There is a lot more to being great than just being the
highest-rated or most dominant player, and it is quite
obvious that a single performance falls well short of
greatness, by itself.

One idea is this: how much did a given chess player
contribute to the theory of chess? Or to popularizing
the game? Or even to improving the game's prestige,
as opposed to lowering it by his own antics? One way
for a player to make his mark other than by winning
tournaments or matches, is to write about chess; in
this arena, even such players as GMs Evans, Keres,
Tal, Nimzowitch, Timman, etc., have surpassed some
of those listed in your post.

Add to this the fact that the names listed as chosen
by Chessmetrics don't really hold water, and you are left
with the realization that "greatness" is not something
easily quantifiable. It is a judgment, in which various
factors are weighed against one another, by a judge who
is biased and therefore unable to do more than pretend
his own objectivity.

Probably, a good chess book could be made out of
a carefully considered examination of each of the
candidates and their overall contributions to chess.

-- help bot

help bot,
These are valid points but I wasnt looking for people who contributed
most to the game, what I was really looking for is who most people
think played the strongest overall chess.

Its my fault for using the word greatest, I agree a whole book could
be written on this.