Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen

My contention isn't, nor ever was, that Morphy was the greatest, however one might define such a term, but that while there's little evidence that Steinitz was stronger than Morphy, given what we know from either facts or the conjecture of those who played both, there is some evidence to the contrary.  The Steinitz-Anderssen match of 1866 resulted in +8-6 in favor of Steinitz, not 8-0 and not anything close to Morphy's +7-2 domination of Anderssen. 

Batgirl, are you still mad at me?

?

Just wait for the match between Carlsen and Morphy, and stop with this speculation already. The Morphy-Carlsen match is scheduled for this Spring. Elvis will be providing entertainment, and Mark Twain will be providing live reporting on the event.

very funny

And what is the one that Paul Morphy would crush the current WC ?

Look at that, White to move :

A dead draw, isn't it ? Morphy managed to lose it (playing Kg1). I know no world champion from 1950 onwards who blundered so badly in the endgame that I could see it when analysing the game.

All that does not take back the fact Morphy was an amazing player, and if he was born and trained in 1990 he might be the strongest player today, but we will never know for sure. What we do know for sure is that his play is not on par with today's GMs', so if his corspe was to play a chess match right now with anyone on the FIDE top 100 or probably top 1000 list he would lose badly.

carlsen issssii rhehef;o

what

does that mean

+1

Paul Morphy had more raw talent. He was ahead of his time. 

Paul Morphy for sure

I think magnus is better. Have in mind that he remember almost every chessgame ever played within he's watch. That way i can relay on so many good chess players about what they world have dont, to kinda arrgu with himself to "Okai then, i do this move"

And i think he's capable to do very long variations. Well, im not that good at chess, but what i can see inn him, hes a master that want do misstakes. Only if the game isnt that importen.

he was ahead of his time but carlsen has book moves that morphy doesn't know or traps.so much for ahead of time

@chessredpanda, Yes, of course he would know that, and if he played Morphy today, he would have no problem beating him, but if they played in the same time era, Morphy would win. 

Tony Miles would beat Morphy with 1...a6.  He has after all defeated much better with it.

I think Carlsen would win a ten game match with 9.5 -0.5 and that is if Morphy gets lucky somehow. There's too much romantic mythology about the objective level of strenghts of Morphy and the like.

Fischer beat Larsen 6-0 and they were closer in strength than Carlsen and Morphy.  However, as good as Fischer was that 6-0 was probably lucky on his part as Fischer was great but not normally trounce Larsen 6-0 great. 

no draws probaly because of new theorys

many people do really underestimates chess player fom the past because of the inflated rating system. its definitely true Carlsen would beat Morphy but not because hes the more talented player it is because of the amount of chess knowledge modern player do know. Its definitely stupid to compare two great players over centuries apart but one measurement which is applicable to compare players of different era is Results and achievements over their carreers.

Morphy:

1.Completely dominated Loewenthal a top ten player in the world 3-0 (other source 2 1/2-1/2)at the age of 12 

2.At age 20 completely dominated the American Chess Congress a tournament which includes strong players Paulsen, Meek, Lichtenhein etc pretty impressive given his long time off from chess to study law.He was accepted to the University of Louisiana (now Tulane University) to study law. He received an L.L.B. degree on April 7, 1857, in preparation for which he is said to have memorized the complete Louisiana book of codes and laws) I belive even Morphy at age 12 could win this tournament.

3.Seeing that no player in America could challenge him on a match goes to Europe completely dominating EVERY SINGLE PLAYER persuaded to face him on a match. In Europe he was generally hailed as the World chess champion by virtue of dominance to all players that dare face him.

4.Morphy was so dominant that no master ventures to challenge him without some sort of handicap. In a simultaneous games against 5 TOP TEN PLAYER in those time, he beat Rivieri and Bird, drew Jacob and Lowenthal and lost to Barned.

5. By literally tearing his opposition apart Morphy would not play any more match without odds when still no one answered his challenge retired from the game.

6. Bobby Fischer who definitely knows more about chess than any other of us dream to  states that Morphy has the talent to beat any player of the modern era given time to study modern theory and ideas which given his natural feel for the game and superhuman memory is at no time at all.

Conclusions: Morphy dominance in his era is so complete that the difference between him and the next player is 2 pawn odd. He has a natural born feel for the game, a fantastic memory, superb intelligence, and speed of his play unmatched by any.( Bird took 6 hours thinking while Morphy did not even reached 1 hour). His dynamic positional style is unmatched by any of his contemperaries.Morphy would exploit every advantage on tempo and opening mistakes. He will sacrifice  to gain some positional compensation. And rely on his incredible tactical skill to win.In defense his skill is that of a modern player, ex; returning material to reduce preassure. His weakness is closed position evident by his losses to Anderssen.But even that he is capable of sound positional maneuvering. Without even studying the game ( he learned while watching his father and uncle play).and without playing a lot.He is a true chess genius, maybe 100 years ahead of his time. 

Carlsen

1.Taught chess at age 5 by his father (a NM caliber player) at 10 taught by GM Agdenstein.

2.Won first strong tournament (which in any case far far away from top level play) at age of 13 at Corus Group C

3.In 2007 tournament in Corus Group A his result is quite poor 4 1/2-13. At Linares 2007 he score 7 1/2-14 which he placed equal 2nd. Then eliminated by Aronian in a close match in the Candidates Tournament. At this time at age 17 Carlsen is a top ten player caliber player but not yet matched with the best.

4. By 2011 Carlsen at age 20 is the worlds no 1 player not by dominance  but having a good tournament results. 2nd at Corus, 1st at Barsna, 1st at Grand Slam Chess Final, 1st at Tal Memorial and 2nd at London chess classic. All of these tournaments he won not on dominating fashion but by playing solid practical chess risking little, he wins by virtue of not losing games a lot and winning on opponents taking unbelivable blunders.

5. By 2013 All tournaments he had won are quite close with the exception of London chess classic and Wijk aan Zee where he has a 1 1/2 advantage over 2nd, Tournaments where he had not won the lowest place he had was 2nd the result of his superb positional skills, not taking any signifacnt risk and excellent endgame technique.

Conclusions:

Carlsen is definitely a very talented player given the level of competetion this days. His strong positional plays and excellent endgame techniques are hard to counter. His ablitity to squeeze a win on the smallest advantage is extraordinary. Yet there is something missing on him, His games doesnt bring joy to amateurs like us. His tournament results which in any case is impressive but not that dominant tournaments like a Morphy or Fischer.He could not play 5 simultanous games against his contemporary top ten players. He did not bring chess to another higher level. 

Comparison on who is better and why:

Carlsen is hands down better than Morphy NOT because hes more talented but because with the help of modern theories and practises he knows more about chess than Morphy. In level of dominance over their contemporaries thats how we should compare players of differen era, and theres no doubt Morphy is hands down t-shirt off, pants off more dominant than Carlsen against his colleuges. Can Carlsen give odds to a Kramnik or Aronian or in that case any of the top 100 player of our time? I doubt he can, But Morphy can and will give odd to any player alive of his time. Dont get me wrong chess has improved a lot from Morphy era to our modern day chess but everything equal on Morphy time yet he bring chess to another class that hes so dominant. Why? BECAUSE HE BROUGHT CHESS TO ANOTHER LEVEL. Another thing Morphy isnt even my favorite player, but without studying chess and playing a lot but still dominates any player hes no doubt the most talented chess player off all time followed closely by Capablanca and all others who worked hard yet will not surpass only match them.

Morphy raise from the dead and will study Modern Theories and practises is another story as Morphy always consider chess an amateur activity but didnt Morphy retired from chess ONLY when no one will dare face him on a match even with odds. Will Morphy be motivated to play and study Modern chess and will he participate on Super GM tournaments? No doubt in my mind he will even if he will view it as an amateur game not because of money or fame but because he will think there are some pretenders who can and think can beat him. All in all if theres a player alive today whose style reminesscent Morphy, its gonna be Kasparov. they are the players who brought chess to the next level

Conclusion: Morphy studied modern chess>Carlsen

Anybody who disagree with me your all free to bash me