Tal!
His opponents Resigned some in the Middle Game. Not just any opponents "Best of the Beast"!
Who is the greatest attacker in chess history?
Sort:
rigamagician wrote:
Percentage of their games that ended with this player launching into a mating attack (including games where the opponent resigned before mate was delivered) [edited for clarity]
1.Paul Morphy 22.27%
2.Adolf Anderssen 8.66%
3.William Steinitz 7.67%
4.Harry Nelson Pillsbury 6.78%
5.Amos Burn 6.53%
6.Henry Blackburne 5.90%
7.Emanuel Lasker 5.60%
8.Garry Kasparov 4.99%
9.Rashid Nezhmetdinov 4.97%
10.Henry Bird 4.86%
11.Siegbert Tarrasch 4.50%
12.Bobby Fischer 4.30%
13.Mikhail Chigorin 4.29%
14.Alexander Alekhine 4.23%
15.Jose Raul Capablanca 4.07%
The games of Frank Marshall, Paul Keres, Alexei Shirov, Mikhail Tal, Alexander Morozevich, Alexander Shabalov, Judit Polgar, Rudolf Spielmann, Alvis Vitolinsh, Vassily Ivanchuk, Boris Spassky, David Bronstein, Efim Geller and Tigran V. Petrosian ended in mate less often. Tigran V. Petrosian in particular was a very conservative player.
Disclaimer: I posted this table stimulate discussion. It is not intended to be an answer to the question "who is the greatest attacker?" [added for clarity]
Yeah, using a table just for mate attacks doesn't count. For instance, was playing until checkmate more common in Morphy's time? Now days, how many more games are won by resigning then by an actually checkmate? It seems like the masters resign when they realize they're going to lose material, or when the other player will gain some!
The statistics are interesting, though. I think Morphy took a lot of his opponents by surprise and that's why his percentage is so high. He also played a lot of lower "rated" players who probably couldn't see as far as the GM's of the day.
To add a name to the mix, Korchnoi for counterattack.
12.Bobby Fischer 4.30% 
Tal, Morphy, Bronstein, Alekhine, Capablanca, Botvinnik!
The percentage of games that end in a mating attack probably says more about the quality of the opposition than of the attacker.
DrSpudnik wrote:
The percentage of games that end in a mating attack probably says more about the quality of the opposition than of the attacker.
+1
The operation was a succes but the patient died!
One would have to view all the top games of each one by one......
When you finish that evaluation ...... that will never happen even with the help of your grandchildren to continue it.
Che Guevera . A great attacker on and off the board 
DrSpudnik wrote:
The percentage of games that end in a mating attack probably says more about the quality of the opposition than of the attacker.
Korchnoi was particularly prone to getting mated, 48 times in my collection. Nigel Short fell under a mating attack in 35 games. Karpov was another frequent victim, 25 games.
Who initiated more attacks?
Who put themselves in better position to attack?
What is their ratio of attacks won material/ attacks won game?
What is their number of successful counter attacks vs opponent attacks?
??
Mikhail Tal.
Too late to toss Leonid Stein's name in the ring?
Tal keeps coming up, one of kings of forcing resign!
Here are a couple of old threads on a related topic:
Who was the most aggressive chessplayer?
Who is the best chess player with an aggressive style?
pfren wrote:
Tigran Vartanovich!
(and yes, I am dead serious).
His style usually didn't involve him on tactical play. But when it did, the accuracy of his calculations is simply phenomenal.
I can recall that old Rusiian chess joke, which goes like "when Tal makes a sacrifice against you, then accept and offer a draw. When Petrosian sacrifices, things are simple: resign".
I tried to tell them.....
skullskullskull wrote:
Claude Bloodgood was so dedicated to the art of attack that he committed matricide.
As a Grob aficianado, I laugh.
I still think Rustam Kamsky is still the best attacking chess player of all time. I think Nigel Short would agree too. (winks)