If in a battle, I seize a bit of debatable land with a handful of soldiers, without having done anything to prevent an enemy bombardment of the position, would it ever occur to me to speak of a conquest of the terrain in question? Obviously not. Then why should I do so in chess?

When I today ask myself whence I got the moral courage, for it takes moral courage to make a move (or form a plan) running counter to all tradition, I think I may say in answer, that it was only my intense preoccupation with the problem of the blockade which helped me to do so.

Many men, many styles; what is chess style but the intangible expression of the will to win.

The beauty of a move lies not in its appearance but in the thought behind it.

In the middlegame, the king is merely an extra, but in the endgame, he is one of the star actors.

The knight of QB3 is under obligation, the moment the enemy gives him the chance, of undertaking an invasion of the center by Kn-Q5.

The threat is stronger than the execution.