The legend of the best player of chess has been destroyed.
Interpretation
The statement suggests that the legacy of a once-great chess player has been diminished or tarnished.
Garry Kasparov's remark reflects the transient nature of greatness and how even the most esteemed figures in a field, such as chess, can experience a decline in their reputation or influence. This can occur due to various factors such as changes in the game, new players rising to prominence, or evolving perceptions of what it means to be the best. Ultimately, it speaks to the concept that legacies are not fixed and can be perceived differently over time.
In practice
In a discussion about the evolution of chess, one might say, 'As Kasparov pointed out, the legend of the best player has been destroyed, reminding us that even legends can fade.'
There is no one that can share your responsibility. It it is your responsibility you must carry it on and you must be responsible for your actions. At the end of the day we all are being challenged, sooner or later, by our destiny. And it's up to us to make all the difference in this life. If not you, who else?
Setbacks and losses are both inevitable and essential if you're going to improve and become a good, even great, competitor. The art is in avoiding catastrophic losses in the key battles.
Botvinnik tried to take the mystery out of Chess, always relating it to situations in ordinary life. He used to call chess a typical inexact problem similar to those which people are always having to solve in everyday life.
One does not succeed by sticking to convention. When your opponent can easily anticipate every move you make, your strategy deteriorates and becomes commoditized.
I think that it's a vital moment now for Russian democracy to convince people that it's only our actions, our joined actions and protests that could force Kremlin to reconsider its plans to abolish presidential elections.
I learned that fighting on the chess board could also have an impact on the political climate in the country.
Money alone is absolutely good, because it is not only a concrete satisfaction of one need in particular; it is an abstract satisfaction of all.
Why is it that countries which we call strong are so powerful in creating wars but are so weak in bringing peace? Why is it that giving guns is so easy but giving books is so hard?
I saw that publishing all over the world was deeply constrained by self-censorship, economics and political censorship, while the military-industrial complex was growing at a tremendous rate, and the amount of information that it was collecting about all of us vastly exceeded the public imagination.
Now as of old the gods give men all good things, excepting only those that are baneful and injurious and useless. These, now as of old, are not gifts of the gods: men stumble into them themselves because of their own blindness and folly.
A democracy is a state which recognizes the subjection of the minority to the majority, that is, an organization for the systematic use of violence by one class against the other, by one part of the population against another.
Every human being has an assortment of diverse identities, and it greatly matters which one is triggered by social situations, which hold up different kinds of mirrors. The same is true for nations.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.