It all comes down to how one defines "best." There's good cases to be made for a whole host of players. If you value longevity at the top, there's Lasker, Korchnoi, Keres, Bronstein, Kasparov and Karpov to talk about. If you value winning percentages there's Fischer, Morphy, Capablanca and Alekhine. If you value tournament play there's Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Carlsen and Steinitz to name a few. If you value match play there's Steinitz again. If you value entertaining chess then Marshall, Rubenstein, and Tal might be your guys. If you value lasting contributions to theory then guys like Keres, Marshall, Kasparov, Nadjorf, Reti, Nimzovitch and others come to mind. If you value not losing over winning then Capablanca, Petrosian, Smyslov, Kramnik, . . . you get the idea.

What it all comes down to is that without specifically defined criteria and a methodology to compare players across eras the question basically just comes down to "what chess player do you subjectively like the best for their chess play on whatever unstated criteria you choose?"

because last week's thread is outdated.

Damiano. He created the first defence that is a dead loss. That takes real talent. Many people on these forums claim to be the first. But Damiano beat them to it.

The Baltimore Ravens, have you seen that defense. Looking for their 2nd championship.

Fischer is my vote. Just because so many people have something negative to say about him and to tick them off.

Damiano. He created the first defence that is a dead loss. That takes real talent. Many people on these forums claim to be the first. But Damiano beat them to it.