Paul Morphy is at the very least, a comparable player to Magnus Carlsen when it come to talent. Carlsen is stronger since he has access to modern knowledge and was also able to pursue chess seriously. Carlsen is a bit better than Morphy since he has already proven himself in modern chess.
Paul Morphy is a legendary historical figure in chess, there’s no doubt that his genius deserves a place in the books of the greatest. There is a comparison going on with this popular chess player lately, it includes Magnus Carlsen.
Magnus is definitely a comparable genius to Paul Morphy, they are both all-time greats that deserve some form of recognition. Though if we’re going to compare the two, I believe that one has the edge over the other.
I love to make comparisons like this even though the conclusions are usually opinionated (we can’t really try to accurately compare people of different eras).
I just love that there is even a discussion about people who like both players, which means a lot of people care about them. I will state the facts and you can decide for yourself.
Without further ado, let’s get started.
Carlsen is better than Morphy because of modern computers
If we match Magnus Carlsen and Paul Morphy at the peak of their career, Magnus Carlsen will definitely be at the top since he is just generally stronger due to the advancement of chess computers.
Chess engines brought a new wave of theoretical novelties that chess players of the past don’t have access to, chess competitors today are more likely to be better than those that you see in historical books.
This is because players of today just know better ideas that players of the past are likely to not be able to figure out on their own and, I think this applies in this case.
Magnus has been in an intense training adventure since he was young where memorization and preparation have been the biggest thing, unlike the era of Paul Morphy.
Paul Morphy’s era catered more to creativity which does not necessarily make a game more precise, a lot of modern games are played with little margin of error.
One can argue that Paul Morphy is better than Magnus Carlsen when it comes to talent, there is at least a case for that. But you can never argue that Morphy will beat Magnus since we just know more things and have trained better.
Carlsen is better than Morphy due to his competition
It is hard to determine the likes of Paul Morphy against someone who has survived more competition like Magnus Carlsen.
During Paul Morphy’s days a grandmaster in today’s standards would be a monster, there is some doubt if Morphy can even compete against modern players.
The bigger the competition the more likely that a player will be better since they will have to put up with a harder challenge, they will have to go beyond their limits in order to come out on top.
Paul Morphy’s opponents are players that will even struggle against good modern international masters since the power creep has reached that point, the competition is just harder in today’s standards.
This does not necessarily make Magnus Carlsen better than Paul Morphy when it comes to talent, one can argue that Morphy could become as strong if not stronger than Magnus if he lived in today’s era.
But if you compare the two as they are, it is not even a competition, Magnus is a superhuman at this point and tapped beyond the limits of past players.
In the future, someone better than Carlsen might take over just because the competition keeps getting better and better and people will be forced to become stronger than previous competitors.
Paul Morphy, Magnus Carlsen, and Modern knowledge
Theoretically, if we drop Paul Morphy in the same era of chess computers and modern theory, he may stand a chance against a lot of very strong players. I still doubt that he can defeat Magnus Carlsen though.
For example, Magnus Carlsen will definitely be better when it comes to openings.
Now this is just my personal opinion, but I think Morphy has a chance in a 1v1 world championship type of format but will still come short in tiebreakers. Magnus has complete control of all-time formats.
Paul Morphy is still incredible in other formats and could probably keep up with other elite super-grandmasters if given modern knowledge, however, Carlsen is just on a different level.
He has legit made competition of the best of the best in a specific time format in which a particular player has specialized in, this is adding to the fact that Carlsen specializes in classical time control due to his endgame.
He is revered and is expected to win against all-time formats even though it is not really his specialty to do so, this tells you a lot about how much of an achiever he is.
Paul Morphy and Magnus Carlsen are both great in chess artistry
People praise Paul Morphy due to his artistic-like approach to playing chess, however, we must not forget that Magnus is also a genius artist who has proven that he can play beautifully.
The reason that I include this is that when you talk about who is better, it is not only about their achievements but who can capture the essence of the game. Being an artist in chess is a different type of challenge.
This is because playing beautifully can actually make you lose the game, however, there are certain types of players who can make this style work in their favor. In this category, I say they are about even.
Both Paul Morphy and Magnus Carlsen are artists and not butchers, there are many occasions where they prefer to play beautifully even if it is not within their best interest.
I will give Paul Morphy a little bit of an edge (if we’re talking about their games) since he played in an era where creativity naturally flourished, but I am sure that Magnus is also capable of such a feature, so still even.
Magnus is the favorite over Morphy in consecutive matches
In an intense 1v1 match similar to a world championship format, the favorite will definitely be Magnus.
Paul Morphy though has a handful of intense one-on-one matches have never really met his match. Magnus on the other hand is used to dealing with drawish positions where his opponents are more or less equal to him.
I have talked about above how Magnus has an edge because they will likely go into tiebreakers that have a different time format, however, their inherent competition is something that I need to discuss as well.
The biggest competition of Paul Morphy is Adolf Anderssen (though there are other players of course) which he dominated quite easily in most of their encounters.
You might think that this is a good thing which it is, but there are also negatives to this experience. Paul Morphy has never truly met his match, an encounter where there is a little difference in strength within both competitors.
In these types of matches where there is little room for error, I think Magnus has the advantage since he has a lot of experience playing against competitors that are about the same level.
He is more likely to handle the pressure in other words and come out on top, I think this can be the x-factor if they were to go into intense consecutive battles.
Carlsen and Morphy are tied when it comes to dominance
When it comes to dominance I will give this a tie, both Paul Morphy and Magnus Carlsen have dominated their contemporaries and no one could even come close.
It is hard to put a metric on this one since there is no number that we can measure to indicate dominance, the estimation is subjective in nature. But in my personal opinion they are about the same.
They are both far from the competition of their time, they are innovators that stand out from the rest of their colleagues. Achievement-wise they also have a lot of things to show for their efforts. Potential-wise they have a lot to offer as well.
Carlsen and Morphy are tied when it comes to reputation
When it comes to reputation, specifically which player will leave a better reputation for themselves after they retire, I will also call it a tie. I feel like we are underestimating the legendary era that Carlsen is leaving behind.
People tend to appreciate things that are far from them than those that are within, this is why players of the past are more revered than players of the present.
It is just easier to take the present for granted and pander to nostalgia given by the past, however, if we look beyond this bias we can see that Magnus is making history every month.
At the end of his career Magnus can only be better than Morphy and not worse, even if Carlsen plays terribly in the future, I still think that they will be equal in terms of legacy since Morphy didn’t even complete his and just quitted.
Carlsen and Morphy are tied when it comes to playstyle
When it comes to playstyle I will also give this a tie, both players dominate their opposition in an incredible way and don’t have a particular playstyle.
People often say that Carlsen’s style is reaching the endgame and winning on that, however, we know that he is just good in all phases of chess. If not, he would not have dominated other time controls.
In blitz for example where it is significantly harder to reach the endgame without anything crazy going on, he still managed to be one of the best. Morphy on the other hand is just the same.
Morphy excelled in all phases of chess but most notably in the middlegame (he is also good at other phases of course). I can’t really put a playing style in both of them since they are just good at everything.
In this aspect, not one of the two players has an edge over the other since they can be described as the same.
Carlsen and Morphy are tied when it comes to talent
I think we are being a bit unfair with Paul Morphy here since if Magnus Carlsen was born in the same era as Morphy did, will he really leave the same amount of legacy? I actually think that he will need the same amount of legacy as Morphy did.
Magnus is pretty lucky that he is born in an era where his true potential can unfold. Morphy on the other hand was born in an era where there is limited knowledge of the game and not a lot of people care about it.
Morphy didn’t even pursue it seriously throughout his life unlike how Magnus did, Carlsen has been groomed for success in chess since his younger years. Partly because his father is also a renowned chess player.
Magnus has a lot of advantages due to his circumstances that are not within his control, if Morphy received the same privileges then he might have been as good if not better than Carlsen. This line of thought is really interesting since it puts things in perspective.
If they switched places I personally believe that Magnus will be on the same level as Morphy when talking about achievements, so I will say that they are even here. There is no unbreakable evidence or something like that but just a personal estimation.
Magnus Carlsen and Paul Morphy’s true potential
There is a lot of criticism when it comes to Paul Morphy’s greatness, it seems that there is a split of opinion and they are both on the extreme ends of glorifying for undermining Morphy. Most people will still prefer Magnus though.
This is why it is hard to truly determine how big of a player Morphy really is, we can’t rely on the opinions of modern experts since all of them are divided as well.
Some revered Paul Morphy as a player who can keep up and even excel in chess as if he were to be born in modern times, not all people think like that though. There are others who still criticize him a lot.
But if we were to change the question into Magnus vs. Morphy, I think most contemporary titled players will still prefer Carlsen since he has already proven his place in modern chess over Morphy.
Morphy definitely has the potential, but we will never truly know if he can keep up with modern chess (since we can’t test it). We already have an example though of someone who can dominate the same way as he did.
Of course I am talking about Carlsen. Magnus Carlsen is a little bit better than Paul Morphy due to these reasons (though I understand if you still think differently).
I personally believe that Magnus Carlsen is an even greater genius than that of Paul Morphy. I think that people just underestimate Carlsen since he is still around and people like the feeling of nostalgia.
This is an opinion and I might be completely wrong, but you have to understand that there is at least a basis to this. People who have passed away are likely to be seen as more valuable than people that are still around today.
I don’t want this kind of bias to cloud my judgment and I genuinely think that Magnus Carlsen is the bigger genius over Paul Morphy.
But that is just what I think, I can understand if you feel differently. Thank you for reading, sleep well and play chess