Women, by their nature, are not exceptional chess players: they are not great fighters.
I honestly feel very humble when I study Capablanca's games.
The first great chess players, including the world champion, got by perfectly well without constant coaches.
I honestly don't read that much. Obviously I read chess books - in terms of favorites, Kasparov's 'My Great Predecessors' is pretty good.
Like everyone, I was a kid who played chess when I was young. And I am admittedly old enough to have been around during the fervor of the match in Reykjavik and the rise of Bobby Fischer, so those two things conspired to pique my interest.
I studied that first Karpov-Kasparov match for a year and a half before I cracked it, what they were doing, and discovered that it was all prearranged move-by-move. There's no doubt of it in my mind.
My mother is Russian and father Nepalese, so we always had a chess board at home. Chess is part of the culture in both Russia and Nepal.
When I was a child I liked the games of Capablanca, and later I was captivated by Alekhine's play.
I am acutely conscious, from vast experience in opens, that guys around, say 2100 or more can definitely play chess and that one often has to work very hard to beat them.
I think there's a misconception that chess players are all total nerds. Well, I guess they are.
Chess is changing. I hope chess is getting more popular, more spectacular.
I am still a victim of chess. It has all the beauty of art - and much more. It cannot be commercialized. Chess is much purer than art in its social position.
Americans really don't know much about chess. But I think when I beat Spassky, that Americans will take a greater interest in chess. Americans like winners.
One of the things that first attracted me to chess is that it brings you into contact with intelligent, civilized people - men of the stature of Garry Kasparov, the former world champion, who was my part-time coach.
The Nanjing games are homework by Garry Kasparov and me, [...] Today's game was provided by Garry.
The best chess masters of every epoch have been closely linked with the values of the society in which they lived and worked. All the changes of a cultural, political, and psychological background are reflected in the style and ideas of their play.
In general there is something puzzling about the fact that the most renowned figures in chess - Morphy, Pillsbury, Capablanca and Fischer - were born in America.
I think chess players are not always what you think them to be. Or maybe it's our job to appear serious.
You cannot say, 'Go! Go! Rah! Rah! Good move!' People want some emotion. Chess is an art and not a spectator sport.
By this measure (on the gap between Fischer & his contemporaries), I consider him the greatest world champion
I also follow chess on the Internet, where Kasparov's site is very interesting.
Chess is an infinitely complex game, which one can play in infinitely numerous and varied ways.
I barely know what my plans are for tomorrow, but I hope chess will remain a major part of my life.
There is technology where you can watch the match live online and also on TV. If people understood the game, I'm sure we would have a lot of chess fans by now.
It's very encouraging that the game of chess is growing in the U.S. and is becoming more popular.
