The isolated pawn casts gloom over the entire chessboard.
Even the laziest king flees wildly in the face of double check.
In the middlegame, the king is merely an extra, but in the endgame, he is one of the star actors.
The beauty of a move lies not in its' appearance but in the thought behind it.
The defensive power of a pinned piece is but imaginary.
The passed Pawn is a criminal, who should be kept under lock and key. Mild measures such as police surveillance are not sufficient.
The night of QB3 is under obligation, the moment the enemy gives him the chance, of undertaking an invasion of the center by Kn-Q5.
The great mobility of the King forms one of the chief characteristics of all endgame strategy. In the middlegame the King is a mere "super", in the endgame on the other hand - on of the "principals". We must therefore develop him, bring him nearer to the fighting line.
Steinitz had perhaps only one deficiency: he was ahead of his generation by at least 50 years!
He deals with us like inexperienced fledglings. - after a 19 move loss vs. Alekhine in Bled 1931
Strategically important points should be overprotected. If the pieces are so engaged, they get their regard in the fact that they will then find themselves well posted in every respect.
Ridicule can do much, for instance embitter the existence of young talents.
No pawn exchanges, no file-opening, no attack.
It is a well known phenomenon that the same amateur who can conduct the middle game quite creditably, is usually perfectly helpless in the end game. One of the principal requisites of good chess is the ability to treat both the middle and end game equally well.
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.
First restrain, next blockade, lastly destroy.
Chess strategy as such today is still in its diapers, despite Tarrasch's statement 'We live today in a beautiful time of progress in all fields'. Not even the slightest attempt has been made to explore and formulate the laws of chess strategy. 1925
Many men, many styles; what is chess style but the intangible expression of the will to win.
The chess world is obligated to organize a match between the champion of the world and the winner of this Carlsbad tournament - indeed, this is a moral obligation. If the world of chess should remain deaf to its obligation, on the other hand, it would amount to an absolutely unforgivable omission, carrying with it a heavy burden of guilt. - upon finishing clear first ahead of Capablanca in Carlsbad 1929, where current champion Alekhine did not participate
How vain are our fears! I thought to myself. "Sometimes we fear that which our opponent (or fate) had never even considered! After this, then, is it any longer worthwhile to rack one's brain to find new ghosts to fear? No, indeed: All hail optimism! - upon his opponent Mattison missing an unusual knight manouevre.
Spielmann is, in fact, the hardest-working of all the masters, continually searching out the flaws in his game and striving to eliminate them.
Another of Rubinstein's characteristic features is his dislike for melodramatics. Empty rhetoric and pretentious moves alike shock him to the core!