Who Is More Attacking Tal Or Morphy?

Who is more attacking, Tal or Morphy? I mean Paul Morphy was a really good attacker don't get me wrong, but Tal was also very brilliant and was attacking as well. But my question is who is more attacking?

  In my opinion Tal is more attacking because I saw his games, and my oh my were they such brilliant tactical ones. I am a huge fan of attacking chess and I love to see sacrifices and all that. Games like that are just as exciting as the NHL Hockey finals or the Superbowl. Anyways, these are my thoughts, what are yours?

Tal was a chess genius of the first rank. Playing through Tal's games is an inspiration. Morphy, to me, was more of a positional player, from the 20 or so games that I went through. Tal just explodes on the board out of nowhere! From what I've played through, Kasparov is a better comparison. Early Shirov, J. Polgar, and Alekhine have that 'wow!' about them.

I think you've got it backwards. Morphy was a pure attacker (heck he played his games before the term "positional" chess even existed)  Whereas the beauty, the magic of Tal's amazing sacrifices is that they often arise from a very deep understanding of position... they aren't deep perfectly calculated combinations with every i dotted and every t crossed... they are positional sac's, based on a beautiful clearsighted view of the chessboard.

But I do agree completely that Tal was a chess genius of the first rank.. and so was Morphy.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on Morphy. Playing through game after game with the commentators pointing out, over and over again, Morphy's "positional style" being the advent of modern chess. But I love how you described the great Tal

One should differentiate early and late Morphy. The former was a pure attacker, the latter is the inventor of positional play.

? I think you mean Steinitz... The early Steinitz was called "The Austrian Morphy" because of his great combinatorial style and the latter Steinitz is the theorist of positional chess.

But as to "Morphy's "positional style" being the advent of modern chess" ... you have to define 'positional' --  Morphy is NOT positional in the way of the late Steinitz or Nimzowitsch or Petrossian etc. (You will look thru a lot of Morphy games before you see a waiting move, or a long N manuver, or anything that resembles defensive chess)

At the same time, yes, Morphy is positional in that he places his pieces beautifully. He understood the relationship between development and open lines... the more open the position the more an advantage in development helps. He quickly creates positions where his pieces are worth the maximum particularly with his bishops and rooks and where he has all the initiative.  That is truly the advent of positional play.  -- Morphy uses positional ideas in the open game to the point where he blows his opponents out of the water. It's like he's playing a different game. And in a sense he is. 

I tend to think of positional chess in a later more fully developed meaning. Morphy is sort of the great positional attacker -- if that makes any sense -- he uses a great understanding of open positions to very quickly place his pieces for maximum value and that allows him to finish games with his slashing attacking-combinational genius.

Well, this is easy.

Morphy had some beautifull attacking games, against amateurs, in simuls and against his brother. When he went up against the strongers players of his time, such as Adolf Anderssen, he couldn't attack as relentlessly, and the games don't have the same aesthetic merit as his games against his brother.

Tal attacked, sacrificed, complicated and created masterpieces against the best players of his time, not against his brother.

Oh really? Um, Anderssen wasn't one of the "stronger players" he was the best player in the world (other than Morphy)...  Tal never gave Botvinnik a beatdown like this:

That one opening disaster does not reflect the rest of the match.

This however, is a beautifull game, a complete one at that, a nicely played opening, a complex middlegame, and a convincing endgame.

I would have to say Morphy was probably the 1st brilliant attacking player, with several others following before Tal who was also a brilliant attacker. Morphy was as dominant or more dominant relative to his contemporaries (offering pawn & move to anyone) than anyone in history, perhaps due to his all-around skill as much as his attacking.  I don't recall Tal offering such odds to his peers, though he did excel at attacking in many different types of games & openings; while games of Morphy's era seemed to be less varied as far as opening play.  Conclusion: Morphy was an attacking genius of the highest order. Tal was also - same level to me, just different eras. 

morphy is the best player ever morphy morphy morphy!