I am the same as every other chess enthusiast. I wake up every morning, do a set of tactics puzzles, watch a Kingscrusher video while I sip a cup of tea, and then dedicate the next few hours to serious chess study. After my morning routine, I play a few blitz games, and then take a break to engage in some intellectual chess debate on the Chess.com forums. 

However, lately on the forums I've observed a trend that is starting to annoy me. 

Everyday, there is a new thread comparing old chess masters to new chess masters. Or some other hypothetical situation that could never occur, with the aim to determine who the best chess player was. Can we just give this a rest? No we can't compare Lasker to Kramnik, Greco to Casablanca, or Ruy Lopez de Segura to Carlsen. 

There is no true way in determining who would have been the victor. So lets just give it a rest. We're not going to rationally achieve anything from these discussions, and the arguments will never be settled. 

What do you guys think? Is it time to stop with the hypothetical banter? 

Casablanca was a great player though, definitely stronger than Greco. Once, during a casual game against the actor and strong amateur player Humphrey Bogart in Morocco in 1942, a beautiful woman amongst the kibitzers pointed out to him that he had placed his knight en prise. His legendary reply has gone down as one of the most frequently quoted lines in chess history.

I read about that. Apparently, the woman said "You'll regret leaving that knight there, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life". Casablanca smiled, shook his head and said "Of all the chess clubs, in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine" 

What a player, what a man. After crushing Bogart in that beautiful miniature a pianist named Sam challenged our hero. With the black pieces the unknown musician unfurled the notorious Berlin defence and held the draw to everyones surprise. It was widely reported that Casablanca insisted that they then play again but this was not in fact the case.

Who would win in a chess game?
Batman riding a giant bat or
Spiderman riding a giant spider?

Spiderman riding a giant spider. But why do you ask? 

For science!

In before the lock.

Anyway, are you sure?

The bat can fly while batman rides it, and the spider is not poisonous.

Pretty sure Chess.com mods don't care about junk topics.

I am more concerned about the many hours the OP spends on studying chess.  Kingscrusher for breakfast, now that is disturbing

Why would this be locked? Did you even read the thread? Are you just trying to be cool or something?

Is it time to stop with the hypothetical comparisons?

Do elaborate.

Do not, it's quite funny as it is.

btw, KC has a series "Evolution of style", if I recall wall, pretty good and worth watching.

There is no chance of deciding if prime Karpov would've beaten Kasparov either

spiderman rides bat eating spider. problem solved