Who is the best chess player ever?

#38
It is not subjective: here is an objective comparison
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp 

It is subjective. You may look at best moves according to a computer fine.

Lotta people think Tal is the best even if he isn't the winningest. And they're not wrong because the concept of "best" is subjective. Some people think a boring Karpov game isn't the "best" game; instead an interesting, exciting, but not-necessarily-what-the-computer-would-play game is the "best".

Does not include Greco.

Ken Regan's comparisons are better, as they are based on moves played in games rather than fickle ratings.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267950491_Understanding_Distributions_of_Chess_Performances

Right now I am not finding a copy that is not behind a paywall, but I recall reading it a year ago. Capablanca's 1927 New York performance is the best, or among the best ever.

Leela chess zero

Its ur m0m srsly

Where's magnus' name on that list, i dont see it.

And that list is subjective as well regardless.

Magnus Carlsen

#48
The list only has retired players, as Carlsen is still active.
It is not subjective: it is an objective rating calculation based on the ratings of contemporary players and all historical results. Players right before the elo system get a rating by their results against players after the elo system. Players even before get ratings from their results against these and so back all the time.

there's so many subjective variables like estimates, strength of contemporaries, etc etc

its subjective.

Power have no limits try as well as you can and remember not to win just enjoy game

Stockfish is the strongest now

Uh ok

#45
It is not subjective, it is just objective calculation of ratings backwards in time based on the real results of all historical games. No estimates are involved, only exact calculations.

Кто здесь самый главный анархист?
Кто здесь самый хитрый шпиён?
Кто здесь самый лютый судья?
Кто здесь самый удалой господь?

Well, it’s still certainly very debatable in many parts. Morphy behind Polgar doesn’t make sense if it is about strength compared to contemporaries. He was clear #1 while Polgar at best reached 8th on the rating list. It makes sense if it is about objective playing strength. Short behind Blackburne doesn’t make sense if it is about objective playing strength. Ivanchuk equal with Steinitz doesn’t make sense if it is about strength compared to contemporaries. Steinitz won lots of title matches while Ivanchuk never was close to reach one. And it doesn’t make sense if it is about objective playing strength since Ivanchuk played much better chess. I like Chessmetrics and it is interesting to look at, but has to be taken with many pinches of salt.

#53
The elo system was introduced around 1970. Hence all ratings were calculated forward.
Karpov got his rating from playing Korchnoi and others, Kasparov got his rating from playing Karpov and others, Anand got his rating from playing Kasparov and others, Carlsen got his rating from playing Anand and others.

Chessmetrics does the same but backwards.
Alekhine got his rating from playing Botvinnik and others, Capablanca got his rating from playing Alekhine and others, Lasker got his rating from playing Capablanca and others, Steinitz got his rating from playing Lasker and others.

Well,they specified chess player,not engine,so Magnus is probably the best.But yes,AlphaZero is the strongest chess engine and can defeat pretty much any engine and player

Well my choice for the greatest of all time was Bobby Fischer, followed closely by Garry Kasparov and then Magnus Carlsen. Fischer had an unprecedented level of dominance with 20 straight wins over SUPER GMs of the time, including 6-0 against Taimanov 6-0 against Larsen in the candidates. Also he convincingly beat Petrosian and Spassky to become World Champion at the height of the Cold War. Kasparov and Carlsen although they had much longer reigns as World Champion, never had this kind of dominance.