The ideal in chess can only be a collective image, but in my opinion it is Capablanca who most closely approaches this.

Just make the right estimation of your own strengths and weaknesses, and also that of your opponent.

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!

If the opponent offers keen play I don't object; but in such cases I get less satisfaction, even if I win, than from a game conducted according to all the rules of strategy with its ruthless logic.

The days when it was possible to win a serious game only by merit of sporting character or depth of chess understanding have vanished forever. Chess knowledge has become dominant, bypassing all the other factors that contribute to success.

'Rubberneck' has nothing to do with comedy, nor does it follow comedic people.

It is dangerous to maintain equality at the cost of placing the pieces passively.