Greatest Chess Master in History

Not nominated anyone!! As said, anyone who is the best in their own era is a great player. Comparing players across different eras is a fun thing, but at the end of the day every one has their own favourite. The chessmetrics site numbers are probably the most objective comparison around.

Sure, everyone has his favorite, presumably including you. I'm interested in the opinions of players. There's no method of ranking masters of different eras that is truly objective. Someone has to choose the parameters and that choice is necessarily subjective. I'll put you down for "none of the above."   

Yeah, it's awful. When did that happen?

and there have only been 2 decent chess players mentioned in the entire thread!!!!

i play 4 numnut games on this website and they stick me with a 2253 rating!!!! what is the world coming to?

Morphy and Fischer?

i believe a sumbitch said Tal.

Current standings: 

Paul Morphy:  7 

Bobby Fischer:  5

Garry Kasparov:  3 (lost one because of a vote switch)

Aron Nimzowitsch:  2

André Danican Philidor:  2

Emanuel Lasker:  1

Igor Ivanov:  1 (no kidding)

Alexander Alekhine:  1

Vishy Anand:  1

Paul Keres:  1

Max Euwe:  1

Mikhail Tal:  1

José Raúl Capablanca:  1

Carlsen:  1 (finally)

Magnus Carlsen is the greatest ever. He is a stronger player than any that have come before him, he's learned from all the previous masters and benefits from computer aided learning. His ability to win from apparently lost positions is phenomenal. He won after blundering away a piece against another grandmaster and he repeatedly beat Nakamura in blitz from positions that looked losing or drawn to us lesser mortals and even to the master and GM who were doing the commentary.

That's a vote for Carlsen. I agree that he's the strongest on an absolute basis. However, we're choosing the best of all time on a relative basis. I'll assume you consider him the best on that basis as well.

Greco was the originator; all others are imitators.

I'd make a vote for Tal, although he may not be the "strongest" of all time, looking at chess masters and their "mastery" of chess, he had a pure understanding of the game like no other. Sacrificing pieces and finding victory in the chaos, he truly grasped the game in a beautiful way. He didn't have to be logical like a computer, he could just FEEL the game. I find that a sign of true mastery. 

That's a surprising nomination because we're evaluating masters based on their performance against their toughest competition. We have records of Greco's games but all were played against anonymous opponents and we're not even sure they were actual games. They may have been compositions.

No doubt Tal was one of the greatest attacking players. That's his second nomination.

Fischer

Fischer it is. Good choice. He's closing in on Morphy.

No one has nominated Karpov, he is much stronger than Nimzovitch, Philidor, Ivanov, Anand ( Anatoly beat Vishy in a match), Karpov has a plus score against Tal. Everyone talks about how great Ivanchuk, so Karpov must be even greater than Ivanchuk, Anatoly has a plus score against Vassily.

Good choice. Fischer just caught up to Morphy. Fischer's refusal to defend his title in 1975 was a disappointment. However, in retrospect, it probably shouldn't have been much of a surprise. He hadn't played a single competitive game after the 1972 match ended. I've said before that I believe Fischer wanted to win the championship to prove he was the best in the world. Once he did that, he had nothing more to prove and thus essentially retired. Some have suggested he was afraid of Karpov. I think that's silly. It doesn't explain why Fischer stopped playing competitively immediately after winning the championship. Fischer crushed Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosian in the 1971 Candidates matches and then defeated Spassky handily for the title the following year. Noboby was talking about Karpov in 1972 and he didn't become the official challenger until a couple of years later.

Of course Karpov was stronger than Philidor but we're evaluating masters of different eras on a relative basis, not an absolute basis. I don't think having a plus score against Tal is significant. Tal was well past his prime by the time Karpov came around.

I think the reason Karpov hasn't received a nomination is that he was the guy between the end of Fischer's reign and the beginning of Kasparov's. It's impossible to think of Karpov without thinking of either of them. But he might get a nomination. After all, Euwe got one and it's impossible to think of him without thinking of Alekhine.