I used to say to my opponents: 'If you let me beat you, I'm going to tell your kids you were beaten by an older man.' When I beat them I would tell them I did it with a slight hamstring problem or that I was only feeling 80 per cent fit.
I don't care very much for miniatures. I don't try to beat my opponents quickly because if they are strong, I think I should respect them. It is too risky to play sharply to beat them in 20 moves.
If you play a match, then you got to give it all to beat the opponent; there is nothing like playing against a great or a non-great player. I treat them all as opponents and aim to beat them.
There are two schools of thought. You can be basic and spend all your time on what your opponents are going to do. Or, you can be very multiple and complex, put a lot of doubt in your opponents' minds and create problems for them with the volume of things you do.
I dealt with people with diverse political views. If you find people who are your political opponents, and talk to them for an hour, chances are you're going to like them, and they're not full of hate.
Nothing drives your opponents more crazy than being utterly reasonable. And nothing makes demonizing or delegitimizing your opponents easier than letting them shriek unreasonable things for you. The Republicans need to get back to being the party that elicits unreasonable shrieking from their opponents. Not the other way around.
The more you know about your opponents, the more you learn how to beat them. Where the holes open to run through, blocking schemes, even down to player tendencies and what hand they like to carry the ball with.
People wonder why I dislike my opponents. It's not personal or that I hate them: it's just that I know what I've had to sacrifice to face them.
Liberals hate America, they hate "flag-wavers", they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now.
One of the problem with cyber is that it lends itself to preemptive action. Your assets in cyber-warfare are your opponents' vulnerabilities, therefore in order to quantify your assets you have to be able to ascertain how vulnerable your opponents are and that involves pre-emptive exploration of your opponents' networks. So in that sense it lends itself to some pretty nasty stuff.
You need to go out to the game and just understand you need to beat your opponent. With all of the respect, because you need to have respect for your opponent, but you need to beat them. If you don't beat them, they will beat you.
When I go into the ring, I don't hate opponents, and I certainly don't want to hurt them.
People who don't understand fighting think you need to hate somebody to beat them. But I keep hate and anger out of boxing, because it causes mistakes.
You can't beat your enemy anymore through wars; instead you create an entire generation of people revenge-seeking. [...] Our opponents are going to resort to car bombs and suicide attacks because they have no other way to win. I believe (Rumsfeld) thinks this is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore. We can't beat anyone anymore.
I will tell you what to hate. Hate hypocrisy, hate cant, hate indolence, oppression, injustice; hate Pharisaism; hate them as Christ hated them with a deep, living, godlike hatred.
If you start to focus on your opponent then you see so much quality in your opponents and weaknesses in your own side. You start to put doubts in your mind. You need to respect your opponents but that's it, no more.