As a rule, pawn endings have a forced character, and they can be worked out conclusively.

I feel that it is no less interesting to be a trainer than to play oneself. I even take greater delight in the tournament successes of my lads than I do in my own.

It is hardly useful if you trustingly play through variation after variation from a book. It is a great deal more useful and more interesting if you take part actively in the analysis, find something yourself, and try to refute some of the author's conclusions.

Training in analysis (like any other form of chess training) should be treated very seriously.

In positions of strategic manoeuvring (where time is not of decisive importance) seek the worst-placed piece. Activating that piece is often the most reliable way of improving your position as a whole.

It is not possible to become a great player without having learned how to analyse deeply and accurately.

It is very important to learn to weigh up objectively (or assess intuitively) the totality of the competitive and psychological factors.