Guys, this thread says "RELATIVE TO THEIR PEERS " Morphy was extremely good in his time because there were no defenses. Even though he would be a strong FM/ weak IM today IMO, he was good against his peers.
BUT PLEASE TAKE MORPHY TO 25. THANK YOU. 100 IS WAY TOO MUCH.
For example, I personally do not like Fischer but he was a very good chess player so I will not downvote him.
And I love Tal and his style, but he was not so strong; he won games generally creating psychological issues for his opponent.
I carefully analyzed those two lists
http://www.wikizero.net/m/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi5tLndpa2lwZWRpYS5vcmcvd2lraS9MaXN0X29mX0ZJREVfY2hlc3Nfd29ybGRfbnVtYmVyX29uZXMhttp://www.wikizero.net/m/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi5tLndpa2lwZWRpYS5vcmcvd2lraS9Db21wYXJpc29uX29mX3RvcF9jaGVzc19wbGF5ZXJzX3Rocm91Z2hvdXRfaGlzdG9yeQSorry for not giving real wikipedia links; wikipedia is banned in my country.
One of those links goes to "Best Chess Players Comparison Throughout History"
The other goes to FIDE #1's list.
Fischer up, Anand down.
Bobby Fischer - 30
Emanuel Lasker - 27
Wilhelm Steinitz - 16
Jose Capablanca - 38
Paul Morphy - 25
Anatoly Karpov - 8
Garry Kasparov - 22
Mikhail Tal - 14
Vishy Anand - 17
Tigran Petrosian - 15
François-André Philidor - 19