On Nov 8, 1:02 pm, "Rob" wrote:
From: "Taylor Kingston"
To what "theory" do you refer, Rob? And I would agree that Alekhine's
chess work ethic was exemplary, but it was hardly unique.

He had very pronounced theories about lines of development especially
as related in countering other opponents lines of play.

As Phil Innes might say, this sounds rather vague. All chess players
try to counter their opponents' lines of play. Can you clarify? If his
"theory" was "very pronounced" it should be easy to describe.
The closest your description comes to sounding like anything definite
would be Nimzovitch's idea of prophylaxis, which was not at all
characteristic of Alekhine's style.

TK or Phil
Innes or Jerzy or Wlod are much better equiped to answer on the
specifics.

Um, Rob, in case you didn't notice, it was TK who asked you what
Alekhine's "theory" was. So isn't it a bit silly to say "TK is much
better equipped to answer"? TK is asking _you_ to answer.

His work ethic was unique in the total consumation. Others since have
mimiced this but none have combined both the work ethic and creative
genius as he did.

I would not agree. Before and during Alekhine's time the work ethics
of Rubinstein, Spielmann, Réti, Grünfeld, Euwe, Botvinnik and Keres
were probably at least equally strong, and after him those of Fischer,
Geller, Korchnoi, Polugaevsky, Portisch, Karpov, Kasparov and others
were as good or better. And certainly several of them also showed
creative genius.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much a fan of Alekhine's play, but I
don't see him as quite so special as you claim.