I would like to learn the all time greats. If still alive, only the one's that are retired or past their prime please. The larger the list the better. :-)

My Personal Top 5

1.Kasparov

2.Fischer

3.Karpov

4.Capablanca

5.Lasker

And also I think Carlsen is going there soon

I did a in depth comparison about ten years ago and I came up with the exact same all time rankings in that exact order!

That's a weird coincidence.I based it mostly on results and their overall domination

I have him at number 6.

Although he did beat Capa.I thought Capa's long reign,Alekhine's loss against Euwe and his refusal for a rematch against Capa offset their head to head comparison

My top 5 of those past their prime (This is objective if you ask me), retired, or dead:

1. Kasparov

2. Karpov

3. Korchnoi

4. Petrosian*

5. Botvinnik*

Personally, I think Kramnik is "washed up" and past his prime, hence why he can't even dominate in the candidates tournament, but many others would say he's not.  If you consider Kramnik "washed up", then he'd go in as my #4 and Petrosian pushed down to 5 with Botvinnik out of the top 5.

Keep in mind, you don't have to be a World Champion to be amongst the top 5, just the top 1.  If Korchnoi were in his prime at any other time than during the Karpov era, he'd have been world champion.  There's nobody out there better than Kasparov and Kaprov, and outside of those two, forget trying to beat Korchnoi.

But Korchnoi is 82, you're saying his prime was in the mid 70's? he was in his mid 40's then. Late bloomer huh, he was a contempry of Petrosian. Why did it take him long to chalenge for the title?

And Why isn't fischer on that list? He deserves to be on everone's top 5

Fischer is definitely not in my top 5.  And yes, there are late bloomers out there.  Fischer is definitely no higher than 9th in my book (In addition to the 5 I mentioned and Kramnik, I also put Tal, Capa, and Short above Fischer.

True, but can you consider someone who won the USSR Chess Championship in 1960, at age 29, a late bloomer?

Tal himself said fischer was the best. Now I'm nor saying he was, what do I know, but I think what the masters say should be taken into consideration.

Fischer will always be a question mark because he retired in his prime, and chose not to defend his title. I think Tal is a big question mark too, because his health was such a huge factor, and he drank like a fish. Now if he had normal health and wasn't an alcoholic, maybe he would have been the best, who knows.

1.  Tal

2.  Kasparov

3.  Fischer

4.  Keres

1.Kasparov

2.Karpov

3.Capablanca

4.Fischer

5.Lasker

6.Botvinnik

7.Tal

8.Alekhine

9.Stienitz

10.Carlsen

You can interchange them all a few positions up or down but nobody should dispute Kasparov, Karpov and Capablanca top three of all time.

memememememeemememem

1.me

2.me

3.me

Hidden gem alert!

its objective to a certain extent but numericall/mathmatically you can crunch the numbers and the results and although its objective in terms of certain players never meeting OTB we can clearly see who was at what level compared to others in other generations.

Dont kid yourself in thinking that objectively Kraminik was better then Kasparov just becuase he lost his tittle to him. Objectivty at some point makes way to logic and facts

Hidden gem alert! Yeah your right, its a logical top ten list

Just based on moves analyzed by the computer, who made the computer suggested move most of the time: Fischer is the best of all time.

We Americans tend to be so loyal to Fischers short lived glory. The only reason he isnt in the best ever is because he was never tested, he never defended his title, he shot to the top of the board and then became a recluse in his prime. It can be considered just happenstance because it was never consitantly proven over and over again by Fischer. Otherwise he may have done it but he stopped short so that alone drops him under the likes of Kasparov Karpov and Capa. Think about it objectively <montemaur>

Finally!  Another American that agrees with me!  Fischer got lucky once, and was unable to continue to prove it - he's nothing more than a pretty-boy crybaby who can't deal with lighting and observers.  And other American fools think he's the best ever?  Pa-leeeeeez

The other one I hear way too many people declare the best ever is Paul Morphy.  Morphy will never be considered amongst the elitest in my book.  He was the strongest at his time, but his time period was extremely weak.  It's like comparing Curtis Granderson or David Wright to the rest of the Mets and telling someone that those two are the best two baseball players in history!  (And unfortunately, I embarassingly say this as a Mets fan!)