On Nov 8, 4:59 pm, "Louis Blair" wrote:
I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading
SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell
has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the
evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine have all
written books of that sort.

Yes, I've read all of them. My point was that Rob produced nothing to
establish his claim that Alekhine had "very pronounced theories about
lines of development"; in fact it seemed he could not even explain what
he meant, and suggested that I should define it for him.

I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic
about Alekhine in some of his writing.

Yes, Reinfeld, writing in the early 1950s, considered Alekhine the
greatest player of all time. But neither he nor the other writers you
mention attributed Alekhine's greatness to his "theories," whether
"pronounced" or otherwise. In fact Alekhine's play generally did not
show any pronounced theoretical slant, unlike, say, the hypermoderns
Réti and Nimzovitch, or classicists such as Rubinstein. He was
eclectic rather than "ideological."