ALEXANDER ALEKHINE

Chess first of all teaches you to be objective.

Chess for me is not a game, but an art. Yes, and I take upon myself all those responsibilities which an art imposes on its adherents.

The fact that a player is very short of time is, to my mind, as little to be considered an excuse as, for instance, the statement of the law-breaker that he was drunk at the time he committed the crime.

In my opinion, a master is morally obliged to seize every sort of opportunity and to try to solve the problems of the position without fear of some simplifications.

Oh! this opponent, this collaborator against your will, whose notion of beauty always differs from yours and whose means are often too limited for active assistance to your intentions!

I believe that true beauty of chess is more than enough to satisfy all possible demands.

I have had to work long and hard to eradicate the dangerous delusion that, in a bad position, I could always, or nearly always, conjure up some unexpected combination to extricate me from my difficulties.

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 purpose of human life and the sense of happiness is to give the maximum what the man is able to give.

Chess is not only knowledge and logic.

You can become a big master in chess only if you see your mistakes and short-comings. Exactly the same as in life itself.

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.

A lifetime in not enough to learn everything about chess.

Oh! this opponent, this collaborator against his will, whose notion of Beauty always differs from yours and whose means (strength, imagination, technique) are often too limited to help you effectively! What torment, to have your thinking and your phantasy tied down by another person!

Young players expose themselves to grave risks when they blindly imitate the innovations of masters without themselves first checking all the details and consequences of these innovations.

The infallible criterion by which to distinguish the true from the would-be strategist is the degree of originality of his conceptions. It makes little difference whether this originality is carried to excess, as was the case with Steinitz and Nimzowitsch.

During a chess tournament a master must envisage himself as a cross between an ascetic monk and a beast of prey.

I consider chess an art, and accept all those responsibilities which art places upon its devotees.

Chess, like other arts, must be practiced to be appreciated.

Capablanca was snatched too early from the chess world. With his death we have lost a great chess genius, the like of whom we will never see again.

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.

Play on both sides of the board is my favourite strategy.

Deux fous gagnent toujours, mais trois fous, non!

I did not believe I was superior to him. Perhaps the chief reason for his defeat was the overestimation of his own powers arising out of his overwhelming victory in New York, 1927, and his underestimation of mine.

During a Chess competition a Chessmaster should be a combination of a beast of prey and a monk