I use prophylaxis all the time; watching for cars before crossing the road, eating before I am ravenous, taking breaks from the computer before my eyes feel sore, etc.

So yes, I agree with you that one uses prophylaxis all the time, but especially away from the board  .

Returning to chess, I agree that prophylaxis plays an integral part in higher-level chess. However, prophylaxis is not responding to your opponent's plans, but stopping one of your opponent's plans whilst supporting your own plan or manoeuvre. To give an example, preventing an opponent's pawn break on the kingside whilst preparing to double your rooks on a half-open file.

Usually one speaks of prophylaxis only on certain occasions, but perhaps it would be more right to say that one uses profylaxis all the time.

When I watch strong players I think that most of its moves are connected somehow with profylaxis. Even if there is no emediate
danger they will almostalways move out of potential problems. I wonder if they constently think of profylaxis as an abstract idea or whether they simply make prophylactic moves due to their plans being so accurate.

What do you think?