Chess's psychological element is way too weak to be the best game, anything computers can do well is of little interest to me. See that one Star Trek TOS episode. I will write a bit more about chess. The experience of playing is very punitive i.e. you can do a lot of things right and get fucked for doing one thing wrong, and there's no way to really resolve this aside from playing longer games that are more devastating when blown or being dedicated over a longer time period which is just bleh. I don't think the thought processes chess promotes are very interesting or metaphysical and the game places a huge emphasis on level-zero stuff, i.e. rote memorization. Chess demands far greater loyalty than even MTG to reach the top and though the purses are higher and the expenses lower I can't imagine more than a handful of people make a living from it, a black mark against it. Chess is an OK game to get OK at and a bad game to get good at, at least for me. I was (drumroll, please) the captain of my HS chess team.
I think the best game is poker, for longevity and popularity and I guess what we would call high replay value, but really just maximizing the function (number of idiots who will play * how long they will play * how much money they will play for * (how good they think they are - how good they are)). I also enjoy basketball, soccer, MTG, Scrabble and so on but if there is a non-sport game that gets better the more you play it beyond poker I do not know what it is. I have little knowledge of Go but the calculations are too complicated for the players to "objectively" know what's going on, which makes it better than Chess IMO. Games that are forced draws with optimal play, like Chess or Go or soccer, lose some points. Games that force you to question any notion about "optimal play," that make it a moving target, promote empathy and so on, get a bunch of point. Actually this entire question is not that complicated because it is treated by some 538 article. I think about this a lot.