My favourite victory is when it is not even clear where my opponent made a mistake.
Two passed pawns advancing on the enemy pieces have brought me more than a dozen points in tournaments.
No pawn exchanges, no file-opening, no attack.
The placing of the centre pawns determines the "topography" of a game of chess.
Once upon a time supporters of the Steinitz-Tarrasch school had a very high opinion of a queen-side pawn majority. Modern strategy on the other hand categorically denies that such a majority is an independent factor of any importance.
I like 1.e4 very much, but my results are better with 1.d4.
As a rule, pawn endings have a forced character, and they can be worked out conclusively.
The king pawn and the queen pawn are the only ones to be moved in the early part of the game.
Throughout chess history, great debates have raged about the pros and cons of hanging pawns. The debates are nonsense; the answer is cut and dried. If the pawns can be attacked and forced to move forward, they are weak. If they can be defended and remain where they are, they are strong.
Touch the pawns before your king with only infinite delicacy.
It's turns out to be much easier to simulate a grandmaster chess player than it is to simulate a 2-year-old.
But it's also because of something personal. My mother and father met while playing chess, so I've always had a fondness for the game. If it weren't for chess, I might not be here.
Chess and theatre often lead to madness.
The present situation in physics is as if we know chess, but we don't know one or two rules.
I remember being with a girlfriend who asked me to look over some chess openings with her. I instantly fell asleep. I found that I could always take a nap in any situation by just looking at some opening variation - my eyes would shut right away.
What the devil possessed me to reply 1. ... e5?? I compltely forgot that Spassky, like Spielmann in the past, very much likes to play the King's Gambit.
Boris Vasilievich was the only top-class player of his generation who played gambits regularly and without fear ... Over a period of 30 years he did not lose a single game with the King's Gambit, and among those defeated were numerous strong players of all generations, from Averbakh, Bronstein and Fischer, to Seirawan.
I dropped the King's Indian in 1997 after one too many bad experiences against Kramnik.
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
Failing to open the center at the right moment - a common error by White in the Exchange Lopez - can allow Black an excellent game.
Play the open variation of the Ruy is my advice to all ordinary club players, and I recently even wrote a book about it, seen from Black's point of view. Why does everybody try to copy the grandmasters' strange positional maneuvers in the 5. ... B-K2 variation, instead of fighting for the in intiative?
Often, in the Ruy Lopez, one must be patient, wait and carry on a lengthy and wearisome struggle.
This sacrifice of a pawn nowadays is only played for drawing purposes. Especially against the very strongest masters it has proved to be quite useful to this end.
The Ruy Lopez occupied a constant place in my opening repertoire. In it is reflected the classical interpretation of the problem of the centre.
Had I not played the Sicilian with Black I could have saved myself the trouble of studying for more than 20 years all the more popular lines of this opening, which comprise probably more than 25 percent of all published opening theory!
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: