Maybe that was the best thing ever said about chess play. How many times I’ve heard this in my adventures seems to acknowledge a kind of love affair with the game regardless whomever puts the finishing touches on the outcome.
At the same time, chess can be exasperatingly complex or simple. Take the following diagram: White–pawns on a2/b2/c2/d4/f2/h4; Ng3/Bc4/Qe3/Kc1/Rd1/Rh1. > Black- pawns on a7/b7/c6/e6/f7/g7; Kc8/Rd8/Rg8/ Nd7/Bg6/Qf4.
Tal-Botvinnik WCM, Moscow 1960, game 5. In this game, as in many positional questions arising, Tal decided to offer the exchange of Qs because it would improve his pawn structure. Botvinnik cleverly finds a way to offer the exchange of Qs with Qh6 on his own terms. As I pointed out in other examples that black jump moves > Nb6>d4 will increase his control of the f4 square as well as expanding his square count which seems to force Tal into exchanging Qs on less favorable circumstances. But notice the advantage of square count in the initial position favors Tal. This may be why my GM friend suggested that my theory could be termed full of holes. However, with the compact position of black forces, Botvinnik should be able to grow his own square count. The threat of Nb6>d4 opens the d-file for the R. And if White trades Qs, then the g-file gets opened for the R on g8. There are many tidbits in the game of chess.