Mikhail Tal.
Best chess player ever
Sort:
My favorite player is Rashid Nezhmetdinov. Here's why:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1260278
and
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1111459
There's something to be said about someone who sacrifices a queen on intuition. Supposedly, he didn't calculate either of these sacrifices to the end, but instead made them based on intuition and positional understanding.
How could such a strong player make such a bad sac? It makes you think he is just a calculating machine hoping every attack he tries will work, cause playing Bxb6 requires a certain lack of understanding about the initiative, as taking one f6 pawn will not mess up the king enough, and the two pawns are worth nothing more than 2 pawns!
One you say best ever, you have to define your terms. I consider both Kasparov and Karpov to be technicians. They were capable of very accurate calculation and could assimilate the ideas of others. If we still had adjournments both Team Kasparov and Team Karpov would be very hard to beat, but part of their strength was they had a team of experts working out opening designed for specific opponents. They both avoided critical moves before adjournments, so their endgame experts could find the right plan and moves while they rested and got a good nights sleep. Once adjournments became history, both Ks lost their dominance. I think in a match without seconds or adjornments, Fischer could have beat either.
Big mistake...
The likes of Morphy, Capablanca, Lasker etc were great masters in their time period (because that era influenced their development...and they became who they were). If these masters were born in a different era, they would not be the same people...different influences etc. Heck, they would all be pot smokers, drug users, pimps, and gangsters by the time they left high school.
You cannot talk about a master out of his era...he would not be the same person.
Well, while were're already speculating, we can pretend there wouldn't be different influences 
Aleksandr Alekhine
uhohspaghettio wrote: ...Yes, if Morphy had been born in 1987 and played chess a lot I'm sure he could be one of the best players in the world today. That's what I said. I never said the older players are worse than today's players just because, I said because they never had the resources.
Ok. Sorry for my misunderstanding. 
In that case I think I'd probably go with Kasparov or Fischer.
gary K. all the way
Fischer
Henster97 wrote:
Fischer
Tal
I think Fischer probably was the best. If he hadn't gone crazy and played throughout his lifetime, he would have put together an incredible record that would never be topped. I always liked the story I once heard where he was watching one of the World Championship games between Karpov & Korchnoi, & he kept finding winng combinations that neither the commentators nor the competitors had seen. Urban legend? Possibly. But no one can argue that during his time he was the most successfully aggressive & winningest player of all time. Hard to beat the numbers.
Put me down for Bent Larsen. I enjoy the Nimzo-Larsen opening, even though I don't play it that often.
Kasparov's weakness in the endgame became apparent in his match with Kramnik when he was unable to hold slighly inferior endgames without his team of experts.
Kasparov, he reformed chess to what it is now.
Just played through the 15th World Ch game in 1985. There is only one possible choice for the best player ever. Kasparov.
Tal is my favourite, Kasparov is the best.
slvnfernando wrote:
Fischer Fischer Fischer! He didnt simply beat Karpov, but the whole might of the Soviet Chess machine!
the first line should read " He didn't simply beat Karpov, he never even played him. I think you meant spassky;
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=54487
uhohspaghettio
A bit unfair saying that the best players of their era wouldn't compete with modern players.
Give Morphy access to years of modern opening theory, chess engine analysis & exposure to much more even competition & what reason is there to think that if he wasn't born in 1987 as opposed to 1837 he wouldn't be one of the greatest players of the modern era?
I think if Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy & Fischer were born in the 1980's, I'm certain they'd all be right up there with Carlsen, Kramnik & Topalov. However, take 1850's Morphy & teleport him into a WC match vs Kramnik & Morphy would no doubt be in big trouble.
You're not comparing like with like, denying greats from the past the luxuries that modern players have.
All you can say is that Carslen is currently the best of his time in the same way that Morphy was all those years ago.