Relative strength compared to his contemporaries : Paul Morphy, no question. If he had access to the amount of theory modern players have today, he'd be giving knight odds to 2200 players.
Very good. I've argued that if Morphy had been born 20-25 years ago instead of 180 (and assuming of course that he would pursue a professional chess career), he would be one of the best if not the best today. And based on his natural talent, I believe he would be the best.
Current standings (yes, I actually checked):
Paul Morphy: 5
Garry Kasparov: 1
Emanuel Lasker: 1
Bobby Fischer: 1
Igor Ivanov: 1 (tongue-in-cheek nominations aren't prohibited)
Alexander Alekhine: 1
I didn't intend for this thread to be a contest but what the hell. I didn't include nominations of multiple masters. Only nominations of a single master count. After all, if you vote for two presidential candidates, neither vote counts.
Although I chose Morphy, I'm surprised to see his domination here. The five nominations of him as well as the nominations of Lasker and Alekhine demonstrate a knowledge of chess history among the folks here. That's good. Chess has a rich history.
I'm also surprised that Carlsen hasn't received a nomination yet. No, he doesn't dominate today as Morphy once did, but I don't think anyone could today. There are just too many very strong professional grandmasters around. I'm neither a Carlsen fan nor detractor. I just give the guy his due. He's been the world's highest rated player for years. That's quite an accomplishment when one considers the strength of his competition.
Hey, where'd everybody go? 
Guess it's official. Morphy is the greatest chess master in history. Shame that nobody stuck around for the big announcement.
Evidently this is not the most popular forum thread in history.
Boris ivanov would have slaughtered him at the board and sold him weed after.
I would like to say that the greatest chess player ever is
He is a brilliant chess player and has had many memorable games. Don't ever count him out.
Just when I thought the thread was dead, it came back to life. Okay, the contest continues. Anand gets a vote.
He is a brilliant chess player and has had many memorable games. Don't ever count him out.
Anand is a good choice. Even at the age of 48, he's still among the world's best. Reminds me of Lasker in that respect.
Are you voting for Morphy? Or did you already vote for him?
Boris ivanov would have slaughtered him at the board and sold him weed after.
Come on, max. We're not comparing the strengths of today's masters with those of yesterday's directly. It's a relative comparison. As I've said, it would be unfair to imagine how Morphy would do against today's top masters if he suddenly arrived here via a time machine. We've got to evaluate the strengths of past greats based on their performance against their strongest competitors. Then we might imagine how well they would do against the best today - if they were born 20-30 years ago and had access to all the knowledge today's masters have.
Are you voting for Morphy? Or did you already vote for him?
Oh wait a minute. You voted for Alekhine. Disregard.
with ivanov, it was about the strength of this engine & his dope. unless of course, you're not familiar with boris.
with ivanov, it was about the strength of this engine & his dope. unless of course, you're not familiar with boris.
Oh yeah. That went over my head because I forgot who he is. By the way, did you vote already?
I must be losing my edge. I actually thought max was serious.
Paul Morphy was the most naturally talented player that ever lived.
Bobby Fischer was the strongest player that ever lived during his 1970 - 72 playing days.
Garry Kasparov was the strongest player ever for a block of time longer than 5 years ( sorry Bobby ).
Magnus Carlsen.... recently started predominantly wearing glasses now.
I think Morphy was the greatest in history on relative basis (as I explained in my opening post).
I agree that he was also the most naturally talented. I might rank Capablanca second in natural talent.
Fischer was totally dominant during the '70-'72 period, but it was just a three-year period in a 20-year career.
Kasparov was certainly one of the greatest but if you're considering dominance over a long period of time, what about Emanuel Lasker? Remember, the point of this is not absolute strength, but rather relative strength.
So what's your nomination for greatest of all time?