Paul Morphy vs Wilhelm Steinitz

 true, Deep Blue was made up of human databases and other things

I think the 'other things' being alluded to are that Kasparov alleged at the time - in a neat about-turn from what the allegations tend to be nowadays - that Deep Blue wasn't just silicone, but aided by human GMs. He felt that it played with a sense of position and strategy that wasn't purely machine.

Yeah, I will post my list again with the reasons why they are included

Greco Because: he was a great player, and his games still aply today

Ruy Lopez: Hello, so that God won't like destroy this assembly of these greats

Paul Morphy: One active year, great tactitian, Then dissapears into the heart of Louisiana

Adolf Anderssen: Great player, very consistant, and well, loved his style

Alexander Alekhine: great player, Alekhine defence

Mikhail Tal: Beautiful tactical play

Bobby Fischer: The Young, non Anti Semetic Version (the one that beat Byrne in 1956), up to about 25 years old

Garry Kasparov: great at all parts of the game

Anatoly Karpov: see how he would do against fischer

Victor Korchnoi: probably the longest active player still alive, and a person who should have won the world championship

Deep Blue: To see how it would respond to the greats of the 19th century and before

Recent additions

Gregory Serper: He can sac his entire army and win

Natalia Pogonina: we have to have a woman at this tournoment, plus her games are entertaining

Don't forget James Mason this time!

You just reminded me to add Nigel Short: heroic King march 'nuff said

According to Hans Ree (Dutch Treat):

    Who is the strongest player in history? At the end of last year many chess lovers gave the matter some thought and most of them indicated the usual suspects.
A man who had an opinion all his own on this subject was the great master and teacher Pyotr Romanovsky, who lived from 1892 till 1964. He used to put the question to his pupils who then came up with the classic answers. Maybe Alekhine? Botvinnik perhaps?
At the moment when all world champions and near-champions had come up and been rejected by the master, the question was burning on the pupils's lips: who then was it? Then, as Genna Sosonko once told me, Romanovsky used to stay silent for a while and when the tension had become almost unbearable, he said solemnly: "The strongest chess player of all time was James Mason." 

who's he

Is that because he had a premonition that Eddie Izzard would always cast James Mason as God in his rambling stand up sketches?

. . . James Mason was described, on the eve of the great Hastings 1895 tournament,
 more or less like this (I quote from memory): "About Mason it has recently been 
written that in a sober state he doesn't have to lose a game to anyone. This may be
true, but as this state is increasingly rare, it must be feared that his result here 
will be as mediocre as in his previous tournament." This indeed sums up the 
image of Mason in chess history.

I have started a thread where We continue the idea of the tournoment, however we will try to determine who is best acoridng to thier style

here is the link

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/tournoment-of-the-greats

please help this thread, when you sign up for a player, play moves they would play

Actually, the Bambino once hit a ball 587 feet in an exhibition game (although I believe he also hit a foul ball over 590 feet once).  And yes, I know that's pretty much irrelevant to your point...but after all, I do have a reputation as a sizeable pain in the neck to maintain.

I think Steinitz - after having worked out his chess theories, could have taken on Morphy successfully.  However, at the time the two of them met, it's my opinion that Steinitz was in no shape to meet Morphy over the board.

Morphy would have won hands down

Intriguiging question. I think Steinitz would have prevailed because he was, at that time, the prevailing player. Morphy's self imposed isolation from competitive chess would have played against him

Morphy and Steinitz did live around the same time.

Morphy 1837-1884  Playing 1848 - 1869 playing.

But the last years of his playing period were New Orleans and many games with odds.  

Steinitz 1836 -1900   Playing period 1859-1899.

Steinitz started to get good after many games and probably practice.

Who would win.  Maybe Morphy in the beginning.  

But if you do the research Steinitz was not playing when Morphy started playing.  And the Morphy quit playing chess.   

And both went nuts.  Just goes to show ya.

You mean:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001799

Steiniz is a tactical beast too in his peak.