One charming characteristic of many flank attacks I could mention is that they do not very often lead to simplification: if the attack is parried, there usually are still opportunities left for initiating action in another sector.

Most of all I like "bad" lines, that is those considered bad, in my opinion unjustly, by theory. The reason for the last quotation marks is that most so-called theory is only a collection of examples from master practice.

A gambit never becomes sheer routine as long as you fear you may lose the king and pawn ending!

All chess masters have on occasion played a magnificent game and then lost it by a stupid mistake, perhaps in time pressure and it may perhaps seem unjust that all their beautiful ideas get no other recognition than a zero on the tournament table.

I often play a move I know how to refute.

A chess player never has a heart attack in a good position.

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?