Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen

If fun and accessible equals better I'd vote for most 2000 rated players as better than Carlsen :-)

Anyone trying Tolstoy instead of Tolkien at 12 might conclude that Tolkien is the better author of the two since he is more accessible. But one can appreciate both, it isn't just that one of them takes more effort and because of this must be worse.

Carlsen's games are certainly more advanced than many "fun" games involving much weaker players, but he is far from some "only boring endgames"-player. Just a quick look at this year results in many highy entertaining games like these:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1721543

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1721397

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1704802

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1713205

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1717640

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1713231

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1713491

Morphy's games are obviously more accessible since the level of the games is much lower. At the same time, Carlsen scored 5-0 in just over a year against the reigning World Champion, and three of those games were won in 30 moves or less. It isn't as easy today to just sac, sac and mate as in Morphy's day, but Carlsen has some very exciting games, and has even played the King's Gambit in a top tournament, the only elite player for decades to do that in classical chess. So I don't find him all that boring, even if few amateurs of course would appreciate a Carlsen game as much as Morphy vs the Duke & the Count.

so?

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Assuming this happens, it does not change the fact that Morphy had attacking opportunities only because of his weak opposition.

Most of the "attacking" lines in today's chess are hidden in the sidelines, but it doesn't mean they do not exist.

true

How can anyone say that endgames are boring?  Look at this one

And this one:

Don't forget about Lasker! ^_^

Despite his hopeless position Lasker buckled down in the face of white's superior piece activity and pawns while black used his two minors vs. rook advantage to bleed out the draw.  White's extra two connected pawns don't help black much either. 

In the Fischer game he sacrificed the exchange for an unstoppable outside passed pawn.

The way Karpov forced another weakness in black's position especially the seventh was incredible. 

so what!!!1!!1!!!!111111111111!11!!1!111111111!1111!!!!11!111111!!1!!!!!1!

I can agree that many of Morphy's tactics were caused by the skill of his opposition, but at the same time it was the mentality of that day to play for the attack, with both colors. now people play for an endgame because that is how most people feel the game should be played, Gambits are declined where as way back when, they would be accepted. Every great player from that era would give Any top ranked player from today, problems. I would think that Morphy at his peak was better than Stientz at his peak. and possibly even Capa, but if it got to a remotely even endgame I would bet on Stientz Lasker or Capa. Morphy would kill them in an open middle game. In ultra sharp possitions, I would actually bet on Anderssen or Bird, Definately Morphy to hand Any Modern GM their rear end.

okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Savage. Bat Guano is Very interesting. did you know there are insects that survive in the guano. actualy need it to survive. also the Guano decays into Salt peter one of the 3 primary ingredients to gunpowder.

Have you even looked at those games?  Fischer even played an exchange sac in one because he understood the power of an outside passed pawn. Lasker defended what looked like a resignable position at first glace and found best defence despite his only pawns being rook and knight pawns and his opponent dominated the d-file with both rooks, Karpov of course needs no introduction. 

You get to see crystal clear plans in action and schematic thinking.  Even blunders may happen, as even the great Capablanca threw away won positions to drawn ones... and his opponent would counter blunder giving Capa the win. 

Playing for a better or at least equal but not drawn endgame is what chess is about. It's the entire focal point of the middlegame, how to place my pieces just right to either push the opponent off the board or force favorable exchanges to transition into a better endgame? 

These discussions are part of the fun of chess. However, I believe that in all sports or games it is very difficult to ascertain how well a player would perform in another era. It is enough, is it not, to be the best in one's era?

whatever

How could we ask for more?

?

So...

The fact Morphy beat, crushed and buried all those guys in a way even Fischer at his time would not, is proof that they were strong opposition ?

If you put me in the <1500 section of a tournament, I would also play Morphy-like sacrifices. But it doesn't mean I am a genius, just someone who cares about tempi.

Of course, it's hard to do more than beating the best of your generation. But it does not make you the best ever. I'm sure the best marathon runners in the 1900s who ran it in a bit less than 3h were winning by amuch larger margin than today's who run in a bit more than 2h ; but none would seriously claim the 1900s runners were better. There might have been better had they had modern training etc. but there is no way to know for sure.

Justin Bieber

what about JUstin bieber