My friend and I broke into an argument because I said that there was a best opening chess move. He clearly didn't agree with me and after much debate I came to the conclusion/theory that:
For any two objects in the universe of the same type, if one of the two objects is better than the other in any aspect (faster, more massive, etc) then there exists another object of the same type that is the best in that aspect.
Because if we have two horses and have them each run their fastest one will clearly be faster than the other which leads me to believe that there is a horse somewhere in the world that is the single fastest horse. But because a single proton is (to the best of my knowledge) exactly alike and indistinguishable (besides its position) from another proton, there is no proton that is better than the other in any aspect.
Assuming that these assumptions are correct, I proceeded to argue that since it is clearly possible for one chess move to be better than another, there must exist some chess move that is the best. And to further define this best opening chess move I concluded that it would be the single opening chess move that leads to the most favorable outcomes for the player.
I am here to ask if my theory has any major flaws that I have overlooked, and as it seems somewhat philosophical where else to ask then here.
Edit: Sadly many fail to realize I am not asking what the best move in chess is. The chess scenario was merely used to demonstrate how I got to my question. And several people have said that 'best' is too broad so I feel that I need to clarify that when I say best I am referring to a specific characteristic that would be relevant to a specific argument. I am not saying there is a single best horse in the world, but rather a best horse in terms of speed, a best horse in terms of endurance, etc.