A Lifetime In Not Enough To Learn

For Success I Consider Three Factors Are Necessary: Firstly, An Awareness Of My Own Strengths And Weaknesses; Secondly, An Accurate Understanding Of My Opponent's Strengths And Weaknesses; Thirdly, A Higher Aim Than Momentary Satisfaction. I See This Aim As Being Scientific And Artistic Achievements, Which Place The Game Of Chess On A Par With Other Arts.

Never Before And Never Since Have I Seen - And I Cannot Even Imagine, Such An Amazing Rapidity Of Chess Thinking That Capablanca Possessed In 1913-14. In Blitz Games He Gave All The St. Petersburg Players Odds Of Five Minutes To One - And He Won.

I Think That For The Highest Achievements Nowadays... Need To Have The Stable As A Rock Scientific Base. And Also Need To Own Modesty.

The Retreat Of A Minor Piece To The Back Rank, Where It Cuts The Lines Of Communication Between The Rooks, Is Permissable Only In Exceptional Cases.

That Which Steinitz Gave To The Theoretical Aspect Of The Game When He Was At His Best Is Very Remote To All Out Home-bred Chess Philosophers, But With His Views On Morphy, Whom He Tries To Discredit Completely, It Is Of Course Impossible To Agree.