard could beat morphy morphy could beat steinitz steinitz could beat jose jose could beat alehkine alehkine could beat bronstien bronstein could beat gary gary could  beat magnus.his info is not true bt it is a way to figure out who is beter

I have doubts Morphy could beat Steinitz, in any case Andersson, who played both, thought Steinitz was better.

Then Lasker beat Stenitz, Capablance beat Lasker, Alekhine beat Capa. So it runs in the opposite direction. Tal probably would have beaten Alekhine. Fischer was scared of Karpov, who in turn got beat by Kasparov.

Carlsen is higher rated than Kasparov and they are close enough to be almost considered contemporaries for purposes of rating, so I believe the rating.

In other words, Carlsen is the best player of all time.

Here is something to think about:

Anderssen, who lost miserable to Morphy, seemed to have tried to salvage some of his lost dignity by later claiming that he was so unduly affected by Morphy's blindfold abilities which accounted for his losses.

Here are their respective overall totals:
Morphy - Anderssen -  +12-3=2
Steinitz - Anderssen -  +11-11

Here are others "who played both":

Steinitz - Maurian -  +4-1=1
Morphy - Maurian  -  Morphy only played Maurian at Knight or greater odds.
"In fact, over four series of games with Morphy played at Knight odds during 1869 - incidentally the last Morphy games of which there is any record - Maurian scored 20 wins against only 16 losses, with 3 games drawn, evidence enough of his playing strength.  It has been said that Morphy himself pronounced Maurian too strong for Knight odds after their final series finished decidedly in favor of the latter" - Maurian's obit

Morphy - Bird  5-0 -  (recorded games [see below], and 1 game from was a 5 bd simul against masters)
Steinitz - Bird -  +17-9=6
"I trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. This was in '67. In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw. Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me. Morphy had more science than Steinitz - more imagination. His career was very short, though very brilliant, and, whether or not he could have held first honors as long as Steinitz, is a matter of some doubt; but Morphy never met his match. He was never compelled to play his best game. His resources were never fully tested." - HE Bird

Morphy - Paulsen -    +6-1=2
Steinitz - Paulsen -   +7-2

At the tournament of  Vienna 1873  Blackburne (who came in first ahead of Steinitz) was discussing Morphy, maintaining that many of Morphy's attacks and defenses were unsound, finally stating, "I think I could beat him."
Louis Paulsen who was present said, "As I have played against both perhaps you would like to know what I think about that. In my opinion Morphy was the king of all chess-players that ever lived. . . and as for you and the rest of us - oh, we play chess."

Hey guys i need help???

@batgirl: I have read that Steinitz was the overall winner of the tournament in Vienna 1873: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_1873_chess_tournament

and that it was that tournament in which Steinitz introduced positional play and started his unmatched 25 winning streak.

To be on topic: morphy or carlsen? I think both deserve full respect for their achievements in chess and are incomparable. I can imagine that in their own particular strength they are both stronger than the other.

Thanks.  That makes the quote even stronger since it was written that Paulsen was speaking to the winner of the 1873 Vienna tourney... no name was mentioned.  So he was speaking to Steintiz, not Blackburne.

Z//////////////////////////////////???????

Hey chessredpanda, never go full retard.  

When does +12-3 equal 2?

i not he

In the first Steinitz-Andersson match, Steinitz dominated with 8 wins, 0 losses.

This of course does not prove Steinizt was better than Morphy, but at the very least it makes it murky.

But when people say Morphy was the greatest, I always think back to his 2 losses over a 12 game match with Andersson. Does anyone really think Andersson would take 2 games out of 12 off of Carlsen? Kramnik? Anand? Kasparov? Karpov? Fischer? Or, for that matter, Korchnoi, Judit Polgar, Nakamura, Kamsky?

Nah. Morphy was the greatest player up to his time, but he has been eclipsed many times over in terms of chess strength.

Carlson is better by far he already proved thata

Meanest carlsen