I too, both theoretically and in practice, am absolutely on the side of centralization. Examine, say, my game against Yates (Semmering, 1926), in which I had the Black pieces.

1. 11.Qe1 Here BxB followed by Kt-Q3 would have comported with the spirit of centralization, and the points QB5 and K5 would then have been kept under perpetual observation.
2. 15…hxg6 Creates a central point at KB4.
3. 16.f4 The normal development of things would have been 16. Q-R4, Kt-B4; 17. QxQ, QRxQ; and Black has a slight advantage for the end game.
4. 19…Bb4 To clean up the central point K6.
5. 21…a5 Restraint.
6. 27…Qxc4 White’s QBP is weak, the blockading BQ3 has been got out of the way, and the central pressure is more burdensome to White than ever.
7. 29…Qe4 With this move centralization is completed.
8. 30.f5 White sacrificed a pawn, in order to defend himself against the ever increasing pressure in the K file, but lost the ending after 30. ....RxR; 31. KtxR, QxP.
9. 31…Qxf5 Further striking examples of centralization will be found in great plenty in the games of the Masters; we will only mention Alekhine—Treybal, Baden-Baden, 1925, and Nimzowitsch—Spielmann, San Sebastian, 1912. (See Game No. 49.)