Garry Kasparov: Chess, Deep Blue, AI, and Putin | Lex Fridman Podcast #46
 The following is a conversation with Gary Kasparov. He's considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time. From 1986 until his retirement in 2005, he dominated the chess world, ranking world number one for most of those 19 years. While he has many historical matches against human chess players, in the long arc of history, he may be remembered for his match against the machine, IBM's Deep Blue. His initial victories and eventual loss to Deep Blue captivated the imagination of the world, of what role artificial intelligence systems may play in our civilization's future. That excitement inspired an entire generation of AI researchers, including myself, to get into the field. Gary is also a pro-democracy political thinker and leader, a fearless human rights activist, and author of several books, including How Life Imitates Chess, which is a book on strategy and decision-making, Winter is Coming, which is a book articulating his opposition to the Putin regime, and Deep Thinking, which is a book on the role of both artificial intelligence and human intelligence in defining our future. This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, give it five stars on iTunes, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter, at Lex Friedman, spelled F-R-I-D-M-A-N. And now, here's my conversation with Gary Kasparov. As perhaps the greatest chess player of all time, when you look introspectively at your psychology, throughout your career, what was the bigger motivator, the love of winning or the hatred of losing? Tough question. I have to confess, I never heard it before, which is, again, congratulations. It's quite an accomplishment. Losing was always painful. For me, it was almost like a physical pain, because I knew that if I lost the game, it's just because I made a mistake. So I always believed that the result of the game had to be decided by the quality of my play. Okay, you may say it sounds arrogant, but it helped me to move forward, because I always knew that there was room for improvement. Was there the fear of the mistake? Actually, fear of mistake guarantees mistakes. And the difference between top players, the very top, is that it's the ability to make a decision without predictable consequences. You don't know what's happening. It's just intuitively. I can go this way or that way. And there are always hesitations. People are like, you are just at the crossroad. You can go right, you can go left, you can go straight. You can turn and go back. And the consequences are just very uncertain. You have certain ideas what happens on the right or on the left, or just if you go straight, but it's not enough to make well-calculated choice. And when you play chess at the very top, it's about your inner strength. So I can make this decision. I will stand firm and I'm not going to waste my time because I have full confidence that I will go through. Now, going back to your original question is, I would say neither. It's just, it's the, it's laugh for winning, hate for losing. There were important elements, psychological elements, but the key element, it's the, I would say the driving force was always my passion for making a difference. It's just, I can move forward and I can always, I can always enjoy not just playing, but creating something new. Creating something new. How do you think about that? It's just finding new ideas in the openings, you know, some original plan in the middle game. It's actually, that helped me to make the transition from the game of chess where I was on the very top to another life where I knew I would not be number one. I would not be necessarily on the top, but I could still be very active and productive by my ability to make the difference, by influencing people, say joining the democratic movement in Russia or talking to people about human machine relations. There's so many things where I knew my influence may not be as decisive as in chess, but still strong enough to help people to make their choices. So you can still create something new that makes a difference in the world outside of chess. But wait, you've kind of painted a beautiful picture of your motivations to chess, to create something new, to look for those moments of some brilliant new ideas. But were you haunted by something? See, you make it seem like to be at the level you are at, you can get away without having demons, without having fears, without being driven by some of the darker forces. I mean, you sound almost religious, the darker forces, spiritual demons. I mean, do you have a call for a priest? That's what I'm addressing. Now, just let's go back to these crucial chess moments where I had to make big decisions. As I said, it was all about my belief from very early days that I can make all the difference by playing well or by making mistakes. So yes, I always had an opponent across the chessboard, opposite me. But no matter how strong the opponent was, whether it just was ordinary player or another world champion like Anatoly Karpov, having all respect for my opponent, I still believe that it's up to me to make the difference. And I knew I was not invincible. I made mistakes, I made some blunders, and with age, I made more blunders. So I knew it, but it's still, it's very much for me to be decisive factor in the game. I mean, even now, look, I just, my latest chess experience was horrible. I mean, I played Karoana, Fabio Karoana, this number two, number two, number three player in the world these days. We played this 960 with the so-called Fischer random chess, reshuffling pieces. Yeah, I lost very badly, but it's because I made mistakes. I mean, I had so many winning positions. I mean, 15 years ago, I would have crushed him. So, and it's, you know, while I lost, I was not so much upset. I mean, I know, as I said in the interview, I can fight any opponent, but not my biological clock. So it's, it's fighting time is always a losing proposition. But even today at age 56, you know, I knew that, you know, I could play great game. I couldn't finish it because I didn't have enough energy or just, you know, I couldn't have the same level of concentration, but you know, in number of games where I completely outplayed one of the top players in the world, I mean, it gave me certain amount of pleasure. That is, even today, I haven't lost my touch. Not the same, you know, okay, the jaws are not as strong and the teeth are not as sharp, but I could get him just, you know, almost, you know, on the ropes. You still got it. Still got it, and it's, you know, and it's, I think it's, my wife said it well. I mean, she said, look, Gary, it's somehow, it's not just fighting your biological clock. It's just, you know, maybe it's a signal because, you know, the goddess of chess, since you spoke great religiously, the goddess of chess, Keisha, maybe she didn't want you to win because, you know, if you could beat number two, number three player in the world, I mean, that's this one of the top players who just recently played world championship match. But if you could beat him, it's that would be really bad for the game of chess. But just, what people will say, oh, look, the game of chess, you know, it's not making any progress. The game is just, you know, it's totally devalued because the guy coming out of retirement, you know, just, you know, winning games, maybe that was good for chess, not good for you, but it's, look, I've been following your logic. We should always look for, you know, demons, you know, superior forces and other things that could, you know, if not dominate our lives, but somehow, you know, play a significant role in the outcome. Yeah, so the goddess of chess had to send a message. Yeah, that's okay. So, Gary, you should do something else. Time. Now, for a question that you have heard before, but give me a chance. You've dominated the chess world for 20 years, even still got it. Is there a moment you said you always look to create something new? Is there games or moments where you're especially proud of in terms of your brilliance of a new creative move? You've talked about Mikhail Tal as somebody who was aggressive and creative chess player in your own games. Look, you mentioned Mikhail Tal. It's very aggressive, very sharp player, famous for his combinations and sacrifices, even called magician from Riga, so for his very unique style. But any world champion, you know, it was a creator. Some of them were so flamboyant and flashy like Tal, some of them were no less discerned at the chess board like the Grand Petrosian, but every world champion, every top player brought something into the game of chess. And each contribution was priceless because it's not just about sacrifices. Of course, amateurs, they enjoy the brilliant games where pieces being sacrificed, it's all just, you know, it's all piece of hanging. And it's all of a sudden, you know, being material down, rooked down, or just, you know, queen down, the weaker side delivers the final blow and just, you know, mating opponent's king. But there are other kinds of beauty. I mean, it's a slow positional maneuvering, you know, looking for weaknesses and just gradually strangling your opponent and eventually delivering sort of a positional masterpiece. So I think I made more difference in the game of chess than I could have imagined when I started playing. And the reason I thought it was time for me to leave was just, I mean, I knew that I was not, I was no longer in the position to bring the same kind of contribution, the same kind of new knowledge into the game. So, and going back, I could immediately look at my games against Anatoly Karpov. It's not just I won the match in 1985 and became a world champion at age 22, but there were at least two games in that match. Of course, the last one, game 24, that was decisive game of the match, I won and became world champion. But also the way I won, it was a very sharp game. And I found a unique maneuver that was absolutely new. And it became some sort of just a typical now, though this, when the move was made on the board and put on display, a lot of people thought it was ugly. So, and another game, game 16, and the match where I just also managed to outplay Karpov completely with black pieces, just paralyzing his entire army in its own camp. Technically or psychologically, or was that a mix of both in game 16? Yeah, I think it was a big blow to Karpov. I think it was a big psychological victory for a number of reasons. One, the score was equal at a time, and the world champion by the rules could retain his title in case of a tie. So we still have, before game 16, we have nine games to go. And also it was some sort of a bluff because neither me nor Karpov saw the refutation of this opening idea. And I think it says for Karpov, it was double blow because not that he lost the game, it was triple blow. He lost the game, it was a brilliant game. And I played impeccably after just this opening bluff. And then they discovered that it was a bluff. So it's the, again, I didn't know I was bluffing. So that's why it happens very often. Some ideas could be refuted. And it's just what I found out, and this is again, going back to your spiritual theme is that you could spend a lot of time working. And when I say you could, it's in the eighties, in the nineties. It doesn't happen these days because everybody has a computer. You could immediately see if it works or it doesn't work. Machine shows your refutation in a split of a second. But many of our analysis in the eighties or in the nineties, they were not perfect simply because we were humans and you analyze the game, you look for some fresh ideas. And then just it happens that there was something that you missed because the level of concentration at the chessboard is different from one that when you analyze the game, just moving the pieces around. But somehow if you spend a lot of time at the chessboard preparing, so in your studies, with your coaches, hours and hours and hours, and nothing of what you found had materialized on the chessboard. Somehow these hours helped, I don't know why, always helped you. It's as if the amount of work you did could be transformed into some sort of spiritual energy that helped you to come up with other great ideas during the board. Again, even if there was no direct connection between your preparation and your victory in the game, there was always some sort of invisible connection between the amount of work you did, your dedication to actually to, and your passion to discover new ideas, and your ability during the game at the chessboard when the clock was ticking, we still had ticking clock, not digital clock at the time, so to come up with some brilliance. And I also can mention many games from the 90s, so obviously all amateurs would pick up my game against Veselin Topolov in 1999 and Vykonzai. Again, because it was a brilliant game, the Black King traveled from its own camp into white scam across the entire board. It doesn't happen often, trust me, as you know, in the games with professional players, top professional players. So that's why visually it was one of the most impressive victories. But I could bring to your attention many other games that were not so impressive for amateurs, not so beautiful, just because it's sacrifice is always beautiful, you sacrifice. And then eventually you have very few resources left and you use them just to crush your opponent, basically, you have to make the king because you have almost nothing left at your disposal. But up to the very end, again, less and less, but still up to the very end, I always had games with some sort of interesting ideas and games that gave me great satisfaction. But I think it's what happened from 2005 up to these days was also a very big accomplishment, since I had to find myself to sort of relocate myself. Yeah, re-channel the creative energies. Exactly, and to find something where I feel comfortable, even confident that my participation still makes the difference. Beautifully put. So let me ask perhaps a silly question, but sticking on chess for just a little longer. Where do you put Magnus Carlsen, the current world champion in the list of all time greats? In terms of style, moments of brilliance, consistency? It's a tricky question. The moment you start ranking world champions. Yeah, you lose something? I think it's not fair because any new generation knows much more about the game than the previous one. So when people say, oh, Gary was the greatest, Fischer was the greatest, Magnus was the greatest, it disregards the fact that the great players of the past, Alaskia, Capaplank, Alokyan, I mean, they knew so little about chess, by today's standards. I mean, today, just any kid that spent few years with his or her chess computer knows much more about the game, simply just because you have access to this information. And it has been discovered generation after generation, we added more and more knowledge to the game of chess. It's about the gap between the world champion and the rest of the field. So it's the, now, if you look at the gap, then probably Fischer could be on top, but very short period of time, then you should also add a time factor. I was on top, not as big as Fischer, but much longer. So, and also, unlike Fischer, I succeeded in beating next generation. Here's the question. Let's see if you still got the fire, speaking of the next generation, because you did succeed beating the next generation. It's close. Okay, Anand, short, Anand, Shirov, Kramnik is already 12 years younger, so that's a neck. But still, I competed with them, and I just beat most of them, and I was still dominant when I left at age 41. So back to Magnus. Magnus, I mean, consistency is phenomenal. The reason Magnus is on top, and it seems unbeatable today, Magnus is a lethal combination of Fischer and Karpov, which is very, it's very unusual, because Fischer's style was very dynamic, just fighting to the last pawn, I mean, just using every resource available. Karpov was very different. It's just, you had an unparalleled ability to use every piece with a maximum effect. Just its minimal resources always produce maximum effect. So now imagine that you merge these two styles. So it's like, you know, it's squeezing every stone for a drop of water, but doing it, you know, just, you know, for 50, 60, 70, 80 moves. I mean, Magnus could go on as long as Fischer with all his passion and energy, and at the same time being as meticulous and deadly as Karpov, by just, you know, using every little advantage. So, and he has good, you know, very good health. It's important. I mean, physical conditions are, by the way, very important, so a lot of people don't recognize it. Their latest study shows that chess players burn thousands of calories during the game. So that puts him on the top of this field of the world champions. But again, it's the discussion that is, I saw recently in internet, whether Gary Kasparov always peak, let's say late eighties, could beat Magnus Carlsen today. I mean, it's totally irrelevant because Gary Kasparov in 1989, okay, it's played great chess, but still I knew very little about chess compared to Magnus Carlsen in 2019, who by the way learned from me as well. So that's why, yeah. I'm extremely cautious in making any judgment that involves, you know, time gaps. You ask, you know, soccer fans, so who is your favorite, Pele, Maradona, or Messi? Yeah. Yeah. Who's your favorite? Messi. Messi. Why? Because- Maybe Maradona, maybe. Not because you're younger, but that's simple. Your instinctive answer is correct because you saw, you didn't say Maradona in action. I saw all of them in action, so that's why. But since, you know, when I was, you know, just following it, you know, just it's Pele and Maradona, they were just, you know, they were big stars and it's Messi's already just, I was gradually losing interest in just other things. So I remember Pele in 1970, the final match, Brazil-Italy. So that's the first World Cup soccer I watched. So that's the, and actually my answer when I just, when I just, you know, because I was asked this question as well. So I say that it's just, while it's impossible to make a choice, I would still probably go with Maradona for simple reason. The Brazilian team in 1970 could have won without Pele. It was absolutely great. Still could have won, maybe, but it is, Argentinian team in 1986 without Maradona would not be unified. So this is, and Messi, he still hasn't won a title. That's, that's- Could argue for that, for an hour. But you could say, if you ask Maradona, if you look in his eyes, especially, let's say, Gary Kasparov in 1989, he would have said, I was sure as hell would beat Magnus Carlsen. Yeah, just simply because- The confidence, the fire. Simply because, simply because, again, they saw me in action. So this, again, it's the age factor that's important. Therefore, with the passion and energy and being equipped with all modern ideas. But again, then you make, you know, a very just important assumption that you could empower Gary Kasparov in 1989 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years. That would not be Gary Kasparov. That would be someone else. Because again, I belonged to 1989. I was way ahead of the field. And I, you know, I beat Karpov several times in the World Championship matches. And I crossed 2800, which, by the way, if you look at the, just in rating, which is just, it's, even today, so this is the rating that I retired. So it's still, you know, it's just, it's a top two, three. So that's Karuan and Ding. It's about the same rating now. And I crossed 2800 in 1990. Well, just you look at the inflation. When I crossed 2800 in 1990, there was only one player in 2700 category, Anatoly Karpov. Now we had more than 50. So just, when you see this, so if you add inflation, so I think my 2851, it could probably could be more valuable as Magnus 2882, which was his highest rating. But anyway, again, too many hypotheticals. You're lost to IBM D. Blue in 1997. In my eyes, that is one of the most seminal moments in the history. Again, I apologize for being romanticizing the notion, but in the history of our civilization, because humans as a civilizations for centuries saw chess as, you know, the peak of what man can accomplish of intellectual mastery, right? And that moment when a machine could be the human being was inspiring to just an entire, anyone who cares about science, innovation, an entire generation of AI researchers. And yet to you that loss, at least if reading your face, was seemed like a tragedy, extremely painful. Like I said, physically painful. Why? When you look back at your psychology of that loss, why was it so painful? Were you not able to see the seminal nature of that moment? Or was that exactly why it was that painful? As I already said, losing was painful, physically painful. And the match I lost in 1997 was not the first match I lost to a machine. It was the first match I lost, period. Yeah. That's... Oh, wow. Oh, wow. Yeah, it's... Right. Yeah, that makes all the difference to me. Yes. First time I lost, it's just, now I lost, and the reason I was so angry that I just, you know, I had suspicions that my loss was not just a result of my bad play. Yes. So though I played quite poorly, you know, just when you started looking at the games today, I made tons of mistakes, but you know, I had all reasons to believe that, you know, there were other factors that had nothing to do with the game of chess, and that's why I was angry. But look, it was 22 years ago. It's well under the bridge. We can analyze this match, and this is, with everything you said, I agree, was probably one exception, is that considering chess, you know, as the sort of, as a pinnacle of intellectual activities, was our mistake, because, you know, we just thought, oh, it's a game of the highest intellect, and it's just, you know, you have to be so, you know, intelligent, and you can see things that, you know, the ordinary mortals could not see. It's a game, and all machines had to do this game, is just to make fewer mistakes, not to solve the game, because the game cannot be solved. I mean, according to Kovolshanon, the number of legal moves is 10 to the 46th power. Too many zeros, so just for any computer to finish the job, you know, in next few billion years. But it doesn't have to. It's all about making fewer mistakes. And I think that's the, this match, actually, and what's happened afterwards with other games, with Go, with Shoggy, with video games, it's a demonstration that it's the machines will always be humans in what I call closed systems. The moment you build a closed system, no matter how the system is called, chess, Go, Shoggy, Dota, machines will prevail simply because they will bring down number of mistakes. Machines don't have to solve it. They just have to, the way they outplay us, it's not by just being more intelligent. It's just by doing something else, but eventually it's just, it's capitalizing on our mistakes. When you look at the chess machines ratings today, and compare this to Magnus Carlsen, it's the same as comparing Ferrari to Usain Bolt. It's the, the gap is, I mean, by chess standards is insane. 34, 3500 to 2800, 2850 on Magnus. It's like difference between Magnus and an ordinary player from an open international tournament. It's not because machine understanding is better than Magnus Carlsen, but simply because it's steady. Machine has steady hand. And I think that is what we have to learn from 1997 experience, and from further encounters with computers and sort of the current state affairs was AlphaZero beating other machines. The idea that we can compete with computers in so-called intellectual fields, it was wrong from the very beginning. It's just, by the way, the 1997 match was not the first victory of machines over- Or grandmasters. Or grandmasters. No, actually it's, I played against first decent chess computers from late, from late eighties. So I played with the prototype of Deep Blue called Deep Thought in 1989, two rapid chess games in New York. I won handily to both games. We played against new chess engines like Fritz and other programs. And then it's the, it was Israeli program Junior that appeared in 1995. Right, right, right, I remember. Yeah, so there were several programs. I, you know, I lost few games in Blitz. I lost one match against the computer, a chess engine, 1994, rapid chess. So I lost one game to Deep Blue in 1996 match, the man, the match I won. Some people, you know, tend to forget about it, that I won the first match. Yes. But it's, it's, we, we made a very important psychological mistake thinking that the reason we lost Blitz matches, five, five minutes games, the reason we lost some of the rapid chess matches, 25 minutes chess, because we didn't have enough time. If you play a longer match, we will not make the same mistake. Nonsense. So yeah, we had more time, but we still make mistakes. And machine also has more time. And machines, machine will always, you know, will always be steady and consistent compared to humans' instabilities and inconsistencies. And today we are at a point where, yes, nobody talks about, you know, humans playing against machines. Now machines can offer handicap to top players, but still, you know, will, will, will be favoring. I think we're just learning that it's, it's, it's no longer human versus machines. It's about human working with machines. That's what I recognized in 1998, that's after licking my wounds and spending one year and just, you know, ruminating so the, so what's happened in this match. And I knew that though we still could play against the machines. I had two more matches in 2003, playing both Deep Fritz and Deep Junior. Both matches ended as a tie. Though these machines were not weaker, at least, actually probably stronger than Deep Blue. And by the way, today, chess app on your mobile phone is probably stronger than Deep Blue. Than Deep Blue. I'm not speaking about chess engines that are so much superior. And by the way, when you analyze games we played against Deep Blue in 1997 on your chess engine, they'll be laughing. So this is, and it's also shows that's how chess changed because chess commentators, they look at some of our games, like game four, game five, brilliant idea. Now you ask Stockfish, you ask Houdini, you ask Commodore, all the leading chess engines. Within 30 seconds, they will show you how many mistakes both Gary and Deep Blue made in the game that was trumpeted as a great chess match in 1997. Well, okay, so you've made an interesting, if you can untangle that comment. So now in retrospect, it was a mistake to see chess as the peak of human intellect. Nevertheless, that was done for centuries. So, I mean- By the way, in Europe, because you know, you move to the Far East, they will go, they had show games. But games, games. Again, some of the games like, you know, board games. Yes. Yeah, I agree. So if I push back a little bit, so now you say that, okay, but it was a mistake to see chess as the epitome. And now, and then now there's other things maybe, like language, that conversation, like some of the things that in your view is still way out of reach of computers, but inside humans. Do you think, can you talk about what those things might be? And do you think just like chess that might fall soon with the same set of approaches, if you look at AlphaZero, the same kind of learning approaches as the machines grow in size? No, no, it's not about growing in size. It's about, again, it's about understanding the difference between closed system and open-ended system. So you think that key difference, so the board games are closed in terms of the rules, the actions, the state space, everything is just constrained. You think once you open it, the machines are lost? Not lost, but again, the effectiveness is very different because machine does not understand the moment it's reaching territory of diminishing returns. It's the, to put it in a different way, machine doesn't know how to ask right questions. It can ask questions, but it will never tell you which questions are relevant. So it's like about the, it's a direction. So I think it's in human-machine relations we have to consider our role. And many people feel uncomfortable that the territory that belongs to us is shrinking. I'm saying, so what, you know, eventually we'll belong to the last few decimal points, but it's like having so very powerful gun. And all you can do there is slightly, you know, alter direction of the bullet, maybe, you know, 0.1 degree of this angle. But that means a mile away, 10 meters of target. So that's, we have to recognize that is a certain unique human qualities that machines in a foreseeable future will not be able to reproduce. And the effectiveness of this cooperation, collaboration, depends on our understanding what exactly we can bring into the game. So the greatest danger is when we try to interfere with machine superior knowledge. So that's why I always say that sometimes you'd rather have by reading these pictures in radiology, you may probably prefer an experienced nurse than rather than having a top professor because she will not try to interfere with machines understanding. So it's very important to know that if machines knows how to do better things in 95%, 96% of territory, we should not touch it because it's happened. It's like in chess, recognize they do it better. See where we can make the difference. You mentioned AlphaZero. I mean, AlphaZero, it's actually a first step into what you may call AI because everything that's being called AI today, it's one or another variation of what Claude Shannon characterized as a brute force. It's a type A machine, whether it's Deep Blue, whether it's Watson and all these modern technologies that are being competitive as AI, it's still brute force. It's the, all they do, it's they do optimization. It's this, they are, they keep improving the way to process human generated data. Now, AlphaZero is the first step towards machine produced knowledge, which is by the way, it's quite ironic that the first company that championed that was IBM. Oh, it's in bad gamma. Interesting, in bad gamma. Yes, you should look at IBM, it's a new gamma. It's the scientist called Cesaro. He's still working at IBM. They had an early nineties. It's the program that played in the AlphaZero type. So just trying to come up with own strategies. But because of success of Deep Blue, this project had been not abandoned, but just, it was put on calls. And now we just, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's everybody talks about, about this, the machines generated knowledge. So as revolutionary, and it is, but there's still, you know, many open-ended questions. Yes, AlphaZero generates its own data. Many ideas that AlphaZero generate in chess were quite intriguing. So I looked at these games with, not just with interest, but with, you know, it was quite exciting to learn how machine could actually, you know, juggle all the pieces and just play positions with a broken material balance, sacrificing material, always being ahead of other programs, you know, one or two moves ahead by, by foreseeing the consequences, not over-calculating, because machines, other machines were at least as powerful in calculating, but it's having this unique knowledge based on discovered patterns. After playing 60 million games. Almost something that feels like intuition. Exactly, but there's one problem. Yeah. Now, the simple question, if, if AlphaZero faces superior opponent, let's say another powerful computer accompanied by a human who could help just to discover certain problems, because I already, I look at many AlphaZero games, I visited their lab, you know, spoke to Demis-Khasabis and his team, and I know there's certain weaknesses there. Now, if these weaknesses are exposed, the question is, how many games will it take for AlphaZero to correct it? The answer is hundreds of thousands. Even if it keeps losing, it can, it's just, because the whole system is based. Yeah. So it's now, imagine so this as you can have a human by just making a few tweaks. So humans are still more flexible. And, and as long as we recognize what is, what is our role, where we can play sort of, so the most valuable parts in this collaboration. So it's, it will help us to understand what are the next steps in human machine collaboration. Beautifully put. So let's talk about the thing that machines certainly don't know how to do yet, which is morality. Machines and morality. It's another question that, you know, just, it's, it's, it's being asked all the time these days. And I think it's another phantom that is haunting a, a general public because it's just being fed with this, you know, illusions is that how do we, how can we avoid machines, you know, having bias, being prejudiced. You cannot, because it's like looking in the mirror and complaining about what we see. If you have certain bias in the society, machine will, will just follow it. It's just, it's, it's, you know, you look at the mirror, you don't like what you see there. You can, you know, you can break it. You can try to distort it or you can try to actually change something just by yourself. So they show. They show the self, yes. So it's, it's very important to understand is this, is that you cannot expect machines to, to improve the ills of our society. And moreover, machines will simply, you know, just, you know, amplify it. Yes. Yeah. But the thing is people are more comfortable with other people doing injustice with, with being biased. We're not comfortable with machines having the same kind of bias. So that's a, that's an interesting standard that we play some machines with autonomous vehicles. They have to be much safer with automated systems. Of course, of course they're much safer. Statistically, they're much safer than, than. It's not of course. Why would they, it's not of course. It's, it's not given. Autonomous vehicles, you have to work really hard to make them safer. I, I, I think it just, it goes without saying is the, the outcome of the, of this, I would call it competition, but comparison is very clear, but the problem is not about being safer. It's the 40,000 people or so every year died in car accidents in the United States. And it's, it's statistics. One accident with autonomous vehicle and it's front page of a newspaper. Yes. So it's, it's again, it's about psychological. So it's while people, you know, kill each other in car accidents because they make mistakes, they make more mistakes. For me, it's, it's, it's not a question. Of course we make more mistakes because we human. Yes. Machines also, and by the way, no machine will ever reach a hundred percent perfection. That's another, that's another important fake story that, that, that is being fed to the public. If machine doesn't reach a hundred percent performance is not safe. No, all you can ask any computer, whether it's, you know, playing chess or, or doing the stock market calculations or driving your autonomous vehicle, it's to make fewer mistakes. And yes, I know it's not, you know, it's not easy for us to accept because ah, if, you know, if you have two humans, you know, colliding in their cars, okay, it's like, if one of, one of these cars is autonomous vehicle. And by the way, even if it's human's fault, terrible. How could you allow a machine to, to, to, to run without a driver at the wheel? So, you know, let's linger that for a second, that double standard, the way you felt with your first loss against Deep Blue, were you treating the machine differently than you would have a human? Or so what do you think about that difference between the way we see machines and humans? No, it's the, at that time, you know, for me, it was a match and that's why I was angry because I believed that the match was not, you know, fairly organized. So it's the, it's a, I definitely, they weren't fair advantages for, for IBM. And I want to play there another match, like a rubber match. So your anger or displeasure was aimed more like at the humans behind IBM versus the actual, pure algorithm. Absolutely. Look, I knew at the time, and by the way, I was objectively speaking, I was stronger at that time. So that's, that probably added to my anger because I knew I could beat machine. Yeah. Yeah, so that's, and that's the, and that's, I lost, and I knew I was not well prepared. So, because they, I have to give them credit. They did some good work from 1996 and I, but I still could beat the machine. So I made too many mistakes. Also, this is the whole, it's this, the publicity around the match. So I underestimated the effect, you know, just it's, and being called the, you know, the, the, the brain's last stand, you know, it's okay. No, no pressure. Okay, well, let me ask. So I was born also in the Soviet Union. What lessons do you draw from the rise and fall of the Soviet Union in the 20th century? When you just look at this nation that is now looking, pushing forward into what Russia is, if you look at the long arc of history of the 20th century, what do we take away? What do we take away from that? I think the lesson of history is clear. Undemocratic systems, totalitarian regimes, systems that are based on controlling their citizens and just every aspect of their life, not offering opportunities to, for private initiative, central planning systems, they do. They're just, you know, they, they cannot be driving force for innovation. So they, in the history timeline, I mean, they could cause certain, you know, distortion of the concept of progress. They, by the way, they may call themselves progressive, but we know that the damage that they caused to humanity is just, it's yet to be measured. But at the end of the day, they fail. They fail and it's, and the end of the Cold War was a great triumph of the free world. It's not that the free world is perfect. It's very important to recognize this fact that I always like to mention, you know, one of my favorite books, The Lord of the Rings, that there's no absolute good, but there is an absolute evil. Good, you know, comes in many forms, but we all, you know, it's being humans or being even, you know, humans from fairy tales or just some sort of mythical creatures. It's the, you can always find spots on the sun. So this is, conducting war and just, and fighting for justice, there are always things that, you know, can be easily criticized. And human history is the, is a never ending quest for perfection. But we know that there is absolute evil. We know it's, for me, it's no clear, it's, I mean, nobody argues about Hitler being absolute evil, but I think it's very important to recognize Stalin was absolute evil. Communism caused more damage than any other ideology in the 20th century. And unfortunately, while we all know that fascism was condemned, but there was no Nurburg for communism. And that's why we could see, you know, still this, the successors of Stalin are feeling far more comfortable. And he was one of them. You highlight a few interesting connections, actually, between Stalin and Hitler. I mean, in terms of the adjusting or clarifying the history of World War II, which is very interesting. Of course, we don't have time, so let me ask. You can ask it. I just recently delivered a speech in Toronto at the 80th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It's something that I believe, you know, just, you know, must be taught in the schools that the World War II had been started by two dictators by signing this criminal treaty, collusion of two tyrants, in August 1939, that led to the beginning of the World War II. And the fact is that eventually Stalin had no choice but to join allies because Hitler attacked him. So it just doesn't, you know, eliminate the fact that Stalin helped Hitler to start World War II. And he was one of the beneficiaries at early stage by annexing part of Eastern Europe. And as a result of World War II, he annexed almost entire Eastern Europe. And for many Eastern European nations, the end of the World War II was the beginning of communist occupation. So Putin, you've talked about as a man who stands between Russia and democracy, essentially today. You've been a strong opponent and critic of Putin. Let me ask again, how much does fear enter your mind and heart? So in 2007, there's this interesting comment from Oleg Kalugin, KGB general. He said that, I do not talk details. People who knew them are all dead now because they were vocal. I'm quiet. There's only one man who's vocal and he may be in trouble, World Trade Champion Kasparov. He has been very outspoken in his attacks on Putin. And I believe he's probably next on the list. So clearly your life has been and perhaps continues to be in danger. How do you think about having the views you have, the ideas you have, being in opposition as you are in this kind of context when your life could be in danger? That's the reason I live in New York. So it was not my first choice, but I knew I had to live Russia at one point. And among other places, New York is the safest. Is it safe? No, I mean, it's just, I know what happened, what is happening with many of Putin's enemies. But at the end of the day, I mean, what can I do? I could be very proactive by trying to change things I can influence, but here are where facts. I cannot stop doing what I've been doing for a long time. It's the right thing to do. I grew up with my family teaching me sort of the wisdom of dissidents, do what you must and so be. I could try to be cautious by not traveling to certain places where my security could be at risk. There's so many invitations to speak at different locations in the world. And I have to say that many countries are just now are not destinations that I can afford to travel. My mother still lives in Moscow. I meet her a few times a year. She was devastated when I had to leave Russia because since my father died in 1971, so she was 33, and she dedicated her entire life to her only son. But she recognized in just a year or so since I left Russia that it was the only chance for me to continue my normal life. So just to, I mean, to be relatively safe and to do what she taught me to do, to make the difference. Do you think you will ever return to Russia? Or let me ask a different way. Oh, I'm sure. When? Even sooner than many people think because I think Putin regime is facing unsolvable difficulties. And again, I read enough historical books to know that dictatorships, they end suddenly. It's just on Sunday dictator feels comfortable. He believes he's popular on Monday morning. He's bust. The good news and bad news. I mean, the bad news is that I don't know when and how Putin rule ends. The good news, he also doesn't know. Okay, well put. Let me ask. I have a question that seems to preoccupy the American mind from the perspective of Russia. One, did Russia interfere in the 2016 US election government sanction and future to, will Russia interfere in the 2020 US election? And what does that interference look like? It's very old, you know, we had such an intelligent conversation. And you are ruining everything by asking such a stupid question. It's been going downhill the entire way. But it's insulting for my intellect. Of course they did interfere. Of course they did absolutely everything to elect Trump. I mean, they said it many times. It is just, you know, I met enough KGB colonels in my life to tell you that, you know, just the way Putin looks at Trump. This is the way he looks. And I don't have to hear what he says. What Trump says, you know, just says, I don't need to go through congressional investigations. The way Putin looks at Trump is the way the KGB officers looked at their assets. It's just, and falling to 2020, of course they will do absolutely everything to help Trump to survive. Because I think the damage that Trump's reelections could cause to America and to the free world, it's just, it's beyond one's imagination. I think basically if Trump is reelected, he will ruin NATO. Because he's already heading in this direction. But now he's just, he's still limited by the reelection hurdles. If he's still in the office after November, 2020, okay, January, 2021, I don't want to think about it. My problem is not just Trump, because Trump is basically, it's a symptom. But the problem is that I don't see, it's just, it's the, I don't see in American political horizon, politicians who could take on Trump for all damage that he's doing for the free world. Not just things that happened that went wrong in America. So there's the, it seems to me that the campaign, political campaign on the democratic side is fixed on certain important, but still secondary issues. Because when you have the foundation of the republic in jeopardy, you cannot talk about healthcare. I mean, I understand how important it is, but it's still secondary because the entire framework of American political life is at risk. And you have Vladimir Putin just, you know, just it's having free hands by attacking America and other free countries. And by the way, we have so much evidence about Russian interference in Brexit, in elections in almost every European country. And thinking that they will be shy of attacking America in 2020. Now with Trump in the office, yeah. I think it's, again, it definitely diminishes the intellectual quality of our conversation. I do what I can. Last question. If you can go back, just look at the entirety of your life, you accomplished more than most humans will ever do. If you can go back and relive a single moment in your life, what would that moment be? Ah, there are moments in my life when I think about what could be done differently, but. No, experience happiness and joy and pride, just to touch once again. I know, I know, but it's, look, I made many mistakes in my life. So I just, it's the, I know that at the end of the day, it's, I believe in the butterfly effect. So it's the, it's the, I knew moments where I could, now if I'm there at that point in 89 and 93, you pick up a year, I could improve my actions by not doing this stupid thing. But then how do you know that I will have all other accomplishments? Yeah, I just, I'm afraid that, you know, we just have to just follow this, if you may call it wisdom before is gum, you know, it's the life is this, you know, it's a box of chocolate and you don't know what's inside, but you have to go one by one. So it's the, I'm happy with who I am and where I am today. And I am very proud, not only with my chess accomplishments, but that I made this transition. And since I left chess, you know, I built my own reputation that had some influence on the game of chess, but not, it's not, you know, directly derived from the game. I'm grateful for my wife, so helped me to build this life. We actually married in 2005. It was my third marriage, that's why I said I've made mistakes in my life. But, and by the way, I'm close with two kids from my previous marriages. So that's the, I mean, I managed to sort of to balance my life and here, you know, I live in New York, so we have two kids born here in New York. It's new life and it's, you know, it's busy. Sometimes I wish I could, you know, I could limit my engagement in many other things that are still, you know, taking time and energy, but life is exciting. And as long as I can feel that I have energy, I have strengths, I have passion to make the difference, I'm happy. I think that's a beautiful moment to end on. Gary, thank you very much for talking to me. Thank you. Thank you.
 The following is a conversation with Gary Kasparov.
 He's considered by many to be the greatest chess player
 of all time.
 From 1986 until his retirement in 2005,
 he dominated the chess world,
 ranking world number one for most of those 19 years.
 While he has many historical matches
 against human chess players,
 in the long arc of history,
 he may be remembered for his match against the machine,
 IBM's Deep Blue.
 His initial victories and eventual loss to Deep Blue
 captivated the imagination of the world,
 of what role artificial intelligence systems may play
 in our civilization's future.
 That excitement inspired an entire generation
 of AI researchers, including myself, to get into the field.
 Gary is also a pro-democracy political thinker and leader,
 a fearless human rights activist,
 and author of several books,
 including How Life Imitates Chess,
 which is a book on strategy and decision-making,
 Winter is Coming,
 which is a book articulating his opposition
 to the Putin regime,
 and Deep Thinking,
 which is a book on the role of both artificial intelligence
 and human intelligence in defining our future.
 This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast.
 If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube,
 give it five stars on iTunes,
 support it on Patreon,
 or simply connect with me on Twitter,
 at Lex Friedman, spelled F-R-I-D-M-A-N.
 And now, here's my conversation with Gary Kasparov.
 As perhaps the greatest chess player of all time,
 when you look introspectively at your psychology,
 throughout your career,
 what was the bigger motivator,
 the love of winning or the hatred of losing?
 Tough question.
 I have to confess, I never heard it before,
 which is, again, congratulations.
 It's quite an accomplishment.
 Losing was always painful.
 For me, it was almost like a physical pain,
 because I knew that if I lost the game,
 it's just because I made a mistake.
 So I always believed that the result of the game
 had to be decided by the quality of my play.
 Okay, you may say it sounds arrogant,
 but it helped me to move forward,
 because I always knew that there was room for improvement.
 Was there the fear of the mistake?
 Actually, fear of mistake guarantees mistakes.
 And the difference between top players, the very top,
 is that it's the ability to make a decision
 without predictable consequences.
 You don't know what's happening.
 It's just intuitively.
 I can go this way or that way.
 And there are always hesitations.
 People are like, you are just at the crossroad.
 You can go right, you can go left, you can go straight.
 You can turn and go back.
 And the consequences are just very uncertain.
 You have certain ideas what happens on the right
 or on the left, or just if you go straight,
 but it's not enough to make well-calculated choice.
 And when you play chess at the very top,
 it's about your inner strength.
 So I can make this decision.
 I will stand firm and I'm not going to waste my time
 because I have full confidence that I will go through.
 Now, going back to your original question is,
 I would say neither.
 It's just, it's the, it's laugh for winning,
 hate for losing.
 There were important elements, psychological elements,
 but the key element, it's the, I would say the driving force
 was always my passion for making a difference.
 It's just, I can move forward and I can always,
 I can always enjoy not just playing,
 but creating something new.
 Creating something new.
 How do you think about that?
 It's just finding new ideas in the openings,
 you know, some original plan in the middle game.
 It's actually, that helped me to make the transition
 from the game of chess where I was on the very top
 to another life where I knew I would not be number one.
 I would not be necessarily on the top,
 but I could still be very active and productive
 by my ability to make the difference,
 by influencing people, say joining the democratic movement
 in Russia or talking to people about human machine relations.
 There's so many things where I knew my influence
 may not be as decisive as in chess,
 but still strong enough to help people
 to make their choices.
 So you can still create something new
 that makes a difference in the world outside of chess.
 But wait, you've kind of painted a beautiful picture
 of your motivations to chess, to create something new,
 to look for those moments of some brilliant new ideas.
 But were you haunted by something?
 See, you make it seem like to be at the level you are at,
 you can get away without having demons,
 without having fears,
 without being driven by some of the darker forces.
 I mean, you sound almost religious,
 the darker forces, spiritual demons.
 I mean, do you have a call for a priest?
 That's what I'm addressing.
 Now, just let's go back to these crucial chess moments
 where I had to make big decisions.
 As I said, it was all about my belief
 from very early days that I can make all the difference
 by playing well or by making mistakes.
 So yes, I always had an opponent across the chessboard,
 opposite me.
 But no matter how strong the opponent was,
 whether it just was ordinary player
 or another world champion like Anatoly Karpov,
 having all respect for my opponent,
 I still believe that it's up to me to make the difference.
 And I knew I was not invincible.
 I made mistakes, I made some blunders,
 and with age, I made more blunders.
 So I knew it, but it's still,
 it's very much for me to be decisive factor in the game.
 I mean, even now, look,
 I just, my latest chess experience was horrible.
 I mean, I played Karoana, Fabio Karoana,
 this number two, number two,
 number three player in the world these days.
 We played this 960 with the so-called
 Fischer random chess, reshuffling pieces.
 Yeah, I lost very badly, but it's because I made mistakes.
 I mean, I had so many winning positions.
 I mean, 15 years ago, I would have crushed him.
 So, and it's, you know, while I lost,
 I was not so much upset.
 I mean, I know, as I said in the interview,
 I can fight any opponent, but not my biological clock.
 So it's, it's fighting time is always a losing proposition.
 But even today at age 56, you know, I knew that, you know,
 I could play great game.
 I couldn't finish it because I didn't have enough energy
 or just, you know, I couldn't have the same level
 of concentration, but you know, in number of games
 where I completely outplayed one of the top players
 in the world, I mean, it gave me certain amount of pleasure.
 That is, even today, I haven't lost my touch.
 Not the same, you know, okay, the jaws are not as strong
 and the teeth are not as sharp, but I could get him just,
 you know, almost, you know, on the ropes.
 You still got it.
 Still got it, and it's, you know, and it's,
 I think it's, my wife said it well.
 I mean, she said, look, Gary, it's somehow,
 it's not just fighting your biological clock.
 It's just, you know, maybe it's a signal
 because, you know, the goddess of chess,
 since you spoke great religiously,
 the goddess of chess, Keisha,
 maybe she didn't want you to win because, you know,
 if you could beat number two, number three player
 in the world, I mean, that's this one of the top players
 who just recently played world championship match.
 But if you could beat him,
 it's that would be really bad for the game of chess.
 But just, what people will say, oh, look, the game of chess,
 you know, it's not making any progress.
 The game is just, you know, it's totally devalued
 because the guy coming out of retirement,
 you know, just, you know, winning games,
 maybe that was good for chess, not good for you,
 but it's, look, I've been following your logic.
 We should always look for, you know, demons,
 you know, superior forces and other things that could,
 you know, if not dominate our lives,
 but somehow, you know, play a significant role
 in the outcome.
 Yeah, so the goddess of chess had to send a message.
 Yeah, that's okay.
 So, Gary, you should do something else.
 Time.
 Now, for a question that you have heard before,
 but give me a chance.
 You've dominated the chess world for 20 years,
 even still got it.
 Is there a moment you said
 you always look to create something new?
 Is there games or moments where you're especially proud of
 in terms of your brilliance of a new creative move?
 You've talked about Mikhail Tal
 as somebody who was aggressive and creative chess player
 in your own games.
 Look, you mentioned Mikhail Tal.
 It's very aggressive, very sharp player,
 famous for his combinations and sacrifices,
 even called magician from Riga,
 so for his very unique style.
 But any world champion, you know,
 it was a creator.
 Some of them were so flamboyant and flashy like Tal,
 some of them were no less discerned at the chess board
 like the Grand Petrosian,
 but every world champion, every top player
 brought something into the game of chess.
 And each contribution was priceless
 because it's not just about sacrifices.
 Of course, amateurs, they enjoy the brilliant games
 where pieces being sacrificed,
 it's all just, you know, it's all piece of hanging.
 And it's all of a sudden, you know,
 being material down, rooked down,
 or just, you know, queen down,
 the weaker side delivers the final blow
 and just, you know, mating opponent's king.
 But there are other kinds of beauty.
 I mean, it's a slow positional maneuvering,
 you know, looking for weaknesses
 and just gradually strangling your opponent
 and eventually delivering sort of a positional masterpiece.
 So I think I made more difference in the game of chess
 than I could have imagined when I started playing.
 And the reason I thought it was time for me to leave
 was just, I mean, I knew that I was not,
 I was no longer in the position to bring
 the same kind of contribution,
 the same kind of new knowledge into the game.
 So, and going back, I could immediately look
 at my games against Anatoly Karpov.
 It's not just I won the match in 1985
 and became a world champion at age 22,
 but there were at least two games in that match.
 Of course, the last one, game 24,
 that was decisive game of the match,
 I won and became world champion.
 But also the way I won, it was a very sharp game.
 And I found a unique maneuver that was absolutely new.
 And it became some sort of just a typical now,
 though this, when the move was made on the board
 and put on display, a lot of people thought it was ugly.
 So, and another game, game 16,
 and the match where I just also managed to outplay Karpov
 completely with black pieces,
 just paralyzing his entire army in its own camp.
 Technically or psychologically,
 or was that a mix of both in game 16?
 Yeah, I think it was a big blow to Karpov.
 I think it was a big psychological victory
 for a number of reasons.
 One, the score was equal at a time,
 and the world champion by the rules
 could retain his title in case of a tie.
 So we still have, before game 16, we have nine games to go.
 And also it was some sort of a bluff
 because neither me nor Karpov saw the refutation
 of this opening idea.
 And I think it says for Karpov, it was double blow
 because not that he lost the game, it was triple blow.
 He lost the game, it was a brilliant game.
 And I played impeccably after just this opening bluff.
 And then they discovered that it was a bluff.
 So it's the, again, I didn't know I was bluffing.
 So that's why it happens very often.
 Some ideas could be refuted.
 And it's just what I found out,
 and this is again, going back to your spiritual theme
 is that you could spend a lot of time working.
 And when I say you could, it's in the eighties, in the nineties.
 It doesn't happen these days
 because everybody has a computer.
 You could immediately see if it works or it doesn't work.
 Machine shows your refutation in a split of a second.
 But many of our analysis in the eighties or in the nineties,
 they were not perfect simply because we were humans
 and you analyze the game, you look for some fresh ideas.
 And then just it happens that there was something
 that you missed because the level of concentration
 at the chessboard is different from one
 that when you analyze the game, just moving the pieces around.
 But somehow if you spend a lot of time
 at the chessboard preparing, so in your studies,
 with your coaches, hours and hours and hours,
 and nothing of what you found had materialized
 on the chessboard.
 Somehow these hours helped, I don't know why,
 always helped you.
 It's as if the amount of work you did
 could be transformed into some sort of spiritual energy
 that helped you to come up with other great ideas
 during the board.
 Again, even if there was no direct connection
 between your preparation and your victory in the game,
 there was always some sort of invisible connection
 between the amount of work you did,
 your dedication to actually to, and your passion
 to discover new ideas, and your ability during the game
 at the chessboard when the clock was ticking,
 we still had ticking clock, not digital clock at the time,
 so to come up with some brilliance.
 And I also can mention many games from the 90s,
 so obviously all amateurs would pick up my game
 against Veselin Topolov in 1999 and Vykonzai.
 Again, because it was a brilliant game,
 the Black King traveled from its own camp
 into white scam across the entire board.
 It doesn't happen often, trust me, as you know,
 in the games with professional players,
 top professional players.
 So that's why visually it was one of the most
 impressive victories.
 But I could bring to your attention many other games
 that were not so impressive for amateurs,
 not so beautiful, just because it's sacrifice
 is always beautiful, you sacrifice.
 And then eventually you have very few resources left
 and you use them just to crush your opponent, basically,
 you have to make the king because you have almost
 nothing left at your disposal.
 But up to the very end, again, less and less,
 but still up to the very end, I always had games
 with some sort of interesting ideas and games
 that gave me great satisfaction.
 But I think it's what happened from 2005 up to these days
 was also a very big accomplishment,
 since I had to find myself to sort of relocate myself.
 Yeah, re-channel the creative energies.
 Exactly, and to find something where I feel comfortable,
 even confident that my participation
 still makes the difference.
 Beautifully put.
 So let me ask perhaps a silly question,
 but sticking on chess for just a little longer.
 Where do you put Magnus Carlsen, the current world champion
 in the list of all time greats?
 In terms of style, moments of brilliance, consistency?
 It's a tricky question.
 The moment you start ranking world champions.
 Yeah, you lose something?
 I think it's not fair because any new generation
 knows much more about the game than the previous one.
 So when people say, oh, Gary was the greatest,
 Fischer was the greatest, Magnus was the greatest,
 it disregards the fact that the great players of the past,
 Alaskia, Capaplank, Alokyan,
 I mean, they knew so little about chess,
 by today's standards.
 I mean, today, just any kid that spent few years
 with his or her chess computer
 knows much more about the game,
 simply just because you have access to this information.
 And it has been discovered generation after generation,
 we added more and more knowledge to the game of chess.
 It's about the gap between the world champion
 and the rest of the field.
 So it's the, now, if you look at the gap,
 then probably Fischer could be on top,
 but very short period of time,
 then you should also add a time factor.
 I was on top, not as big as Fischer, but much longer.
 So, and also, unlike Fischer,
 I succeeded in beating next generation.
 Here's the question.
 Let's see if you still got the fire,
 speaking of the next generation,
 because you did succeed beating the next generation.
 It's close.
 Okay, Anand, short, Anand, Shirov,
 Kramnik is already 12 years younger, so that's a neck.
 But still, I competed with them,
 and I just beat most of them,
 and I was still dominant when I left at age 41.
 So back to Magnus.
 Magnus, I mean, consistency is phenomenal.
 The reason Magnus is on top,
 and it seems unbeatable today,
 Magnus is a lethal combination of Fischer and Karpov,
 which is very, it's very unusual,
 because Fischer's style was very dynamic,
 just fighting to the last pawn,
 I mean, just using every resource available.
 Karpov was very different.
 It's just, you had an unparalleled ability
 to use every piece with a maximum effect.
 Just its minimal resources always produce maximum effect.
 So now imagine that you merge these two styles.
 So it's like, you know,
 it's squeezing every stone for a drop of water,
 but doing it, you know, just, you know,
 for 50, 60, 70, 80 moves.
 I mean, Magnus could go on as long as Fischer
 with all his passion and energy,
 and at the same time being as meticulous
 and deadly as Karpov,
 by just, you know, using every little advantage.
 So, and he has good, you know, very good health.
 It's important.
 I mean, physical conditions are, by the way,
 very important, so a lot of people don't recognize it.
 Their latest study shows that chess players
 burn thousands of calories during the game.
 So that puts him on the top of this field
 of the world champions.
 But again, it's the discussion that is,
 I saw recently in internet,
 whether Gary Kasparov always peak, let's say late eighties,
 could beat Magnus Carlsen today.
 I mean, it's totally irrelevant
 because Gary Kasparov in 1989, okay,
 it's played great chess,
 but still I knew very little about chess
 compared to Magnus Carlsen in 2019,
 who by the way learned from me as well.
 So that's why, yeah.
 I'm extremely cautious in making any judgment
 that involves, you know, time gaps.
 You ask, you know, soccer fans,
 so who is your favorite, Pele, Maradona, or Messi?
 Yeah. Yeah.
 Who's your favorite?
 Messi. Messi.
 Why? Because-
 Maybe Maradona, maybe.
 Not because you're younger, but that's simple.
 Your instinctive answer is correct
 because you saw, you didn't say Maradona in action.
 I saw all of them in action, so that's why.
 But since, you know, when I was, you know,
 just following it, you know, just it's Pele and Maradona,
 they were just, you know, they were big stars
 and it's Messi's already just,
 I was gradually losing interest in just other things.
 So I remember Pele in 1970, the final match, Brazil-Italy.
 So that's the first World Cup soccer I watched.
 So that's the, and actually my answer when I just,
 when I just, you know,
 because I was asked this question as well.
 So I say that it's just,
 while it's impossible to make a choice,
 I would still probably go with Maradona for simple reason.
 The Brazilian team in 1970 could have won without Pele.
 It was absolutely great.
 Still could have won, maybe, but it is,
 Argentinian team in 1986 without Maradona
 would not be unified.
 So this is, and Messi, he still hasn't won a title.
 That's, that's-
 Could argue for that, for an hour.
 But you could say, if you ask Maradona,
 if you look in his eyes,
 especially, let's say, Gary Kasparov in 1989,
 he would have said,
 I was sure as hell would beat Magnus Carlsen.
 Yeah, just simply because-
 The confidence, the fire.
 Simply because, simply because, again,
 they saw me in action.
 So this, again, it's the age factor that's important.
 Therefore, with the passion and energy
 and being equipped with all modern ideas.
 But again, then you make, you know,
 a very just important assumption
 that you could empower Gary Kasparov in 1989
 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years.
 That would not be Gary Kasparov.
 That would be someone else.
 Because again, I belonged to 1989.
 I was way ahead of the field.
 And I, you know, I beat Karpov several times
 in the World Championship matches.
 And I crossed 2800, which, by the way,
 if you look at the, just in rating,
 which is just, it's,
 even today, so this is the rating that I retired.
 So it's still, you know, it's just, it's a top two, three.
 So that's Karuan and Ding.
 It's about the same rating now.
 And I crossed 2800 in 1990.
 Well, just you look at the inflation.
 When I crossed 2800 in 1990,
 there was only one player in 2700 category,
 Anatoly Karpov.
 Now we had more than 50.
 So just, when you see this,
 so if you add inflation,
 so I think my 2851,
 it could probably could be more valuable
 as Magnus 2882, which was his highest rating.
 But anyway, again, too many hypotheticals.
 You're lost to IBM D. Blue in 1997.
 In my eyes, that is one of the most seminal moments
 in the history.
 Again, I apologize for being romanticizing the notion,
 but in the history of our civilization,
 because humans as a civilizations for centuries
 saw chess as, you know, the peak of what man can accomplish
 of intellectual mastery, right?
 And that moment when a machine could be the human being
 was inspiring to just an entire,
 anyone who cares about science, innovation,
 an entire generation of AI researchers.
 And yet to you that loss, at least if reading your face,
 was seemed like a tragedy, extremely painful.
 Like I said, physically painful.
 Why?
 When you look back at your psychology of that loss,
 why was it so painful?
 Were you not able to see the seminal nature of that moment?
 Or was that exactly why it was that painful?
 As I already said, losing was painful,
 physically painful.
 And the match I lost in 1997
 was not the first match I lost to a machine.
 It was the first match I lost, period.
 Yeah.
 That's...
 Oh, wow.
 Oh, wow.
 Yeah, it's...
 Right.
 Yeah, that makes all the difference to me.
 Yes.
 First time I lost, it's just, now I lost,
 and the reason I was so angry that I just, you know,
 I had suspicions that my loss was not just a result
 of my bad play.
 Yes.
 So though I played quite poorly, you know,
 just when you started looking at the games today,
 I made tons of mistakes, but you know,
 I had all reasons to believe that, you know,
 there were other factors that had nothing to do
 with the game of chess, and that's why I was angry.
 But look, it was 22 years ago.
 It's well under the bridge.
 We can analyze this match, and this is,
 with everything you said, I agree,
 was probably one exception, is that considering chess,
 you know, as the sort of, as a pinnacle
 of intellectual activities, was our mistake,
 because, you know, we just thought,
 oh, it's a game of the highest intellect,
 and it's just, you know, you have to be so, you know,
 intelligent, and you can see things that, you know,
 the ordinary mortals could not see.
 It's a game, and all machines had to do this game,
 is just to make fewer mistakes, not to solve the game,
 because the game cannot be solved.
 I mean, according to Kovolshanon,
 the number of legal moves is 10 to the 46th power.
 Too many zeros, so just for any computer to finish the job,
 you know, in next few billion years.
 But it doesn't have to.
 It's all about making fewer mistakes.
 And I think that's the, this match, actually,
 and what's happened afterwards with other games,
 with Go, with Shoggy, with video games,
 it's a demonstration that it's the machines
 will always be humans in what I call closed systems.
 The moment you build a closed system,
 no matter how the system is called,
 chess, Go, Shoggy, Dota,
 machines will prevail simply because they will
 bring down number of mistakes.
 Machines don't have to solve it.
 They just have to, the way they outplay us,
 it's not by just being more intelligent.
 It's just by doing something else,
 but eventually it's just, it's capitalizing on our mistakes.
 When you look at the chess machines ratings today,
 and compare this to Magnus Carlsen,
 it's the same as comparing Ferrari to Usain Bolt.
 It's the, the gap is, I mean, by chess standards is insane.
 34, 3500 to 2800, 2850 on Magnus.
 It's like difference between Magnus and an ordinary player
 from an open international tournament.
 It's not because machine understanding
 is better than Magnus Carlsen,
 but simply because it's steady.
 Machine has steady hand.
 And I think that is what we have to learn
 from 1997 experience, and from further encounters
 with computers and sort of the current state affairs
 was AlphaZero beating other machines.
 The idea that we can compete with computers
 in so-called intellectual fields,
 it was wrong from the very beginning.
 It's just, by the way, the 1997 match
 was not the first victory of machines over-
 Or grandmasters. Or grandmasters.
 No, actually it's, I played against
 first decent chess computers from late, from late eighties.
 So I played with the prototype of Deep Blue
 called Deep Thought in 1989,
 two rapid chess games in New York.
 I won handily to both games.
 We played against new chess engines like Fritz
 and other programs.
 And then it's the, it was Israeli program Junior
 that appeared in 1995.
 Right, right, right, I remember.
 Yeah, so there were several programs.
 I, you know, I lost few games in Blitz.
 I lost one match against the computer,
 a chess engine, 1994, rapid chess.
 So I lost one game to Deep Blue in 1996 match,
 the man, the match I won.
 Some people, you know, tend to forget about it,
 that I won the first match.
 Yes.
 But it's, it's, we, we made a very important
 psychological mistake thinking that
 the reason we lost Blitz matches, five, five minutes games,
 the reason we lost some of the rapid chess matches,
 25 minutes chess, because we didn't have enough time.
 If you play a longer match,
 we will not make the same mistake.
 Nonsense.
 So yeah, we had more time, but we still make mistakes.
 And machine also has more time.
 And machines, machine will always, you know,
 will always be steady and consistent
 compared to humans' instabilities and inconsistencies.
 And today we are at a point where, yes,
 nobody talks about, you know,
 humans playing against machines.
 Now machines can offer handicap to top players,
 but still, you know, will, will, will be favoring.
 I think we're just learning that it's, it's,
 it's no longer human versus machines.
 It's about human working with machines.
 That's what I recognized in 1998,
 that's after licking my wounds and spending one year
 and just, you know, ruminating so the,
 so what's happened in this match.
 And I knew that though we still could
 play against the machines.
 I had two more matches in 2003,
 playing both Deep Fritz and Deep Junior.
 Both matches ended as a tie.
 Though these machines were not weaker, at least,
 actually probably stronger than Deep Blue.
 And by the way, today,
 chess app on your mobile phone
 is probably stronger than Deep Blue.
 Than Deep Blue.
 I'm not speaking about chess engines
 that are so much superior.
 And by the way, when you analyze games
 we played against Deep Blue in 1997 on your chess engine,
 they'll be laughing.
 So this is, and it's also shows that's how chess changed
 because chess commentators,
 they look at some of our games,
 like game four, game five, brilliant idea.
 Now you ask Stockfish, you ask Houdini,
 you ask Commodore, all the leading chess engines.
 Within 30 seconds, they will show you how many mistakes
 both Gary and Deep Blue made in the game
 that was trumpeted as a great chess match in 1997.
 Well, okay, so you've made an interesting,
 if you can untangle that comment.
 So now in retrospect, it was a mistake to see chess
 as the peak of human intellect.
 Nevertheless, that was done for centuries.
 So, I mean-
 By the way, in Europe, because you know,
 you move to the Far East, they will go,
 they had show games.
 But games, games.
 Again, some of the games like, you know, board games.
 Yes.
 Yeah, I agree.
 So if I push back a little bit,
 so now you say that, okay, but it was a mistake
 to see chess as the epitome.
 And now, and then now there's other things maybe,
 like language, that conversation,
 like some of the things that in your view
 is still way out of reach of computers,
 but inside humans.
 Do you think, can you talk about what those things might be?
 And do you think just like chess that might fall
 soon with the same set of approaches,
 if you look at AlphaZero, the same kind of learning
 approaches as the machines grow in size?
 No, no, it's not about growing in size.
 It's about, again, it's about understanding the difference
 between closed system and open-ended system.
 So you think that key difference,
 so the board games are closed in terms of the rules,
 the actions, the state space,
 everything is just constrained.
 You think once you open it, the machines are lost?
 Not lost, but again, the effectiveness is very different
 because machine does not understand the moment
 it's reaching territory of diminishing returns.
 It's the, to put it in a different way,
 machine doesn't know how to ask right questions.
 It can ask questions, but it will never tell you
 which questions are relevant.
 So it's like about the, it's a direction.
 So I think it's in human-machine relations
 we have to consider our role.
 And many people feel uncomfortable
 that the territory that belongs to us is shrinking.
 I'm saying, so what, you know,
 eventually we'll belong to the last few decimal points,
 but it's like having so very powerful gun.
 And all you can do there is slightly, you know,
 alter direction of the bullet,
 maybe, you know, 0.1 degree of this angle.
 But that means a mile away, 10 meters of target.
 So that's, we have to recognize
 that is a certain unique human qualities
 that machines in a foreseeable future
 will not be able to reproduce.
 And the effectiveness of this cooperation, collaboration,
 depends on our understanding
 what exactly we can bring into the game.
 So the greatest danger is when we try to interfere
 with machine superior knowledge.
 So that's why I always say that sometimes you'd rather have
 by reading these pictures in radiology,
 you may probably prefer an experienced nurse
 than rather than having a top professor
 because she will not try to interfere
 with machines understanding.
 So it's very important to know that
 if machines knows how to do better things in 95%,
 96% of territory, we should not touch it
 because it's happened.
 It's like in chess, recognize they do it better.
 See where we can make the difference.
 You mentioned AlphaZero.
 I mean, AlphaZero, it's actually a first step
 into what you may call AI
 because everything that's being called AI today,
 it's one or another variation
 of what Claude Shannon characterized as a brute force.
 It's a type A machine, whether it's Deep Blue,
 whether it's Watson and all these modern technologies
 that are being competitive as AI, it's still brute force.
 It's the, all they do, it's they do optimization.
 It's this, they are, they keep improving the way
 to process human generated data.
 Now, AlphaZero is the first step towards
 machine produced knowledge, which is by the way,
 it's quite ironic that the first company
 that championed that was IBM.
 Oh, it's in bad gamma.
 Interesting, in bad gamma.
 Yes, you should look at IBM, it's a new gamma.
 It's the scientist called Cesaro.
 He's still working at IBM.
 They had an early nineties.
 It's the program that played in the AlphaZero type.
 So just trying to come up with own strategies.
 But because of success of Deep Blue,
 this project had been not abandoned,
 but just, it was put on calls.
 And now we just, it's, it's, it's, it's,
 it's everybody talks about, about this,
 the machines generated knowledge.
 So as revolutionary, and it is, but there's still,
 you know, many open-ended questions.
 Yes, AlphaZero generates its own data.
 Many ideas that AlphaZero generate in chess
 were quite intriguing.
 So I looked at these games with, not just with interest,
 but with, you know, it was quite exciting to learn
 how machine could actually, you know, juggle all the pieces
 and just play positions with a broken material balance,
 sacrificing material, always being ahead of other programs,
 you know, one or two moves ahead by,
 by foreseeing the consequences, not over-calculating,
 because machines, other machines were at least as powerful
 in calculating, but it's having this unique knowledge
 based on discovered patterns.
 After playing 60 million games.
 Almost something that feels like intuition.
 Exactly, but there's one problem.
 Yeah.
 Now, the simple question, if, if AlphaZero faces
 superior opponent, let's say another powerful computer
 accompanied by a human who could help just to discover
 certain problems, because I already,
 I look at many AlphaZero games, I visited their lab,
 you know, spoke to Demis-Khasabis and his team,
 and I know there's certain weaknesses there.
 Now, if these weaknesses are exposed, the question is,
 how many games will it take for AlphaZero to correct it?
 The answer is hundreds of thousands.
 Even if it keeps losing, it can, it's just,
 because the whole system is based.
 Yeah.
 So it's now, imagine so this as you can have a human
 by just making a few tweaks.
 So humans are still more flexible.
 And, and as long as we recognize what is, what is our role,
 where we can play sort of, so the most valuable parts
 in this collaboration.
 So it's, it will help us to understand what are the next
 steps in human machine collaboration.
 Beautifully put.
 So let's talk about the thing that machines certainly don't
 know how to do yet, which is morality.
 Machines and morality.
 It's another question that, you know, just, it's, it's,
 it's being asked all the time these days.
 And I think it's another phantom that is haunting a,
 a general public because it's just being fed with this,
 you know, illusions is that how do we,
 how can we avoid machines, you know, having bias,
 being prejudiced.
 You cannot, because it's like looking in the mirror
 and complaining about what we see.
 If you have certain bias in the society,
 machine will, will just follow it.
 It's just, it's, it's, you know, you look at the mirror,
 you don't like what you see there.
 You can, you know, you can break it.
 You can try to distort it or you can try to actually change
 something just by yourself.
 So they show.
 They show the self, yes.
 So it's, it's very important to understand is this,
 is that you cannot expect machines to,
 to improve the ills of our society.
 And moreover, machines will simply, you know, just,
 you know, amplify it.
 Yes. Yeah.
 But the thing is people are more comfortable
 with other people doing injustice with, with being biased.
 We're not comfortable with machines having the same kind
 of bias.
 So that's a, that's an interesting standard that we play
 some machines with autonomous vehicles.
 They have to be much safer with automated systems.
 Of course, of course they're much safer.
 Statistically, they're much safer than, than.
 It's not of course.
 Why would they, it's not of course.
 It's, it's not given.
 Autonomous vehicles, you have to work really hard
 to make them safer.
 I, I, I think it just, it goes without saying is the,
 the outcome of the, of this, I would call it competition,
 but comparison is very clear,
 but the problem is not about being safer.
 It's the 40,000 people or so every year died
 in car accidents in the United States.
 And it's, it's statistics.
 One accident with autonomous vehicle
 and it's front page of a newspaper.
 Yes. So it's, it's again, it's about psychological.
 So it's while people, you know, kill each other
 in car accidents because they make mistakes,
 they make more mistakes.
 For me, it's, it's, it's not a question.
 Of course we make more mistakes because we human.
 Yes. Machines also, and by the way,
 no machine will ever reach a hundred percent perfection.
 That's another, that's another important fake story
 that, that, that is being fed to the public.
 If machine doesn't reach a hundred percent performance
 is not safe.
 No, all you can ask any computer, whether it's, you know,
 playing chess or, or doing the stock market calculations
 or driving your autonomous vehicle,
 it's to make fewer mistakes.
 And yes, I know it's not, you know,
 it's not easy for us to accept because ah, if, you know,
 if you have two humans, you know, colliding in their cars,
 okay, it's like, if one of, one of these cars
 is autonomous vehicle.
 And by the way, even if it's human's fault, terrible.
 How could you allow a machine to, to, to, to run
 without a driver at the wheel?
 So, you know, let's linger that for a second,
 that double standard, the way you felt
 with your first loss against Deep Blue,
 were you treating the machine differently
 than you would have a human?
 Or so what do you think about that difference
 between the way we see machines and humans?
 No, it's the, at that time, you know, for me,
 it was a match and that's why I was angry
 because I believed that the match was not, you know,
 fairly organized.
 So it's the, it's a, I definitely,
 they weren't fair advantages for, for IBM.
 And I want to play there another match, like a rubber match.
 So your anger or displeasure was aimed more like
 at the humans behind IBM versus the actual,
 pure algorithm.
 Absolutely.
 Look, I knew at the time, and by the way,
 I was objectively speaking, I was stronger at that time.
 So that's, that probably added to my anger
 because I knew I could beat machine.
 Yeah.
 Yeah, so that's, and that's the, and that's, I lost,
 and I knew I was not well prepared.
 So, because they, I have to give them credit.
 They did some good work from 1996 and I,
 but I still could beat the machine.
 So I made too many mistakes.
 Also, this is the whole, it's this,
 the publicity around the match.
 So I underestimated the effect, you know, just it's,
 and being called the, you know, the, the,
 the brain's last stand, you know, it's okay.
 No, no pressure.
 Okay, well, let me ask.
 So I was born also in the Soviet Union.
 What lessons do you draw from the rise and fall
 of the Soviet Union in the 20th century?
 When you just look at this nation
 that is now looking, pushing forward into what Russia is,
 if you look at the long arc of history
 of the 20th century, what do we take away?
 What do we take away from that?
 I think the lesson of history is clear.
 Undemocratic systems, totalitarian regimes,
 systems that are based on controlling their citizens
 and just every aspect of their life,
 not offering opportunities to, for private initiative,
 central planning systems, they do.
 They're just, you know, they,
 they cannot be driving force for innovation.
 So they, in the history timeline,
 I mean, they could cause certain, you know,
 distortion of the concept of progress.
 They, by the way, they may call themselves progressive,
 but we know that the damage that they caused to humanity
 is just, it's yet to be measured.
 But at the end of the day, they fail.
 They fail and it's, and the end of the Cold War
 was a great triumph of the free world.
 It's not that the free world is perfect.
 It's very important to recognize this fact
 that I always like to mention, you know,
 one of my favorite books, The Lord of the Rings,
 that there's no absolute good, but there is an absolute evil.
 Good, you know, comes in many forms,
 but we all, you know, it's being humans
 or being even, you know, humans from fairy tales
 or just some sort of mythical creatures.
 It's the, you can always find spots on the sun.
 So this is, conducting war and just,
 and fighting for justice, there are always things
 that, you know, can be easily criticized.
 And human history is the,
 is a never ending quest for perfection.
 But we know that there is absolute evil.
 We know it's, for me, it's no clear, it's,
 I mean, nobody argues about Hitler being absolute evil,
 but I think it's very important to recognize
 Stalin was absolute evil.
 Communism caused more damage than any other ideology
 in the 20th century.
 And unfortunately, while we all know
 that fascism was condemned,
 but there was no Nurburg for communism.
 And that's why we could see, you know,
 still this, the successors of Stalin
 are feeling far more comfortable.
 And he was one of them.
 You highlight a few interesting connections, actually,
 between Stalin and Hitler.
 I mean, in terms of the adjusting or clarifying
 the history of World War II, which is very interesting.
 Of course, we don't have time, so let me ask.
 You can ask it.
 I just recently delivered a speech in Toronto
 at the 80th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
 It's something that I believe, you know,
 just, you know, must be taught in the schools
 that the World War II had been started by two dictators
 by signing this criminal treaty,
 collusion of two tyrants, in August 1939,
 that led to the beginning of the World War II.
 And the fact is that eventually Stalin had no choice
 but to join allies because Hitler attacked him.
 So it just doesn't, you know, eliminate the fact
 that Stalin helped Hitler to start World War II.
 And he was one of the beneficiaries at early stage
 by annexing part of Eastern Europe.
 And as a result of World War II,
 he annexed almost entire Eastern Europe.
 And for many Eastern European nations,
 the end of the World War II
 was the beginning of communist occupation.
 So Putin, you've talked about as a man who stands
 between Russia and democracy, essentially today.
 You've been a strong opponent and critic of Putin.
 Let me ask again, how much does fear
 enter your mind and heart?
 So in 2007, there's this interesting comment
 from Oleg Kalugin, KGB general.
 He said that, I do not talk details.
 People who knew them are all dead now
 because they were vocal.
 I'm quiet.
 There's only one man who's vocal
 and he may be in trouble, World Trade Champion Kasparov.
 He has been very outspoken in his attacks on Putin.
 And I believe he's probably next on the list.
 So clearly your life has been
 and perhaps continues to be in danger.
 How do you think about having the views you have,
 the ideas you have, being in opposition as you are
 in this kind of context when your life could be in danger?
 That's the reason I live in New York.
 So it was not my first choice,
 but I knew I had to live Russia at one point.
 And among other places, New York is the safest.
 Is it safe?
 No, I mean, it's just, I know what happened,
 what is happening with many of Putin's enemies.
 But at the end of the day, I mean, what can I do?
 I could be very proactive by trying to change things
 I can influence, but here are where facts.
 I cannot stop doing what I've been doing for a long time.
 It's the right thing to do.
 I grew up with my family teaching me
 sort of the wisdom of dissidents,
 do what you must and so be.
 I could try to be cautious by not traveling
 to certain places where my security could be at risk.
 There's so many invitations to speak
 at different locations in the world.
 And I have to say that many countries are just now
 are not destinations that I can afford to travel.
 My mother still lives in Moscow.
 I meet her a few times a year.
 She was devastated when I had to leave Russia
 because since my father died in 1971, so she was 33,
 and she dedicated her entire life to her only son.
 But she recognized in just a year or so
 since I left Russia that it was the only chance
 for me to continue my normal life.
 So just to, I mean, to be relatively safe
 and to do what she taught me to do,
 to make the difference.
 Do you think you will ever return to Russia?
 Or let me ask a different way.
 Oh, I'm sure.
 When?
 Even sooner than many people think
 because I think Putin regime is facing
 unsolvable difficulties.
 And again, I read enough historical books
 to know that dictatorships, they end
 suddenly.
 It's just on Sunday dictator feels comfortable.
 He believes he's popular on Monday morning.
 He's bust.
 The good news and bad news.
 I mean, the bad news is that I don't know
 when and how Putin rule ends.
 The good news, he also doesn't know.
 Okay, well put.
 Let me ask.
 I have a question that seems to preoccupy
 the American mind from the perspective of Russia.
 One, did Russia interfere in the 2016 US election
 government sanction and future to,
 will Russia interfere in the 2020 US election?
 And what does that interference look like?
 It's very old, you know,
 we had such an intelligent conversation.
 And you are ruining everything by asking
 such a stupid question.
 It's been going downhill the entire way.
 But it's insulting for my intellect.
 Of course they did interfere.
 Of course they did absolutely everything to elect Trump.
 I mean, they said it many times.
 It is just, you know, I met enough KGB colonels
 in my life to tell you that, you know,
 just the way Putin looks at Trump.
 This is the way he looks.
 And I don't have to hear what he says.
 What Trump says, you know, just says,
 I don't need to go through congressional investigations.
 The way Putin looks at Trump is the way
 the KGB officers looked at their assets.
 It's just, and falling to 2020,
 of course they will do absolutely everything
 to help Trump to survive.
 Because I think the damage that Trump's reelections
 could cause to America and to the free world,
 it's just, it's beyond one's imagination.
 I think basically if Trump is reelected, he will ruin NATO.
 Because he's already heading in this direction.
 But now he's just, he's still limited
 by the reelection hurdles.
 If he's still in the office after November, 2020,
 okay, January, 2021, I don't want to think about it.
 My problem is not just Trump,
 because Trump is basically, it's a symptom.
 But the problem is that I don't see, it's just, it's the,
 I don't see in American political horizon,
 politicians who could take on Trump
 for all damage that he's doing for the free world.
 Not just things that happened that went wrong in America.
 So there's the, it seems to me that the campaign,
 political campaign on the democratic side
 is fixed on certain important, but still secondary issues.
 Because when you have the foundation of the republic
 in jeopardy, you cannot talk about healthcare.
 I mean, I understand how important it is,
 but it's still secondary because the entire framework
 of American political life is at risk.
 And you have Vladimir Putin just, you know,
 just it's having free hands by attacking America
 and other free countries.
 And by the way, we have so much evidence
 about Russian interference in Brexit,
 in elections in almost every European country.
 And thinking that they will be shy
 of attacking America in 2020.
 Now with Trump in the office, yeah.
 I think it's, again, it definitely diminishes
 the intellectual quality of our conversation.
 I do what I can.
 Last question.
 If you can go back, just look at the entirety of your life,
 you accomplished more than most humans will ever do.
 If you can go back and relive a single moment in your life,
 what would that moment be?
 Ah, there are moments in my life
 when I think about what could be done differently, but.
 No, experience happiness and joy and pride,
 just to touch once again.
 I know, I know, but it's, look,
 I made many mistakes in my life.
 So I just, it's the, I know that at the end of the day,
 it's, I believe in the butterfly effect.
 So it's the, it's the, I knew moments where I could,
 now if I'm there at that point in 89 and 93,
 you pick up a year, I could improve my actions
 by not doing this stupid thing.
 But then how do you know that I will have
 all other accomplishments?
 Yeah, I just, I'm afraid that, you know,
 we just have to just follow this,
 if you may call it wisdom before is gum, you know,
 it's the life is this, you know,
 it's a box of chocolate and you don't know what's inside,
 but you have to go one by one.
 So it's the, I'm happy with who I am and where I am today.
 And I am very proud, not only with my chess accomplishments,
 but that I made this transition.
 And since I left chess, you know,
 I built my own reputation that had some influence
 on the game of chess, but not, it's not, you know,
 directly derived from the game.
 I'm grateful for my wife, so helped me to build this life.
 We actually married in 2005.
 It was my third marriage, that's why I said
 I've made mistakes in my life.
 But, and by the way, I'm close with two kids
 from my previous marriages.
 So that's the, I mean, I managed to sort of
 to balance my life and here, you know, I live in New York,
 so we have two kids born here in New York.
 It's new life and it's, you know, it's busy.
 Sometimes I wish I could, you know, I could limit
 my engagement in many other things that are still, you know,
 taking time and energy, but life is exciting.
 And as long as I can feel that I have energy,
 I have strengths, I have passion to make the difference,
 I'm happy.
 I think that's a beautiful moment to end on.
 Gary, thank you very much for talking to me.
 Thank you.
 Thank you.