Theory regards this opening as incorrect, but it is impossible to agree with this. Out of the five tournament games played by me with the King's Gambit, I have won all five.

There is no disputing that in the eyes of Schlechter, Teichmann or even Rubinstein, the backward pawn was something more substantial than lively piece play, but in our day the latter is more often preferred.

A strong player requires only a few minutes of thought to get to the heart of the conflict. You see a solution immediately, and half an hour later merely convince yourself that your intuition has not deceived you.

It is no secret that any talented player must in his soul be an artist, and what could be dearer to his heart and soul than the victory of the subtle forces of reason over crude material strength! Probably everyone has his own reason for liking the King`s Gambit, but my love for it can be seen in precisely those terms.

In chess, as in life, opportunity strikes but once.

In the middlegame one should not hesitate to advance a central passed pawn.

When everything on the board is clear it can be so difficult to conceal your thoughts from your opponent.

When you play against an experienced opponent who exploits all the defensive resources at his command you sometimes have to walk time and again, along the narrow path of 'the only move'.

What the devil possessed me to reply 1. ... e5?? I compltely forgot that Spassky, like Spielmann in the past, very much likes to play the King's Gambit.

Nowadays grandmasters no longer study their opponent's games so much, but they study his character, his behaviour and his temperament in the most thorough fashion.

Independence of thought is a most valuable quality in a chess-player, both at the board and when preparing for a game.

It would be as naive to study the song of the nightingale, as it would be ridiculous to try and win a King's Gambit against a representative of the old chess guard.

The essence of Chess is thinking about what Chess is.