It is dangerous to maintain equality at the cost of placing the pieces passively.
The ideal in chess can only be a collective image, but in my opinion it is Capablanca who most closely approaches this.
You can't play chess if you're groggy from pills.
Style, I've got no style.
Chess is my life, but my life is not chess.
The first great chess players, including the world champion, got by perfectly well without constant coaches.
I like 1.e4 very much, but my results are better with 1.d4.
But how difficult it can be to gain the desired full point against an opponent of inferior strength, when this is demanded by the tournament position!
I have found after 1.d4 there are more opportunities for richer play.
I still love to play chess. So I do not even spend a minute on the possibility to step back.
After that, Kasparov stepped back from chess which is, and I want this to be clear, not good for chess in general at all. As a whole, the current situation in the chess world leaves a lot to be desired.
Furman astounded me with his chess depth, a depth which he revealed easily and naturally, as if all he were doing was establishing well-known truths.
An amusing fact: as far as I can recall, when playing the Ruy Lopez I have not yet once in my life had to face the Marshall Attack!
My studies with Botvinnik brought me immense benefit, particularly the homework assignments which forced me to refer to chess books and to work independently.
In Kansas I have a chess school.
No, no, it is obvious that the ECU should act as a close alliance for the benefit of chess.
Playing black, I put great stake in the Ruy Lopez: I liked it, feel it, and understand it; in matches with Hjartarson and Timman it served me well. - on preparing for World Championship versus Garry Kasparov
