<"...but also thought that Morphy could suddenly appear and beat any 1960's GM in a match.">

Fischer more than any other great player from the late last century studied the games of the old masters and often commentated on them.

His opinion should should be heeded but it will always be that, an opinion. A heavily weighted one, but no way of proving it.

In 1960 he told Bronstein and Spassky at Mar del Plata (1960) that Botvinnik would beat Tal. (game 17. 'Bobby Fischer Rediscovered' 1st edition.)

This opinion was wrong, other people were also wrong in predicting this result, but because Fischer said it, he got the notoriety. (and as here often repeated!)

Hi Atking,

That is why I added the 'OOPS' it is Spassky's picture with Morphy's name below it.

But I can the conflict, you think I was 'OOPSING' Fischer. (I would not dare.)

I think guys in the next generation or two would have beaten Morphy. Guys like Nimzovich, Lasker, Pillsbury, Steinitz (after Vienna 1873), Blackburne, Zukertort etc...>

You can't compare eras like that. People didn't know a damn thing about chess back then. People had very rudimentary understanding about the underlying principles of the game. Even the great Morphy knew very little compared to a modern standard master.

His tactical abilities were however outstanding even by todays standards. There is no way you can discount such a guy.

Note that Steinitz was a year older than Morphy. They both played matches against Anderssen. Morphy slaughtered the younger Anderssen. Steinitz won less convincingly.>

But I haven't seen an original quote.>

Anderssen vs Steinitz, 1866 (kibitz #8)

The book:

Well, after a fashion....and I believe the source for this was Steinitz himself. But one can appreciate that Steinitz was pissed at the cult of Morphy.

<In a sense, all of Steinitz work was an attempt to answer the question "How did Morphy do it?">

Steinitz started off in the romantic mould, so in that sense he knew exactly how Morphy did it - i)prodigious memory ii)dazzling speed of thought iii)near-total sight of board. Of course, Steinitz had these attributes, too, just Morphy had them more.

<Dr. Max Lange has published a second edition of Morphy's games, omitting the two end games with Deacon, which are said to be apochryphal [sic]. The author, wishing to test this statement, offers three prizes of 100, 50, and 25 marks for the best essays upon the subject, which shall demonstrate, by the character of the games themselves, whether they were played or not. The essays may be written in English, French, or German, and must be addressed, with motto and sealed envelope, containing the writer’s name and address, to Dr. Max Lange, Gellerstrasse, Leipsic, before June 30th, 1881. If any of our readers can inform where the two games in question can be obtained we shall feel obliged to them.>

Yeah except Tal didn't dominate anything like Morphy did. If you bother to compile every opponent that Morphy and Steinitz have in common you would see Morphy will score significantly better than Steinitz. Many of those that played them both felt that Morphy was the better player.

The thing is, chess theory was so different back then it's almost like comparing different games.

Staunton vs Bristol, 1839

E Williams vs Staunton, 1839

Morphy - Mongredien (1859)