Yeah, hard to not put Morphy at #1 in terms of talent. Some people claim to not study, but Morphy literally couldn't study.
Carlsen may be more talented, but it's hard to compare when he's been playing in strong tournaments with GM coaches practically before he was potty trained 
Smyslov said that he studied a lot and read every chess book he could take.
Me. :) Okay seriously maybe Fischer or Morphy?
No Reshevsky?
Umar Hayat Khan's.
I didnt putAlekhine,Lasker, Kasparov,Fischer or Karpov as we all know they are very talented but they work hard to achieve their success.
Lasker probably studied chess far from as hard as Carlsen though. He wrote several philosophical works, a doctoral thesis in mathematics, drama, books about other games (and played bridge for Germany), and at times worked as a lecturer. Even if Carlsen is "lazy" compared to many other modern top players I bet he still has spent much more time practising chess than Lasker did.
The idea that Morphy didn't study is completly wrong. Although there wasn't the tremendous explosion of chess information that we know today, there had already been quite a few good books written on chess in Morphy's day, and Morphy's father owned several of them, which Paul had studied thorougly. It is well established that Morphy owned a copy of the book of the famous London 1851 tournament, the first great international tournament. In fact, the young Morphy wrote numerous notes and comments on the pages. By the standards of his day, Morphy was reasonably well-booked
So you're saying he owned 2 of the 3 chess books in existence? 
Anything useful to him would have been tournament books, as you said. I believe there were no instructional books beyond how the pieces move.
And even being given examples of those "masters" he played much better than anyone. He had to discover his level of play on his own, and part time, as his chosen profession was law.
Morphy had books of his own, and what was available that he didn't own it is probable that he had access to through his father, uncle, Rousseau, etc. It is highly probable (though not proven) that Morphy had access to all the important publications of the day. But Morphy retired at age 14--he gave away what books he owned because they couldn't teach him any more. At age 14, most players are just starting their careers and not retiring.
But for pure talent, it is hard to beat Mir Sultan Khan--he never read books because he was illiterate and still rose in strength to beat the best in the world. Morphy, Sultan Khan, and Carlsen are my three for getting the farthest in chess with the least amount of work.
I think Capablanca followed by Paul Morphy!
In chronological order I'd pick Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Kasparov and Carlsen if I only had to pick five. Tal and Spassky not to be forgotten in a top ten, and Fischer was obviously immensely talented but I don't think anyone ever worked harder than he did.
In my personal opinion, I'd say Capablanca, Tal, Morphy, Lasker, and Sultan Khan ... in terms of how far they rose compared to how little they studied.
Supposedly, Capablancaonly ever owned one chess book ... he picked up opening theories and novelties by watching other players in tournaments.
I read that as a chess player, Lasker was actually somewhat lazy, and while he had to study and master hypermodern play in order to maintain his success in the latter years, early on he didn't seem to rely much on books, study, etc. Not sure if that's true or not, but it's something I read in Grandmasters of Chess by Harold Schoenberg, which is an admittedly shaky work of chess history, but it does seem to match other things I've read of his character and some of his chess quotations that I've heard.
In chronological order I'd pick Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Kasparov and Carlsen if I only had to pick five. Tal and Spassky not to be forgotten in a top ten, and Fischer was obviously immensely talented but I don't think anyone ever worked harder than he did.
Kasparov's work ethic rivaled Fischer's.
In chronological order I'd pick Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Kasparov and Carlsen if I only had to pick five. Tal and Spassky not to be forgotten in a top ten, and Fischer was obviously immensely talented but I don't think anyone ever worked harder than he did.
Kasparov's work ethic rivaled Fischer's.
In many ways, but Kasparov was much more outgoing. He watched sports a lot and interacted with friends, had relationships and marriages and children, was into political debates and historical discussions. Take away the chess from Kasparov and he could be any intellectual person with varied interests, while it's hard to imagine Fischer without chess.
I think Fischer (minus the crazy) would have been successful in anything he had chosen. I saw some interview with him during his crazy years and he was drunk... and he was still very sharp mentally. Definitely a high chess rating does not mean intelligence but I think Fischer also happened to be very intelligent (other than the crazy stuff).
Morphy "discovered" so many new themes, principles and ideas that it is hard to argue with the fact that he is the most talented chess player of all time.
On Kasparov's talent: Botvinnik had seen them all since Lasker, and wasn't inclined to be too positive about anyone. He summed Kramnik up as "fat, smoking and drinking", said that Karpov had no talent for chess, etc. But the first time he met Kasparov (then ten years old) he was stunned, and said "this boy is a genius!"
On Kasparov's talent: Botvinnik had seen them all since Lasker, and wasn't inclined to be too positive about anyone. He summed Kramnik up as "fat, smoking and drinking", said that Karpov had no talent for chess, etc. But the first time he met Kasparov (then ten years old) he was stunned, and said "this boy is a genius!"
Yeah, he thought Karpov had no potential. So much for his judgement on chess talent.
This thread encompass all aspect of the game not just endgames or openings etc.. whose the more natural talented playern of all time my top 5 (except of my top 2, 3-5 could interchange position as obviously i cant assess there real strength).
1.Morphy
2.Capablanca
3.Pillsbury
4.Smyslov
5.Carlsen
I didnt putAlekhine,Lasker, Kasparov,Fischer or Karpov as we all know they are very talented but they work hard to achieve their success. The 5 players i choose are who i feel even with minimal study and games they still achieve world class status.