In Kansas I have a chess school.

My studies with Botvinnik brought me immense benefit, particularly the homework assignments which forced me to refer to chess books and to work independently.

I like 1.e4 very much, but my results are better with 1.d4.

The truth is that my chess development was nothing out of the ordinary, and it proceeded probably at a pace no faster than others.

I didn't picture myself as even a grandmaster, to say nothing of aspiring to the chess crown. This was not because I was timid - I wasn't - but because I simply lived in one world, and the grandmasters existed in a completely different one. People like that were not really even people, but like gods or mythical heroes.

By all means examine the games of the great chess players, but don't swallow them whole. Their games are valuable not for their separate moves, but for their vision of chess, their way of thinking.

The first great chess players, including the world champion, got by perfectly well without constant coaches.