Greatest Chess Master in History

Beats me.

Current standings: 

Paul Morphy:  7

Bobby Fischer:  5

Garry Kasparov:  4

Aron Nimzowitsch:  2

Emanuel Lasker:  1

Alexander Alekhine:  1

Vishy Anand:  1

André Danican Philidor:  1

Paul Keres:  1

Max Euwe:  1

Mikhail Tal:  1

José Raúl Capablanca:  1

Igor Ivanov:  1 (no kidding)

I think it was impossible to make chess career in XIX century. There were not tournaments with prize fund, sponsors and advertising contracts.

Alekhine in 1927 had played with Capablanca because he had founded money for prize fund, not because he had won candidates tournament.

The first chess player who began to earn a lot of money was Robert Fischer. Spassky said: "Fischer is our trade union!"

Sorry, my English is terrible, I hope you understand what I mean.

You're right that it's unlikely that someone could make a living playing chess in Morphy's time but he still could've pursued a full time career in chess if he had wanted to.  He didn't need to make money because of his family fortune.

By the way, your English is very good.  

This is the second vote for Philidor.

Of course it's not fair to compare masters of different eras on an absolute basis. The strongest players today have enormous advantages over the strongest players of generations ago, including the advances in theory (opening theory in particular), thousands of top level games to study, the use of engines to analyze positions and test new lines in openings, and the ability to earn a comfortable living by playing the game.

The only fair way to compare masters of different eras is on a relative basis. However, we have to be careful when we compare today's best against the best of generations ago - on the basis of their performance against their toughest competition. Philidor and Morphy were amateurs and so were their opponents. It would be virtually impossible for the best player today to dominate to the extent they did. He's a professional and so are his opponents - and there are a lot of top tier grandmasters today.

I think we need to use a sliding scale. That means we should require greater dominance over their competition from masters of earlier eras than masters of today. Otherwise, we're going to exclude the greatest masters of modern times, including Kasparov and Carlsen. No one has nominated Carlsen yet but he definitely should be considered. He's the world champion with a few title defenses under his belt and he's been the world's highest rated player for years. The reason I chose Morphy instead of Philidor was that although both were dominant, by the time Morphy came along there were a number of top level masters. His competition was tougher than Philidor's.

Why does this remind me of Lyudmil Tsvetkov?

No idea.

@Philidor_Legacy: Your post and my response to it made me think it was about time to improve my opening post. First, it was focused too much on Morphy and second, it didn't include the "sliding scale" I mentioned in my response to your post. I think it's important to consider that. Otherwise people might not nominate modern masters merely because they failed to dominate to the extent that Philidor and Morphy did.

I replaced my opening post with one that includes most of my response to your post.

Hm... I've nominated Kasparov, but now I'm not quite sure about that. I think I gonna change my vote to Carlsen. After thinking for a while, I'm starting to believe Carlsen is the best of all time, both in skill and dominance. Professional chess is way more popular and tough now than ever; chess engines are way stronger now than ever (which is good for analysis, of course); and, yet, Carlsen manages to easily be in first place. In standard he's 39 points ahead, in rapid he's 54 points ahead, in blitz he's 97 points ahead. He's also the best online player (since he won every match against Nakamura, as far as I know). I guess he dominates chess more than any world champ in any sport now, which is absurd considering the competition.

Yep, I change my vote. Carlsen is the best.

Well said. Kasparov was an excellent nomination but so is Carlsen. I would choose Carlsen as the best on an absolute basis and I think he's among the best on a relative basis. He's probably got the toughest competition of any previous world champion and yet he's been the highest rated player for years. As you pointed out, he has the highest ratings in standard, rapid and blitz. That's extraordinary considering the level of competition in each.

I think it's good that you changed your vote because I'm sure you're not alone when it comes to nominating someone, having not given it much thought - but then changing your mind after thinking about it. Others might be inclined to change their nominations too.

And it's good to finally see a vote for Carlsen. He should be a top contender.  Kasparov is back to 3 and Carlen gets 1.

^ Yeah! I didn't devote much time to think when I nomitaded Kaspa, indeed. I hope it inspires others.

And, Kasparov, if ur following this thread, please, don't be mad at me! I'm still a big fan of yours!

Two links. My thoughts on Philidor can be found here.

https://www.chess.com/blog/simaginfan/my-10-favorite-chess-books 

A post with stats relevant to FBloggs point - which I agree with, by the way.

https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/player-dominance-index-after-tata-steel 

@Philidor_Legacy:  Excellent contribution. Thanks. Although I chose Morphy instead, Philidor definitely belongs on anyone's short list. Whether or not Philidor was the greatest master, it's not difficult to argue that he might have been the most important in history.

Thanks. Both are well worth a look. By the way, are you going to nominate Philidor?

there are two who are considered the best, even Magnus Carlsen think the same, and its Kasparov and Fischer

If you want your vote to count, you've got to choose one of them.

This is The Little Thread That Could. Huffin' 'n' puffin' and repeating "I think I can" again and again as it tries to get over the mountain (or at least over 300 posts).

                                        The Little Thread That Could

Fischer. Wonderful chess player, horrible person.

Agreed. By the way, have you voted yet? Or did you just vote for Fischer?