What would Paul Morphy's fide rating be?

It's such a pity that Morphy didn't play a match against Steinitz. Steinitz, although being one year older than Morphy, most probably played weaker than Morphy in the late 1850s, but in the 1860s he would have been a serious opponent. But unfortunately Morphy retired from professional chess in 1861 when he was only 23 years old, because he wanted to work as a lawyer. He was unsuccessful there because his clients only wanted to talk about chess with him. Also the American Civil War intervened in his lawyer carreer. In my opinion his playing style and playing strength could be best compared with Michail Tal.

@philodendron68 said in #21:

... Morphy retired from professional chess in 1861 ...
He never considered himself to be professional. His last important match was in 1858.
"... Chess has never been and never can be aught but a recreation. It should not be indulged it to the detriment of other and more serious avocations - should not absorb the mind or engross the thoughts of those who worship at its shrine; but should be kept in the background and restrained within its proper province. As a mere game, a relaxation from the severer pursuits of life, it is deserving of high commendation. ..." - Morphy (1859)

I rechecked but wikipedia states Morphy's fide was 2690?

well it was one estimate based on some games against some players.

Elo style ratings are relative anyway. 2500 in 1978 probably is not same as 2500 today. How big the difference and to what direction is not easily measurable. So any number someone comes you need read reasons for judgement to know what they mean with it. May not be the same you are looking for.

Got your point! Alright

@Scott-B said in #23:

I rechecked but wikipedia states Morphy's fide was 2690?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history
As near as I can tell, this was a number from Elo's book and intended to indicate how Morphy stood in comparison with other players, active around that time (1858). There does not seem to be any reason to believe that the number indicates how well Morphy-zombie would do in a tournament held after the zombie apocalypse.

Oh ok I understand your point.

@kindaspongey said in #26:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history
As near as I can tell, this was a number from Elo's book and intended to indicate how Morphy stood in comparison with other players, active around that time (1858). There does not seem to be any reason to believe that the number indicates how well Morphy-zombie would do in a tournament held after the zombie apocalypse.

Hmmm, yes. I suppose Jeff Sonas' work with chessmetrics attempts to bridge that gap.

But Arpad Elo didn't think about "ratings inflation", which means that a 2500 today is not the same as a 2500 back when. However, perhaps it is the same in absolute terms. If we accept that the information age, followed by the advent of powerful microprocessors for engine analysis has not only "raised the bar" of chess strength in absolute terms, but made chess mastery more attainable for the masses, then that would pretty much negate the complaints about ratings inflations, no?

@jsmith2025 said in #28:

... I suppose Jeff Sonas' work with chessmetrics attempts to bridge that gap.
But Arpad Elo didn't think about "ratings inflation", which means that a 2500 today was the same as a 2500 back when.
It does not seem to me to be safe to draw conclusions from what Elo did not think about.
@jsmith2025 said in #28:
However, perhaps it is the same in absolute terms. If we accept that the information age, followed by the advent of powerful microprocessors for engine analysis has not only "raised the bar" of chess strength in absolute terms, but made chess mastery more attainable for the masses, then that would pretty much negate the complaints about ratings inflations, no?
I see no way to know what negates what until there is an upgrade of what is available at the corner drugstore. The same goes for what Sonas may or may not have successfully accomplished.

In his time he was probably in the top 3 when he quit. That makes him super elite.

You can't compare him to a modern GM, doing that is not accurate... if you do.. you ignore how good would a "once in a generation talent" be growing up playing chess in this era.

He'ed obviously be a Magnus Carlsen !