Sally Simpson: Yes you must castle v Morphy. And thanks to Morphy (and his opponents who did not castle) for the past 100+ years you must castle against everyone else you will get Morphy'd. I agree with Bobby Fischer's take on Paul Morphy written in 1964 that Morphy could have held his own and been one of the top players.
Full article here.
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
But that was 1964 and there were not as many good players around then as there are now. Also technique, middle game structures and planning and opening theory has progressed at a rapid rate since then and of course computers.
Although I am a huge Morphy fan I have to admit today he would toil.
His dislike and temperament for closed position would have found him out.
Players would not be making the mid 19th century blunders that Morphy taught us how to punish.
And talk of Morphy getting booked up with a month or two and then computer savvy...the 'book' has grown quite a lot since 1964 and branches and side variations are still sprouting. The computer in 1964 was still in it's infancy. Chess wise it a Rooks odss player. Morphy would have liked that.
Regarding computers today, there is an excellent chance Morphy would never have seen a working light bulb (it was patented by Edison in 1879, 5 years before Paul died. New Orleans was 'electrified' on small scale two years after Paul died.) So what would he make of a computer.
First of all he would be flabbergasted by the 6 million+ games in the average data base and then the number of games (particularly games under 25 moves where the winner played like him...nicked his ideas.)
Chess needed him and it is enough that his genius has rubbed off onto generations of later players.
Leave him in the past. It is where legends belong, in the past
Kibitzing
