Best player never to win the chess World Championship

One thing is for sure if Fischer hadnt quit and played Karpov they would have both gotten bloody ! Its just a pity that the world was deprived of the many beautiful games they would have produced together..... by the time Kasparov joined them in the picture Fischer would have been past his best I think and declining . Even so, they also would have produced some brilliant games for all to enjoy.

 Interesting comment about Karpov... I have always enjoy this games and his style of play a "true chess champion".  But history should tell the entire story and if the truth be told then why did Bobby Fisher lose his title to Karpov and then the groverning body FIDE grant the same identical requests that Bobby made to Karpov??  Perhaps someone can give me a better understanding one this please???

Also the soviets were in collusion against him in in the 1953 candidates match in favor of Smyslov. Politics may have kept him from the candidtes match in Budapest in 1950.

(During his long chess career, Reshevsky played eleven of the first twelve World Champions, from Emanuel Lasker to Anatoly Karpov, the only player to do so (he met Garry Kasparov but never played him). He defeated seven World Champions: Lasker, Jose Raul Capablanca, Alexander Alekhine, Max Euwe, Mikhail Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov, and Bobby Fischer. copied from wikipedia.)

Paulsen, Blackburne, Chigorin, Burn, Pillsburry, Charousek, Tarrasch, Janowski, Maroczy, Schlechter, Marshall, Rubinstein, Reti, Nimzowitch, Torre, Bogoljubow, Flohr, Fine, Junge, Keres, Trifunovic, Najdorf, Bronstein, Reshewsky, Geller, Larsen, Korchnoi, Mecking, Andersson, Miles, Huebner, Ljubojevic, Timman, Yusupov, Ivanchuk, Kamsky, Shirov

why wasn't Nigel Short in it ?

Dinosaur53, I'm not an expert on this, but I don't think FIDE conceded to Karpov what they wouldn't concede to Fischer. The deal-breaker in negotiations before the upcoming Fischer-Karpov match was Fischer's insistence that the challenger would have to win by a minimum of 10-8 (so that if the two players were neck-and-neck at 8-all then Fischer would only have to win 1 game to retain the title but Karpov would have to win 2 games to win it). FIDE didn't concede that to Karpov for later matches against Korchnoi and Kasparov.

Fischer's other major demands, that the match be first to a given number of wins, draws not counting, and thus have no fixed limit on the number of games, were conceded, in 1975 and afterwards.

 I'm still puzzled why Morphy doesn't at least get a shot..

 Maybe because Morphy was considered world champion at his peak but the title didnt officially exist back then ?

ErrantDeeds, '98. Kaspy was just too good...

Well he is considered to be but was not actually, because as you say the title didn't exist. He didn't actually destroy everyone of note at the time. Him and Staunton for whatever reason didn't get to play. And it appears to my non-expert eyes that the accounts saying he simply chickened out are inconclusive. Speaking of Staunton, I'll check to see if he's on the list aswell..

 One of the greatest players of that time was Adolf Anderssen, who had a plus record against Staunton. Morphy crushed Anderssen in a match so Staunton had good reason not to play Morphy. I believe Morphy did beat those of note during his time that would play him. Morphy would have crushed Staunton and I think Stanton knew this and so didnt dare to play him.

Paul Charles Morphy was born on June 22, 1837 in New Orleans. He was the son of a successful lawyer and judge Alonzo Morphy. His uncle, Ernest Morphy, claims that no one formally taught Morphy how to play chess, but rather that he learned the rules by observing games between himself and Alonzo. When Morphy was only 12 years old, Johann Jacob Loewenthal visited New Orleans and at the behest of his father, agreed to play a casual match with the prodigy. Young Paul won 2½ to ½.

In 1857 Morphy won the First American Chess Congress with a dominating performance. This success was followed by a European trip where he met and triumphed over most of the prominent masters of the period, including Adolf Anderssen whom he defeated +7 -2 =2. Upon returning to America, he announced his retirement from chess.

Although the official title of World Champion did not exist in his time, Morphy was and is widely regarded as the strongest player of his day. Even today his games are studied for their principles of open lines and quick development, and his influence on the modern game is undeniable. Mikhail Botvinnik wrote of his influence: "His mastery of open positions was so vast that little new has been learned about such positions after him."

 Ok, I will accept that Morphy is out of the discussion.

From the Chessmetrics profile of Paul Morphy:

Paul Morphy was the best but it wasn't his fault there was no WC. My nomination will come as a surprise but here it goes. Richard Reti!

Non-WCs who made Chessmetrics' #1 ranking for at least one month:

1840s: Cochrane, Staunton, Kieseritzky, Buckle

1850s: Buckle, Kieseritzky, von der Lasa, Harrwitz, Dubois, Morphy
1860s: Morphy, Anderssen, Paulsen, Suhle, Kolisch, Neumann
1870s: Neumann, Anderssen, Paulsen, Zuckertort
1880s: Zuckertort, Gunsberg
1890s: n/a

1900s: Pillsbury, Janowsky, Maróczy, Rubinstein
1910s: Rubinstein
1920s: Bogoljubow
1930s: n/a
1940s: Fine, Reshevsky

1950s: Bronstein, Reshevsky
1960s: Korchnoi
1970s: n/a
1980s: n/a
1990s: n/a

Some interesting viewpoints guys, thanks.

Apart from the four I started the list with, some other names seem to pop up alot:

Nimzowitsch, Fine, Short, Schlechter, Reshevsky.

By the way, Chessmetrics says Short got to #5 in the world, but Wiki says he got to #3. Anyone know which is correct?

And now a "what if":

Anyone think that if there had been no Fischer, Larsen could have gone through Taimanov, Petrosian and beaten Spassky in the WCh Final in 72?

I think Korchnoi is number 1. 

 Larsen reminds me alot of Marshall.  Both fine players, that were both at or near the top during there prime.  They both were agressive attacking players, that had many fine results in tournaments, but when it came to matches they were less successful. 

Paul Keres