Paul Morphy: Then and Now
Submitted by
Pittacus on Sun, 05/04/2008 at 10:54am.
Lately, I have studied the games of Paul Morphy who Bobby Fischer described as the greatest player of all time. Well, with an endorsement like that who am I to argue? And yet, how would Mr. Morphy have fared in the 20th century? Would his game have held up against players like Capablanca, Lasker, and Alekhine. Would he have given Fischer a challenge? Handed Anand his lunch? Pushed Kasparov to the limits of his game?
The players of Morphy's day were fairly weak. You could say their game suffered from an 18th century hangover but let us not judge the New Orleans' Phenom based upon the abilities of his contemporaries. All opposition was defeated with embarrassing ease. Morphy was the harbinger of modern chess.
There are those who will argue, 'Morphy played against mostly open positions.' This, to me, is the weakest argument against Morphy's potential competitiveness against players of the 20th century. He also played closed positions and won-- routinely.
Some will say, 'He was never exposed to the Hypermoderns!' So? Morphy was a child prodigy. All the true greats were. Morphy was a deeply intuitive player and a great combinative foreseer. Study his games and watch him toy with his opponents. It doesn't seem fair.
I suppose what I am advocating is this: Paul Morphy would have had a place with the greats of this century. He would not have dominated as he did in his day but he would have been a force to be reckoned with.
This game is not annotated. Simply watch as Morphy dismantles his opponent.