There is mechanical positional play with development that ignores what's actually happening on the board (I remember a note by Botvinnik in 100 selected games: "Natural and bad") and there is positional play that displays and exploits a deeper understanding.

Morphy's pawn moves attempt to create a broad center at the cost of piece development. This is considered perfectly sound in Ponziani's opening and there is no reason to call it unsound here.

The only problem with black's play was using his "development" to engage in a two-piece attack on white's position in an attempt to win the exchange.

Given the position after 4.de5, a modern player might have struggled for the initiative by attacking the e-pawn either with 4...d5 or with 4...nc6, and met either bf4 or nf3 with 5...d5! threatening to win time with ...Bc5 or ...Bg4.

Morphy's 5. Qg4 was an exploitation of black's lack of harmonious development by offering the exchange for what turned out to be a devastating attack.

This shows a deeper understanding of positional play because morphy integrated dynamic, time-based, elements into his development with marvelous effect.

Let me cut through that thicket of clichés with a simple analogy.

There are two islands. Island A has 100 people and a copy of Staunton's handbook. Island B has 1,000 people, Chessbase, Stockfish,and the collected works of Dvoretsky. The people on both islands teach themselves how to play chess, using the resources available to them. If the respective champions of Island A and Island B meet in a match, who do you think will win?

Suppose that each island only has Staunton's handbook, but there are 100 times as many people on Island B. Where is the stronger chessplayer likely to come from, Island A or Island B?

That is the difference between chess in 1858 and now.

No one believes that there has been significant human biological evolution since 1858 (though some might argue that there have been some developments since the Pyramids -- I don't know enough to have an opinion). No one thinks we don't learn from our predecessors, or that that Morphy wasn't a talented guy.

I would disagree with this, though. Staunton here doesn't defend by grabbing material; he just plays very passively.

Anderssen vs Staunton, 1851

And here Andersson plays a fairly positional sort of attack.

In fact cavemen were more or less as intelligent as we are. There is a difference between "intelligence" and "cultural heritage".

Only human beings are able to transmit knowledge to the next generation, no other animal can (at least at our rate). This is a separate item from the pure intelligence.

Except that is precisely what many people do believe and say. You only need to read the comments to this game to see that.

People are making direct comparisons between Morphy and modern players without adjusting for the extra knowledge and resources that the modern day players have.

Pre-Morphy books and understanding about attacking principles were as good as those available now? Come on, you don't really believe that? Do you?

Yes, a better prepared player will usually beat a less well prepared player. That is almost a "d'oh" statement. But that's not what people are saying. Surely when we talk about the all-time greatest players we need to adjust for the resources and knowledge that each player had?

Your better equipped island would almost certainly produce the strongest player, but there is no guarantee that it would produce the greatest player.

<Shams> Caveman as intelligent as modern men? Maybe not that far back, but a heck of a lot further into antiquity than most people realise. Some of the achievements of ancient civilizations show a level of skill that we find hard to reproduce, given the tools that they had to hand.

Really? Let's ask them. Who here believes that there has been significant human biological evolution since 1858?

As for the rest of your post, you and I don't appear to disagree. I think you are disagreeing only with strawmen, but perhaps I am wrong.

<Pre-Morphy books and understanding about attacking principles were as good as those available now? Come on, you don't really believe that? Do you?>

No.

<Surely when we talk about the all-time greatest players we need to adjust for the resources and knowledge that each player had?>

For instance, let's say you are taken back to the cavemen era. Are you more intelligent than them? Good luck then, go and hunt the beasts they hunt, and survive. You cannot deny they know more necessary things than you in that context.

Let's try to put things into perspective:

1. Morphy was a great player - for the standards of his day.

2. In this game he takes liberties against a rabbit in order to pull off a flashy win. Liberties he would not take against a better player.

3. Straight out of the time-travelling box, Morphy would almost certainly lose to a modern grandmaster. But give him the same training and knowledge and the outcome is harder to predict.

4. We can't criticise Morphy for the quality of the opposition. He can only play the people put in front of him - until and unless we come along with our time machine.

5. Chess knowledge is now much further advanced than it was in Morphy's day. Those "pre-Morphy books" are a joke.

6. There is a hell of a lot more to Morphy's play than just being more accurate and consistent than Anderssen.

No, I haven't retracted anything.

<And my earlier post wasn't necessarily directed at you.>

I thought it was.

<A post that you took issue with even though you are saying some of the same things.>

95: Paul Morphy - A Bottin 1-0 0.0, Paris Paris FRA 1858

click for larger view

White has Be2!! - a silent killer move with the threat of Bh5+

This is much more potent than f7+ which is only a draw with best play.

Analysis by Stockfish 14: