Transcript
00:00:00 The following is a conversation with Gary Kasparov.
00:00:03 He’s considered by many to be the greatest chess player
00:00:06 of all time.
00:00:07 From 1986 until his retirement in 2005,
00:00:11 he dominated the chess world,
00:00:13 ranking world number one for most of those 19 years.
00:00:17 While he has many historical matches
00:00:18 against human chess players,
00:00:20 in the long arc of history he may be remembered
00:00:24 for his match against the machine, IBM’s Deep Blue.
00:00:28 His initial victories and eventual loss to Deep Blue
00:00:31 captivated the imagination of the world,
00:00:34 of what role artificial intelligence systems may play
00:00:37 in our civilization’s future.
00:00:39 That excitement inspired an entire generation
00:00:42 of AI researchers, including myself,
00:00:45 to get into the field.
00:00:47 Gary is also a pro democracy political thinker and leader,
00:00:51 a fearless human rights activist,
00:00:53 and author of several books,
00:00:54 including How Life Imitates Chess,
00:00:57 which is a book on strategy and decision making,
00:01:00 Winter is Coming,
00:01:01 which is a book articulating his opposition
00:01:03 to the Putin regime,
00:01:05 and Deep Thinking,
00:01:06 which is a book on the role
00:01:07 of both artificial intelligence and human intelligence
00:01:11 in defining our future.
00:01:13 This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast.
00:01:16 If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube,
00:01:19 give it five stars on iTunes,
00:01:21 support it on Patreon,
00:01:22 or simply connect with me on Twitter
00:01:24 at Lex Friedman, spelled F R I D M A N.
00:01:28 And now, here’s my conversation with Gary Kasparov.
00:01:33 As perhaps the greatest chess player of all time,
00:01:35 when you look introspectively at your psychology
00:01:39 throughout your career,
00:01:40 what was the bigger motivator,
00:01:42 the love of winning or the hatred of losing?
00:01:46 Tough question.
00:01:49 Have to confess I never heard it before,
00:01:51 which is again, congratulations.
00:01:53 It’s quite an accomplishment.
00:01:58 Losing was always painful.
00:02:01 For me, it was almost like a physical pain
00:02:04 because I knew that if I lost the game,
00:02:09 it’s just because I made a mistake.
00:02:11 So I always believed that the result of the game
00:02:18 had to be decided by the quality of my play.
00:02:21 Okay, you may say it sounds arrogant,
00:02:24 but it helped me to move forward
00:02:26 because I always knew that there was room for improvement.
00:02:30 So it’s the…
00:02:31 Was there the fear of the mistake?
00:02:32 Actually, fear of mistake guarantees mistakes.
00:02:36 And the difference between top players at the very top
00:02:40 is that it’s the ability to make a decision
00:02:44 without predictable consequences.
00:02:46 You don’t know what’s happening.
00:02:47 It’s just intuitively.
00:02:48 I can go this way or that way.
00:02:50 And there are always hesitations.
00:02:52 People are like, you are just at the crossroad.
00:02:55 You can go right, you can go left, you can go straight.
00:02:57 You can turn and go back.
00:02:58 And the consequences are just very uncertain.
00:03:03 Yes, you have certain ideas what happens on the right
00:03:07 or on the left or on just if you go straight,
00:03:09 but it’s not enough to make well calculated choice.
00:03:13 And when you play chess at the very top,
00:03:16 it’s about your inner strength.
00:03:18 So I can make this decision.
00:03:21 I will stand firm and I’m not going to waste my time
00:03:24 because I have full confidence that I will go through.
00:03:29 Going back to your original question is,
00:03:32 I would say neither.
00:03:34 It’s just, it’s love for winning, hate for losing.
00:03:39 There were important elements, psychological elements,
00:03:41 but the key element, I would say the driving force
00:03:46 was always my passion for making a difference.
00:03:53 It’s just, I can move forward and I can always,
00:03:57 I can always enjoy not just playing,
00:03:59 but creating something new.
00:04:01 Creating something new.
00:04:03 How do you think about that?
00:04:04 It’s just finding new ideas in the openings,
00:04:07 some original plan in the middle game.
00:04:09 It’s actually, that helped me to make the transition
00:04:13 from the game of chess where I was on the very top
00:04:15 to another life where I knew I would not be number one.
00:04:20 I would not be necessarily on the top,
00:04:22 but I could still be very active and productive
00:04:26 by my ability to make a difference,
00:04:30 by influencing people, say joining the democratic movement
00:04:34 in Russia or talking to people
00:04:36 about human machine relations.
00:04:38 There’s so many things where I knew my influence
00:04:42 may not be as decisive as in chess,
00:04:45 but still strong enough to help people
00:04:49 to make their choices.
00:04:51 So you can still create something new
00:04:53 that makes a difference in the world outside of chess.
00:04:57 But wait, you’ve kind of painted a beautiful picture
00:05:01 of your motivations in chess to create something new,
00:05:04 to look for those moments of some brilliant new ideas.
00:05:09 But were you haunted by something?
00:05:11 See, you make it seem like to be at the level you’re at,
00:05:15 you can get away without having demons,
00:05:18 without having fears,
00:05:21 without being driven by some of the darker forces.
00:05:26 I mean, you sound almost religious.
00:05:29 The darker forces, spiritual demons.
00:05:32 I mean, do you have a call for a priest?
00:05:34 That’s what I’m dressing as.
00:05:37 Now, just let’s go back to these crucial chess moments
00:05:42 where I had to make big decisions.
00:05:44 As I said, it was all about my belief from very early days
00:05:50 that I can make all the difference by playing well
00:05:52 or by making mistakes.
00:05:53 So yes, I always had an opponent
00:05:57 across the chess board, opposite me.
00:06:00 But no matter how strong the opponent was,
00:06:02 whether it just was ordinary player
00:06:04 or another world champion like Anatoly Karpov,
00:06:09 having all respect for my opponent,
00:06:10 I still believe that it’s up to me to make the difference.
00:06:14 And I knew I was not invincible.
00:06:21 I made mistakes.
00:06:22 I made some blunders.
00:06:23 And with age, I made more blunders.
00:06:28 So I knew it.
00:06:30 But it’s still, it’s very much for me
00:06:34 to be decisive factor in the game.
00:06:37 I mean, even now, look, I just,
00:06:38 my latest chess experience was horrible.
00:06:40 I mean, I played Caruana, Fabi Caruana,
00:06:44 this number two, number two,
00:06:46 number three player in the world these days.
00:06:47 We played this 960 with the Fischer,
00:06:50 so called Fischer random chess, reshuffling pieces.
00:06:52 Yeah, I lost very badly, but it’s because I made mistakes.
00:06:56 I mean, I had so many winning positions.
00:06:57 I mean, 15 years ago, I would have crushed him.
00:07:00 So, and it’s, you know, while I lost,
00:07:03 I was not so much upset.
00:07:05 I mean, I know, as I said in the interview,
00:07:08 I can fight any opponent, but not my biological clock.
00:07:10 So it’s fighting time is always a losing proposition.
00:07:16 But even today at age 56, you know,
00:07:18 I knew that, you know, I could play great game.
00:07:22 I couldn’t finish it because I didn’t have enough energy
00:07:24 or just, you know,
00:07:25 I couldn’t have the same level of concentration.
00:07:27 But, you know, in number of games
00:07:29 where I completely outplayed one of the top players
00:07:31 in the world, I mean, gave me a certain amount of pleasure.
00:07:35 That is, even today, I haven’t lost my touch.
00:07:38 Not the same, you know.
00:07:40 Okay, the jaws are not as strong
00:07:43 and the teeth are not as sharp,
00:07:44 but I could get to him just, you know,
00:07:47 almost, you know, on the ropes.
00:07:49 Still got it.
00:07:50 Still got it.
00:07:50 And it’s, you know, and it’s,
00:07:52 I think it’s, my wife said it well.
00:07:54 I mean, she said, look, Gary,
00:07:55 it’s somehow, it’s not just fighting your biological clock.
00:07:59 It’s just, you know, maybe it’s a signal
00:08:01 because, you know, the goddess of chess,
00:08:03 since you spoke great about demons.
00:08:05 The goddess of chess, Keisha,
00:08:07 maybe she didn’t want you to win
00:08:09 because, you know, if you could beat
00:08:12 number two, number three player in the world,
00:08:14 I mean, that’s one of the top players
00:08:16 who just recently played World Championship match.
00:08:19 If you could beat him,
00:08:20 that would be really bad for the game of chess.
00:08:23 But just, what people will say,
00:08:24 oh, look, the game of chess, you know,
00:08:26 it’s not making any progress.
00:08:28 The game is just, you know,
00:08:29 it’s totally devalued because, look,
00:08:32 the guy coming out of retirement,
00:08:34 you know, just, you know, winning games,
00:08:35 maybe that was good for chess, not good for you.
00:08:37 But it’s, look, I’ve been following your logic.
00:08:41 We should always look for, you know, demons,
00:08:43 you know, superior forces and other things
00:08:46 that could, you know, if not dominate our lives,
00:08:48 but somehow, you know, play a significant role
00:08:52 in the outcome.
00:08:55 Yeah, so the goddess of chess had to send a message.
00:08:58 Yeah, that’s okay.
00:08:59 So Gary, you should do something else.
00:09:02 Time.
00:09:04 Now for a question that you have heard before,
00:09:06 but give me a chance.
00:09:09 You’ve dominated the chess world for 20 years,
00:09:12 even still got it.
00:09:14 Is there a moment, you said,
00:09:15 you always look to create something new.
00:09:17 Is there games or moments
00:09:21 where you’re especially proud of
00:09:23 in terms of your brilliance of a new creative move?
00:09:27 You’ve talked about Mikhail Tal
00:09:28 as somebody who was aggressive and creative chess player
00:09:31 in your own game.
00:09:33 Look, you mentioned Mikhail Tal.
00:09:35 It’s very aggressive, very sharp player,
00:09:39 famous for his combinations and sacrifices,
00:09:42 even called magician from Riga,
00:09:44 so for his very unique style.
00:09:47 But any world champion, you know,
00:09:50 it’s, yeah, was a creator.
00:09:53 Some of them were so flamboyant and flash like Tal.
00:09:57 Some of them were no just, you know,
00:09:59 less discerned at the chess board like Tigran Petrosian,
00:10:04 but every world champion, every top player
00:10:07 brought something into the game of chess.
00:10:09 And each contribution was priceless
00:10:11 because it’s not just about sacrifices.
00:10:13 Of course, amateurs, they enjoy, you know,
00:10:15 the brilliant games where pieces being sacrificed.
00:10:18 It’s all just, you know, it’s all piece of hanging.
00:10:21 And it’s all of a sudden, you know,
00:10:24 being material down, a rook down,
00:10:26 or just, you know, queen down.
00:10:28 The weaker side delivers the final blow
00:10:33 on just, you know, mating opponent’s king.
00:10:36 But there are other kinds of beauty.
00:10:38 I mean, it’s a slow positional maneuvering,
00:10:41 you know, looking for weaknesses
00:10:42 and just, and gradually, you know,
00:10:44 strangling your opponent
00:10:47 and eventually delivering sort of a positional masterpiece.
00:10:51 So I think I made more difference in the game of chess
00:10:55 than I could have imagined when I started playing.
00:10:58 And the reason I thought it was time for me to leave
00:11:01 was just, I mean, I knew that I was not,
00:11:05 I was not, no longer the position to
00:11:10 bring the same kind of contribution,
00:11:14 the same kind of new knowledge into the game.
00:11:18 So, and going back,
00:11:21 I could immediately look at my games
00:11:24 against Anatoly Karpov.
00:11:25 It’s not just I won the match in 1985
00:11:27 and became a world champion at age 22,
00:11:31 but there were at least two games in that match.
00:11:34 Of course, the last one, game 24,
00:11:36 that was decisive game of the match,
00:11:38 I won and became world champion.
00:11:40 But also the way I won, it was a very sharp game
00:11:45 and I found a unique maneuver that was absolutely new
00:11:48 and it became some sort of just a typical now,
00:11:52 though just when the move was made,
00:11:55 was made on the board and put on display,
00:11:58 a lot of people thought it was ugly.
00:12:01 And another game, game 16 in the match
00:12:03 where I just also managed to outplay Karpov completely
00:12:06 with black pieces, just paralyzing his entire army
00:12:10 in its own camp.
00:12:13 Technically or psychologically,
00:12:14 or was that a mix of both in game 16?
00:12:17 Yeah, I think it was a big blow to Karpov.
00:12:19 I think it was a big psychological victory
00:12:21 for a number of reasons.
00:12:22 One, the score was equal at the time
00:12:25 and the world champion by the rules
00:12:28 could retain his title in case of a tie.
00:12:30 So we still have, before game 16, we have nine games to go.
00:12:35 And also it was some sort of a bluff
00:12:37 because neither me nor Karpov saw the refutation
00:12:41 of this opening idea.
00:12:42 And I think it says for Karpov, it was double blow
00:12:46 because not that he lost the game, I should triple blow.
00:12:48 He lost the game, it was a brilliant game
00:12:50 and I played impeccably after just this opening bluff.
00:12:55 And then they discovered that it was a bluff.
00:12:57 So it’s the, again, I didn’t know, I was not bluffing.
00:13:00 So that’s why it happens very often.
00:13:03 Some ideas could be refuted.
00:13:04 And it’s just, what I found out,
00:13:06 and this is again, going back to your spiritual theme
00:13:09 is that you could spend a lot of time working.
00:13:13 And when I say you could, it’s in the 80s, in the 90s.
00:13:16 It doesn’t happen these days because everybody
00:13:17 has a computer.
00:13:18 You could immediately see if it works or it doesn’t work.
00:13:21 Machine shows your refutation in a split of a second.
00:13:24 But many of the analysis in the 80s or in the 90s,
00:13:28 they were not perfect simply because we’re humans
00:13:31 and just you analyze the game,
00:13:34 you look for some fresh ideas.
00:13:36 And then just it happens that there was something
00:13:39 that you missed because the level of the concentration
00:13:42 at the chess board is different from when you analyze
00:13:45 the game, just moving the pieces around.
00:13:47 And, but somehow if you spend a lot of time
00:13:52 at the chess board preparing, so in your studies
00:13:55 with your coaches, hours and hours and hours,
00:13:59 and nothing of what you found could,
00:14:03 had materialized on the chess board.
00:14:08 Somehow these hours help, I don’t know why,
00:14:12 always helped you.
00:14:14 It’s as if the amount of work you did could be transformed
00:14:19 into some sort of spiritual energy that helped you
00:14:23 to come up with other great ideas during the board.
00:14:27 Again, even if there was no direct connection
00:14:30 between your preparation and your victory in the game,
00:14:33 there was always some sort of invisible connection
00:14:37 between the amount of work you did,
00:14:39 your dedication to actually, and your passion
00:14:42 to discover new ideas, and your ability during the game
00:14:47 at the chess board, when the clock was ticking,
00:14:49 we still had ticking clock, not digital clock at the time.
00:14:52 So to come up with some brilliance.
00:14:55 And I also can mention many games from the 90s.
00:14:59 So it’s the, obviously all amateurs would pick up my game
00:15:04 against Veselin Topalov in 1999 and V. Konzai.
00:15:07 Again, because it was a brilliant game,
00:15:09 the Black King traveled from its own camp
00:15:13 to into White’s camp across the entire board.
00:15:17 It doesn’t happen often, trust me, as you know,
00:15:20 in the games with professional players,
00:15:23 top professional players.
00:15:24 So that’s why visually it was one
00:15:26 of the most impressive victories.
00:15:28 But I could bring to your attention many other games
00:15:33 that were not so impressive for amateurs,
00:15:37 not so beautiful, just because it’s sacrifice
00:15:43 is always beautiful, you sacrifice pieces.
00:15:44 And then eventually you have very few resources left
00:15:48 and you use them just to crush your opponent basically.
00:15:54 You have to make the king because you have almost
00:15:58 nothing left at your disposal.
00:16:01 But up to the very end, again, less and less,
00:16:06 but still up to the very end, I always had games
00:16:08 with some sort of interesting ideas
00:16:11 and games that gave me great satisfaction.
00:16:14 But I think it’s what happened from 2005 up to these days
00:16:20 was also a very big accomplishment
00:16:24 since I had to find myself to sort of relocate myself.
00:16:28 Yeah, rechannel the creative energies.
00:16:30 Exactly, and to find something where I feel comfortable,
00:16:35 even confident that my participation
00:16:39 still makes the difference.
00:16:41 Beautifully put.
00:16:42 So let me ask perhaps a silly question,
00:16:44 but sticking on chest for just a little longer.
00:16:48 Where do you put Magnus Carlsen, the current world champion
00:16:51 in the list of all time greats?
00:16:54 In terms of style, moments of brilliance, consistency.
00:16:57 It’s a tricky question.
00:16:59 The moment you start ranking world champions.
00:17:02 Yeah, you lose something?
00:17:04 I think it’s not fair because any new generation
00:17:12 knows much more about the game than the previous one.
00:17:15 So when people say, oh, Gary was the greatest,
00:17:17 Fischer was the greatest, Magnus was the greatest,
00:17:19 it disregard the fact that the great players of the past,
00:17:24 whether it was Alaskia, Capoplank, Alokian,
00:17:26 I mean, they knew so little about chess
00:17:28 by today’s standards.
00:17:29 I mean, today, just any kid that spent a few years
00:17:32 with his or her chess computer knows much more
00:17:37 about the game simply just because you have access
00:17:40 to this information.
00:17:40 And it has been discovered generation after generation.
00:17:43 We added more and more knowledge to the game of chess.
00:17:46 It’s about the gap between the world champion
00:17:50 and the rest of the field.
00:17:51 So it’s the, now, if you look at the gap,
00:17:55 then probably Fischer could be on top,
00:17:58 but very short period of time.
00:17:59 Then you should also add a time factor.
00:18:01 I was on top, not as big as Fischer, but much longer.
00:18:05 So, and also, unlike Fischer,
00:18:08 I succeeded in beating next generation.
00:18:11 Here’s the question.
00:18:13 Let’s see if you still got the fire,
00:18:14 speaking of the next generation,
00:18:15 because you did succeed beating the next generation.
00:18:19 It’s close.
00:18:19 Okay, Anand, Short, Anand, the sheer of,
00:18:22 Kramnik is already 12 years younger.
00:18:24 So that’s the next.
00:18:25 But still yet, I competed with them
00:18:28 and I just, I beat most of them.
00:18:30 And I was still dominant when I left at age of 41.
00:18:34 So back to Magnus.
00:18:36 Magnus, I mean, consistency is phenomenal.
00:18:40 The reason Magnus is on top,
00:18:42 and it seems unbeatable today,
00:18:46 Magnus is a lethal combination of Fischer and Karpov,
00:18:50 which is very, it’s very unusual
00:18:52 because Fischer’s style was very dynamic,
00:18:54 just fighting to the last point,
00:18:56 just using every resource available.
00:18:59 Karpov was very different.
00:19:01 It’s just an unparalleled ability
00:19:04 to use every piece with a maximum effect.
00:19:07 Just its minimal resources always produce maximum effect.
00:19:12 So now imagine that you merge these two styles.
00:19:15 So it’s like, you know,
00:19:17 it’s squeezing every stone for a drop of water,
00:19:21 but doing it, you know, just, you know,
00:19:22 for 50, 60, 70, 80 moves.
00:19:25 I mean, Magnus could go on as long as Fischer
00:19:27 with all his passion and energy.
00:19:28 And at the same time being as meticulous
00:19:31 and deadly as Karpov by just, you know,
00:19:35 using every little advantage.
00:19:36 So, and he has good, you know, very good health.
00:19:40 It’s important.
00:19:41 I mean, physical conditions are, by the way,
00:19:42 very important.
00:19:43 So a lot of people don’t recognize it.
00:19:44 Their latest study shows that chess players
00:19:46 burn thousands of calories during the game.
00:19:50 So that puts him on the top of this field
00:19:54 of the world champions.
00:19:56 But again, it’s the discussion that is,
00:19:59 I saw recently on the internet,
00:20:00 whether Garry Kasparov of his peak,
00:20:03 let’s say late eighties, could beat Magnus Carlsen today.
00:20:06 I mean, it’s certainly irrelevant
00:20:07 because Garry Kasparov in 1989, okay,
00:20:10 has played great chess,
00:20:12 but still I knew very little about chess
00:20:15 compared to Magnus Carlsen in 2019,
00:20:17 who by the way, learned from me as well.
00:20:18 So that’s why, yeah.
00:20:20 I’m extremely cautious in making any judgment
00:20:24 that involves, you know, time gaps.
00:20:26 You ask, you know, soccer fans.
00:20:28 So who is your favorite?
00:20:30 Pele, Maradona, or Messi?
00:20:31 Yeah.
00:20:32 Yeah, who’s your favorite?
00:20:33 Messi.
00:20:34 Messi.
00:20:35 Yeah, why?
00:20:36 Because?
00:20:37 Maybe Maradona, maybe.
00:20:38 Not because you’re younger, but that’s simple.
00:20:40 Your instinctive answer is correct
00:20:41 because you saw, you didn’t see Maradona in action.
00:20:44 I saw all of them in action.
00:20:45 So that’s why, but since, you know,
00:20:48 when I was, you know, just following it, you know,
00:20:50 just Pele and Maradona, they were just, you know,
00:20:52 they were big stars and it’s, Messi’s already just,
00:20:55 I was gradually losing interest in just other things.
00:20:58 So I remember Pele in 1970, the final match Brazil Italy.
00:21:02 So that’s the first World Cup soccer I watched.
00:21:05 So that’s the, and actually my answer when I just,
00:21:09 when I just, you know,
00:21:10 because I was asked this question as well.
00:21:12 So I say that it’s just,
00:21:13 while it’s impossible to make a choice,
00:21:15 I would still probably go with Maradona for simple reason.
00:21:18 The Brazilian team in 1970 could have won without Pele.
00:21:21 It was absolutely great.
00:21:23 Still could have won, maybe, but it is,
00:21:26 Argentinian team in 1986 without Maradona
00:21:28 would not be in the final.
00:21:29 So this is, and Messi, he still hasn’t won a title.
00:21:33 You could argue for that for an hour,
00:21:35 but you could say, if you ask Maradona,
00:21:38 if you look in his eyes, especially,
00:21:40 let’s say Gary Kasparov in 1989,
00:21:43 he would have said,
00:21:45 I was sure as hell would beat Magnus Carlsen.
00:21:48 Just simply because. The confidence, the fire.
00:21:50 Simply because, again, they saw me in action.
00:21:54 So this, again, it’s the age factor that’s important.
00:21:56 Definitely with the passion and energy
00:21:58 and being equipped with all modern ideas.
00:22:01 But again, then you make, you know,
00:22:04 a very just important assumption
00:22:05 that you could empower Gary Kasparov in 1989
00:22:08 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years.
00:22:11 That would not be Gary Kasparov.
00:22:12 That would be someone else.
00:22:14 Because again, I belong to 1989.
00:22:16 I was way ahead of the field.
00:22:18 And I beat Karpov several times
00:22:21 in the World Championship matches.
00:22:23 And I crossed 2800, which, by the way,
00:22:26 if you look at the, in the rating,
00:22:28 which is just, even today,
00:22:31 so this is the rating that I retire.
00:22:33 So it’s still, you know, it’s just, it’s a top two, three.
00:22:37 So that’s Caruana and Ding.
00:22:38 It’s about the same rating now.
00:22:40 And I crossed 2800 in 1990.
00:22:43 Well, just you look at the inflation.
00:22:45 When I crossed 2800 in 1990,
00:22:47 there was only one player in 2700 category,
00:22:49 and not only Karpov.
00:22:50 Now we had more than 50.
00:22:52 So just, when you see this, so if you add inflation,
00:22:55 so I think my 2851, it could probably,
00:22:58 could be more valuable as Magnus 2882,
00:23:02 which was his highest rating.
00:23:04 But anyway, again, too many hypotheticals.
00:23:07 You’re lost to IBM Deep Blue in 1997.
00:23:10 In my eyes, that is one of the most seminal moments
00:23:13 in the history.
00:23:15 Again, I apologize for being romanticizing the notion,
00:23:18 but in the history of our civilization,
00:23:20 because humans, as the civilizations,
00:23:25 for centuries saw chess as, you know,
00:23:27 the peak of what man can accomplish
00:23:29 of intellectual mastery, right?
00:23:31 And that moment when a machine could beat a human being
00:23:36 was inspiring to just an entire,
00:23:40 anyone who cares about science, innovation,
00:23:43 an entire generation of AI researchers.
00:23:46 And yet, to you that loss, at least if reading your face,
00:23:50 was, seemed like a tragedy, extremely painful.
00:23:53 Like you said, physically painful.
00:23:55 Why?
00:23:56 When you look back at your psychology of that loss,
00:23:59 why was it so painful?
00:24:01 Were you not able to see the seminal nature of that moment?
00:24:07 Or was that exactly why it was that painful?
00:24:10 As I already said, losing was painful, physically painful.
00:24:17 And the match I lost in 1997
00:24:18 was not the first match I lost to a machine.
00:24:22 It was the first match I lost, period.
00:24:23 Yeah.
00:24:24 That’s…
00:24:27 Oh, wow.
00:24:28 So…
00:24:29 Oh, wow.
00:24:30 Yeah, it’s…
00:24:31 Right.
00:24:32 Yeah, that makes all the difference to me.
00:24:35 Yes.
00:24:36 First time I lost, it’s just…
00:24:38 Now, I lost, and the reason I was so angry
00:24:42 that I just, you know, I had suspicions
00:24:46 that my loss was not just a result of my bad play.
00:24:49 Yes.
00:24:50 So though I played quite poorly, you know,
00:24:51 just when you started looking at the games today,
00:24:53 I made tons of mistakes.
00:24:54 But, you know, I had all reasons to believe that,
00:24:57 you know, there were other factors
00:25:00 that had nothing to do with the game of chess.
00:25:01 And that’s why I was angry.
00:25:02 But look, it was 22 years ago.
00:25:05 It’s water under the bridge.
00:25:07 We can analyze this match,
00:25:08 and this is with everything you said.
00:25:10 I agree with probably one exception,
00:25:13 is that considering chess, you know,
00:25:16 as the sort of, as a pinnacle of intellectual activities,
00:25:20 was our mistake.
00:25:21 Because, you know, we just thought,
00:25:22 oh, it’s a game of the highest intellect,
00:25:25 and it’s just, you know, you have to be so,
00:25:27 you know, intelligent, and you could see things
00:25:29 that, you know, the ordinary mortals could not see.
00:25:34 It’s a game, and all machines had to do with this game
00:25:40 is just to make fewer mistakes, not to solve the game.
00:25:43 Because the game cannot be solved.
00:25:44 I mean, according to Kovalevich Shannon,
00:25:45 the number of legal moves is 10 to the 46th power.
00:25:49 Too many zeros, so just for any computer
00:25:51 to finish the job, you know, in next few billion years.
00:25:57 But it doesn’t have to.
00:25:59 It’s all about making fewer mistakes.
00:26:01 And I think that’s the, this match,
00:26:03 this match actually, and what’s happened afterwards
00:26:06 with other games, with Go, with Shoggy, with video games.
00:26:12 It’s a demonstration that machines will always be humans
00:26:17 in what I call closed systems.
00:26:19 The moment you build a closed system,
00:26:22 no matter how the system’s called, chess, Go, Shoggy,
00:26:26 Dota, machines will prevail simply because they will
00:26:31 bring down a number of mistakes.
00:26:34 Machines don’t have to solve it, they just have to,
00:26:38 the way they outplay us, it’s not by just being
00:26:41 more intelligent, it’s just by doing something else,
00:26:45 but eventually it’s just, it’s capitalizing on our mistakes.
00:26:48 When you look at the chess machines ratings today,
00:26:51 and compare this to Magnus Carlsen,
00:26:54 it’s the same as comparing Ferrari to Usain Bolt.
00:26:57 It’s the, the gap is, I mean, by chess standards,
00:27:01 is insane, 34, 3500 to 2800, 2850 on Magnus.
00:27:06 It’s like difference between Magnus and an ordinary player
00:27:09 from an open international tournament.
00:27:13 It’s not because machine understanding
00:27:15 is better than Magnus Carlsen,
00:27:17 but simply because it’s steady.
00:27:19 Machine has steady hand.
00:27:21 And I think that is what we, we, we,
00:27:24 we have to learn from 1997 experience,
00:27:28 and from further encounters with computers,
00:27:31 and sort of the current state of affairs with AlphaZero,
00:27:36 beating other machines.
00:27:38 The idea that we can compete with computers
00:27:41 in so called intellectual fields,
00:27:44 it was wrong from the very beginning.
00:27:47 It’s just, it’s, by the way, the 1997 match
00:27:50 was not the first victory of machines over AlphaZero.
00:27:54 Or grandmasters.
00:27:56 Or grandmasters.
00:27:57 No, actually it’s, I played against
00:28:00 first decent chess computers from late, from late 80s.
00:28:04 So I played with the prototype of Deep Blue
00:28:07 called Deep Thought in 1989,
00:28:09 two rapid chess games in New York,
00:28:10 I won handily to both games.
00:28:13 We played against new chess engines like Fritz,
00:28:17 and other programs.
00:28:18 And then it’s the, it was Israeli program Junior
00:28:21 that appeared in 1995.
00:28:23 Yeah, so there were, there were several programs.
00:28:25 I, you know, I lost few games in Blitz.
00:28:28 I lost one match against the computer chess engine
00:28:31 1994 rapid chess.
00:28:33 So I lost one game to Deep Blue in 1996 match,
00:28:36 the man, the match I won.
00:28:38 Some people, you know, tend to forget about it
00:28:40 that I won the first match.
00:28:41 Yes.
00:28:42 But it’s, it’s, we,
00:28:45 we made a very important psychological mistake
00:28:48 thinking that the reason we lost Blitz matches,
00:28:51 five, five minutes games.
00:28:52 The reason we lost some of the rapid chess matches,
00:28:55 25 minutes chess.
00:28:56 Because we didn’t have enough time.
00:28:58 If you play a longer match,
00:29:00 we will not make the same mistakes.
00:29:02 Nonsense.
00:29:02 So this, yeah, we had more time,
00:29:05 but we still make mistakes.
00:29:06 And machine also has more time.
00:29:07 And machines, machine will always, you know,
00:29:10 will always be steady and consistent
00:29:13 compared to humans instabilities and inconsistencies.
00:29:18 And today we are at the point where yes,
00:29:20 nobody talks about, you know,
00:29:23 humans playing as machines.
00:29:24 Now machines can offer handicap to top players
00:29:27 and still, you know, will, will, will be favored.
00:29:31 I think we’re just learning that it’s, it’s,
00:29:33 it’s no longer human versus machines.
00:29:35 It’s about human working with machines.
00:29:37 That’s what I recognized in 1998,
00:29:41 just after leaking my wounds and spending one year
00:29:44 in just, you know, ruminating so the,
00:29:46 so what’s happened in this match.
00:29:48 And I knew that though we still could play
00:29:50 against the machines.
00:29:51 I had two more matches in, in 2003,
00:29:53 playing both Deep Fritz and Deep Junior.
00:29:56 Both matches ended as a tie.
00:29:59 Though these machines were not weaker,
00:30:01 at least actually probably stronger than Deep Blue.
00:30:05 And by the way, today chess app on your mobile phone
00:30:08 is probably stronger than Deep Blue.
00:30:10 I’m not speaking about chess engines
00:30:12 that are so much superior.
00:30:13 And by the way, when you analyze games
00:30:16 we played against Deep Blue in 1997 on your chess engine,
00:30:19 they’ll be laughing.
00:30:20 So this is, and it’s also shows that’s how chess changed
00:30:23 because chess commentators, they look at some of our games
00:30:26 like game four, game five, brilliant idea.
00:30:29 Now you ask Stockfish, you ask Houdini,
00:30:35 you ask Commodore, all the leading chess engines.
00:30:37 Within 30 seconds, they will show you how many mistakes
00:30:40 both Gary and Deep Blue made in the game
00:30:43 that was trumpeted as the, as a great chess match in 1997.
00:30:50 Well, okay.
00:30:51 So you’ve made an interesting,
00:30:54 if you can untangle that comment.
00:30:56 So now in retrospect, it was a mistake to see chess
00:31:01 as the peak of human intellect.
00:31:03 Nevertheless, that was done for centuries.
00:31:06 So by the way, in Europe, because you know,
00:31:10 you move to the far East, they will go,
00:31:13 they had show games.
00:31:14 But games, games.
00:31:15 Again, some of the games like, you know, board games.
00:31:20 Yes.
00:31:20 Yeah, I agree.
00:31:22 So if I push back a little bit, so now you say that,
00:31:26 okay, but it was a mistake to see chess as the epitome
00:31:29 and now, and then now there’s other things maybe
00:31:32 like language, that conversation,
00:31:34 like some of the things that in your view
00:31:36 is still way out of reach of computers, but inside humans.
00:31:40 Do you think, can you talk about what those things might be?
00:31:44 And do you think just like chess, they might fall?
00:31:48 Soon with the same set of approaches,
00:31:51 if you look at AlphaZero,
00:31:52 the same kind of learning approaches
00:31:55 as the machines grow in size.
00:31:57 No, no, it’s not about growing in size.
00:31:59 It’s about, again, it’s about understanding the difference
00:32:02 between closed system and open ended system.
00:32:05 So you think that key difference,
00:32:06 so the board games are closed in terms of the rule set,
00:32:11 the actions, the state space, everything is just constrained.
00:32:15 You think once you open it, the machines are lost?
00:32:19 Not lost, but again, the effectiveness is very different
00:32:22 because machine does not understand the moment
00:32:25 it’s reaching territory of diminishing returns.
00:32:28 It’s the, to put it in a different way,
00:32:32 machine doesn’t know how to ask right questions.
00:32:35 It can ask questions, but it will never tell you
00:32:38 which questions are relevant.
00:32:39 So there’s the, it’s like about the, it’s the,
00:32:41 it’s a direction.
00:32:42 So these, it’s, I think it’s in human machine relations,
00:32:45 we have to consider, so our role and people,
00:32:48 many people feel uncomfortable that this,
00:32:50 the territory that belongs to us is shrinking.
00:32:55 I’m saying, so what, you know, this is,
00:32:57 eventually we’ll belong to the last few decimal points,
00:33:00 but it’s like having, so a very powerful gun,
00:33:05 that’s, and all you can do there is slightly,
00:33:09 you know, alter direction of the bullet.
00:33:11 Maybe, you know, 0.1 degree of this angle,
00:33:16 but that means a mile away, 10 meters of target.
00:33:21 So that’s, we have to recognize that is a certain
00:33:25 unique human qualities that machines in a foreseeable future
00:33:30 will not be able to reproduce.
00:33:33 And the effectiveness of this cooperation,
00:33:35 collaboration depends on our understanding
00:33:38 what exactly we can bring into the game.
00:33:40 So the greatest danger is when we try to interfere
00:33:43 with machine superior knowledge.
00:33:45 So that’s why I always say that sometimes you’d rather have,
00:33:48 by reading these pictures in radiology,
00:33:51 you may probably prefer an experienced nurse
00:33:55 than rather than having top professor,
00:33:57 because she will not try to interfere
00:34:00 with machines understanding.
00:34:02 So it’s very important to know that if machines knows
00:34:05 how to do better things in 95%, 96% of territory,
00:34:09 we should not touch it because it’s happened.
00:34:11 It’s like in chess, recognize they do it better.
00:34:15 See where we can make the difference.
00:34:17 You mentioned AlphaZero, I mean, AlphaZero is,
00:34:20 it’s actually a first step into what you may call AI,
00:34:24 because everything that’s being called AI today,
00:34:26 it’s just, it’s one or another variation
00:34:30 of what Claude Shannon characterized as a brute force.
00:34:34 It’s a type A machine, whether it’s Deep Blue,
00:34:36 whether it’s Watson, and all these modern technologies
00:34:41 that are being trumpeted as AI, it’s still brute force.
00:34:45 It’s the, all they do, it’s they do optimization.
00:34:48 It’s this, they are, you know, they keep, you know,
00:34:52 improving the way to process human generated data.
00:34:56 Now, AlphaZero is the first step towards, you know,
00:35:02 machine produced knowledge.
00:35:04 Which is, by the way, it’s quite ironic
00:35:06 that the first company that championed that was IBM.
00:35:12 Oh, it’s in backgammon.
00:35:13 Interesting, in backgammon.
00:35:15 Yes, you should look at IBM, it’s a newer gammon.
00:35:19 It’s the scientist called Cesaro.
00:35:22 He’s still working at IBM.
00:35:23 They had it in the early 90s.
00:35:25 It’s the program that played, you know, the AlphaZero type,
00:35:29 so just trying to come up with own strategies.
00:35:31 But because of success of Deep Blue,
00:35:34 this project had been not abandoned,
00:35:36 but just, you know, it was put on hold.
00:35:40 And now we just, you know, it’s, you know,
00:35:42 everybody talks about this,
00:35:44 the machines generated knowledge, so as revolutionary.
00:35:48 And it is, but there’s still, you know,
00:35:51 many open ended questions.
00:35:54 Yes, AlphaZero generates its own data.
00:35:58 Many ideas that AlphaZero generated in chess
00:36:00 were quite intriguing.
00:36:02 So I looked at these games with,
00:36:06 not just with interest, but with, you know,
00:36:08 it was quite exciting to learn how machine
00:36:11 could actually, you know, juggle all the pieces
00:36:13 and just play positions with a broken material balance,
00:36:17 sacrificing material, always being ahead of other programs,
00:36:20 you know, one or two moves ahead
00:36:22 by foreseeing the consequences,
00:36:24 not overcalculating because machines,
00:36:27 other machines were at least as powerful in calculating,
00:36:30 but it’s having this unique knowledge
00:36:33 based on discovered patterns after playing 60 million games.
00:36:37 Almost something that feels like intuition.
00:36:39 Exactly, but there’s one problem.
00:36:41 Yeah.
00:36:42 Now, the simple question,
00:36:44 if AlphaZero faces superior point,
00:36:47 let’s say another powerful computer accompanied by a human
00:36:53 who could help just to discover certain problems,
00:36:56 because I already, I look at many AlphaZero games.
00:36:58 I visited their lab, you know,
00:37:00 spoke to Demis Hassabis and his team,
00:37:01 and I know there’s certain weaknesses there.
00:37:04 Now, if these weaknesses are exposed,
00:37:05 the question is how many games will it take
00:37:07 for AlphaZero to correct it?
00:37:09 The answer is hundreds of thousands.
00:37:11 Even if it keeps losing, it can,
00:37:13 it’s just because the whole system is based.
00:37:16 So it’s now, imagine so this is,
00:37:19 you can have a human by just making a few tweaks.
00:37:21 So humans are still more flexible.
00:37:24 And as long as we recognize what is our role,
00:37:28 where we can play sort of,
00:37:30 so the most valuable part in this collaboration.
00:37:34 So it’s, it will help us to understand
00:37:36 what are the next steps in human machine collaboration.
00:37:40 Beautifully put.
00:37:41 So let’s talk about the thing that machines
00:37:43 certainly don’t know how to do yet, which is morality.
00:37:46 Machines and morality.
00:37:47 It’s another question that, you know,
00:37:48 just it’s being asked all the time these days.
00:37:51 And I think it’s another phantom
00:37:54 that is haunting a general public
00:37:57 because it’s just being fed with this,
00:37:59 you know, illusions is that how can we avoid machines,
00:38:03 you know, having bias, being prejudiced?
00:38:07 You cannot, because it’s like looking in the mirror
00:38:10 and complaining about what you see.
00:38:12 If you have certain bias in the society,
00:38:14 machine will just follow it.
00:38:17 It’s just, it’s, you know, you look at the mirror,
00:38:19 you don’t like what you see there.
00:38:20 You can, you know, you can break it.
00:38:23 You can try to distort it.
00:38:25 Or you can try to actually change something.
00:38:27 Just by yourself.
00:38:29 By yourself, yes.
00:38:30 So it’s very important to understand
00:38:31 is that you cannot expect machines
00:38:33 to improve the ills of our society.
00:38:37 And moreover machines will simply, you know,
00:38:39 just, you know, amplify it.
00:38:41 Yes. Yeah.
00:38:42 But the thing is people are more comfortable
00:38:45 with other people doing injustice, with being biased.
00:38:50 We’re not comfortable with machines
00:38:52 having the same kind of bias.
00:38:54 So that’s an interesting standard
00:38:58 that we place on machines.
00:38:59 With autonomous vehicles, they have to be much safer.
00:39:01 With automated systems.
00:39:04 Of course they’re much safer.
00:39:05 Statistically, they’re much safer than.
00:39:07 It’s not of course.
00:39:08 Why would, it’s not of course.
00:39:10 It’s not given.
00:39:13 Autonomous vehicles, you have to work really hard
00:39:16 to make them safer.
00:39:21 I think it just, it goes without saying
00:39:22 is the outcome of this,
00:39:25 I would call it competition with comparison is very clear.
00:39:29 But the problem is not about being, you know, safer.
00:39:32 It’s the 40,000 people or so every year died
00:39:36 in car accidents in the United States.
00:39:38 And it’s statistics.
00:39:40 One accident with autonomous vehicle
00:39:42 and it’s front page of a newspaper.
00:39:43 Yes.
00:39:44 So it’s, again, it’s about psychology.
00:39:47 So it’s while people, you know,
00:39:49 kill each other in car accidents
00:39:50 because they make mistakes, they make more mistakes.
00:39:52 For me, it’s not a question.
00:39:54 Of course we make more mistakes because we’re human.
00:39:57 Yes, machines are old.
00:39:58 And by the way, no machine will ever reach 100% perfection.
00:40:01 That’s another important fake story
00:40:04 that is being fed to the public.
00:40:05 If machine doesn’t reach 100% performance, it’s not safe.
00:40:09 No, all you can ask any computer,
00:40:11 whether it’s, you know, playing chess
00:40:13 or doing the stock market calculations
00:40:16 or driving your autonomous vehicle,
00:40:18 it’s to make fewer mistakes.
00:40:21 And yes, I know it’s not, you know,
00:40:23 it’s not easy for us to accept because ah,
00:40:25 if, you know, if you have two humans, you know,
00:40:28 colliding in their cars, okay, it’s like,
00:40:31 if one of these cars is autonomous vehicle,
00:40:34 and by the way, even if it’s humans fault, terrible.
00:40:37 How could you allow a machine to run
00:40:40 without a driver at the wheel?
00:40:42 So, you know, let’s linger that for a second,
00:40:45 that double standard, the way you felt
00:40:48 with your first loss against Deep Blue,
00:40:51 were you treating the machine differently
00:40:54 than you would have a human?
00:40:56 Or, so what do you think about that difference
00:40:58 between the way we see machines and humans?
00:41:02 No, it’s the, at that time, you know, for me it was a match.
00:41:04 And that’s why I was angry because I believed that
00:41:06 the match was not, you know, fairly organized.
00:41:08 So it’s, definitely there were unfair advantages for IBM
00:41:12 and I wanted to play another match, like a rubber match.
00:41:16 So your anger or displeasure was aimed more like
00:41:20 at the humans behind IBM versus the actual pure algorithm.
00:41:24 Absolutely, look, I knew at the time,
00:41:26 and by the way, I was, objectively speaking,
00:41:29 I was stronger at that time.
00:41:30 So that probably added to my anger
00:41:32 because I knew I could beat the machine.
00:41:34 Yeah. Yeah, so that’s, and that’s the,
00:41:35 and as I lost, and I knew I was not well prepared.
00:41:38 So because they, I have to give them credit.
00:41:39 They did some good work from 1996 and I,
00:41:43 but I still could beat the machine.
00:41:45 So I made too many mistakes.
00:41:47 Also, this is the whole, it’s this,
00:41:48 the publicity around the match.
00:41:49 So I underestimated the effect, you know, just it’s,
00:41:53 and being called the, you know, the brain’s last stand,
00:41:56 you know, okay, no pressure.
00:42:02 Okay, well, let me ask.
00:42:04 So I was born also in the Soviet Union.
00:42:06 What lessons do you draw from the rise and fall
00:42:09 of the Soviet Union in the 20th century?
00:42:11 When you just look at this nation
00:42:15 that is now pushing forward into what Russia is,
00:42:19 if you look at the long arc of history of the 20th century,
00:42:22 what do we take away?
00:42:27 What do we take away from that?
00:42:28 I think the lesson of history is clear.
00:42:35 Undemocratic systems, totalitarian regimes,
00:42:38 systems that are based on controlling their citizens
00:42:42 and just every aspect of their life,
00:42:46 not offering opportunities to, for private initiative,
00:42:52 central planning systems, they’re doomed.
00:42:55 They just, you know, they cannot be driving force
00:42:59 for innovation, so they, in the history timeline,
00:43:02 I mean, they could cause certain, you know,
00:43:06 distortion of the concept of progress.
00:43:11 They, by the way, they may call themselves progressive,
00:43:13 but we know that the damage that they caused to humanity
00:43:17 is just, it’s yet to be measured.
00:43:19 But at the end of the day, they fail.
00:43:22 They fail, and the end of the Cold War was a great triumph
00:43:26 of the free world.
00:43:28 It’s not that the free world is perfect.
00:43:30 It’s very important to recognize the fact that,
00:43:32 I always like to mention, you know,
00:43:34 one of my favorite books, The Lord of the Rings,
00:43:36 that there’s no absolute good, but there is an absolute evil.
00:43:42 Good, you know, comes in many forms,
00:43:43 but we all, you know, it’s being humans
00:43:47 or being even, you know, humans from fairy tales
00:43:49 or just some sort of mythical creatures.
00:43:52 It’s the, you can always find spots on the songs.
00:43:57 So this is conducting war and just,
00:44:01 and fighting for justice.
00:44:03 There are always things that, you know,
00:44:04 can be easily criticized.
00:44:06 And human history is the,
00:44:08 is a never ending quest for perfection.
00:44:11 But we know that there is absolute evil.
00:44:13 We know it’s, for me, it’s no clear, it’s, I mean,
00:44:16 nobody argues about Hitler being absolute evil,
00:44:18 but I think it’s very important to recognize
00:44:19 Stalin was absolute evil.
00:44:21 Communism caused more damage
00:44:23 than any other ideology in the 20th century.
00:44:26 And unfortunately, while we all know
00:44:28 that fascism was condemned,
00:44:30 but there was no Nuremberg for communism.
00:44:32 And that’s why we could see, you know,
00:44:33 still the successors of Stalin
00:44:36 are feeling far more comfortable.
00:44:39 And Putin is one of them.
00:44:40 You highlight a few interesting connections actually
00:44:43 between Stalin and Hitler.
00:44:45 I mean, in terms of the adjusting
00:44:49 or clarifying the history of World War II,
00:44:53 which is very interesting.
00:44:54 Of course, we don’t have time.
00:44:55 So let me ask.
00:44:56 You can ask, you know,
00:44:57 I just recently delivered a speech in Toronto
00:44:59 at 80th anniversary of Molotov Ribbentrop Pact.
00:45:02 It’s something that I believe, you know,
00:45:03 just, you know, has, must be taught in the schools
00:45:07 that the World War II had been started by two dictators
00:45:11 by signing these criminal treaty,
00:45:15 collusion of two tyrants in August 1939
00:45:19 that led to the beginning of the World War II.
00:45:21 And the fact is that eventually Stalin had no choice
00:45:24 but to join allies because Hitler attacked him.
00:45:27 So it just doesn’t, you know,
00:45:29 eliminate the fact that Stalin helped Hitler
00:45:33 to start World War II.
00:45:34 And he was one of the beneficiaries at early stage
00:45:37 by annexing a part of Eastern Europe.
00:45:40 And as a result of the World War II,
00:45:42 he annexed almost entire Eastern Europe.
00:45:44 And for many Eastern European nations,
00:45:46 the end of the World War II
00:45:47 was the beginning of communist occupation.
00:45:50 So Putin, you’ve talked about as a man who stands
00:45:56 between Russia and democracy, essentially today.
00:46:00 You’ve been a strong opponent and critic of Putin.
00:46:04 Let me ask again, how much does fear
00:46:07 enter your mind and heart?
00:46:09 So in 2007, there’s this interesting comment
00:46:12 from Oleg Kalugin, KGB general.
00:46:17 He said that I do not talk details.
00:46:19 People who knew them are all dead now
00:46:21 because they were vocal.
00:46:23 I’m quiet.
00:46:25 There’s only one man who’s vocal and he may be in trouble.
00:46:28 World Chess champion Kasparov.
00:46:30 He has been very outspoken in his attacks on Putin.
00:46:33 And I believe he’s probably next on the list.
00:46:36 So clearly your life has been
00:46:38 and perhaps continues to be in danger.
00:46:40 How do you think about having the views you have,
00:46:45 the ideas you have, being in opposition as you are
00:46:49 in this kind of context when your life could be in danger?
00:46:55 That’s the reason I live in New York.
00:46:58 So it was not my first choice,
00:47:00 but I knew I had to leave Russia at one point.
00:47:01 And among other places, New York is the safest.
00:47:05 Is it safe?
00:47:07 No.
00:47:07 It’s the, I know what happened,
00:47:11 what is happening with many of Putin’s enemies.
00:47:14 But at the end of the day, I mean, what can I do?
00:47:18 I could be very proactive
00:47:21 by trying to change things I can influence.
00:47:24 But here are a few facts.
00:47:26 I cannot stop doing what I’ve been doing for a long time.
00:47:30 It’s the right thing to do.
00:47:32 I grew up with my family teaching me
00:47:36 sort of the wisdom of Soviet dissidents,
00:47:38 do what you must and so be.
00:47:41 I could try to be cautious by not traveling
00:47:44 to certain places where my security could be at risk.
00:47:49 There are so many invitations to speak
00:47:51 at different locations in the world.
00:47:52 And I have to say that many countries are just now
00:47:57 are not destinations that I can afford to travel.
00:48:01 My mother still lives in Moscow.
00:48:02 I meet her a few times a year.
00:48:04 She was devastated when I had to leave Russia
00:48:07 because since my father died in 1971,
00:48:10 so she was 33 and she dedicated her entire life
00:48:14 to her only son.
00:48:15 But she recognized in just a year or so
00:48:19 since I left Russia that it was the only chance
00:48:22 for me to continue my normal life.
00:48:25 So just to, I mean, to be relatively safe
00:48:29 and to do what she taught me to do to make the difference.
00:48:35 Do you think you will ever return to Russia
00:48:37 or let me ask a different way?
00:48:39 When?
00:48:40 Even sooner than many people think
00:48:41 because I think Putin’s regime
00:48:43 is facing unsurmountable difficulties.
00:48:46 And again, I read enough historical books
00:48:49 to know that dictatorships, they end suddenly.
00:48:54 It’s just on Sunday, dictator feels comfortable.
00:49:01 He believes he’s popular on Monday morning, he’s bust.
00:49:05 The good news and bad news.
00:49:07 I mean, the bad news is that I don’t know
00:49:09 when and how Putin rule ends.
00:49:13 The good news, he also doesn’t know.
00:49:14 Okay, well put.
00:49:19 Let me ask a question that seems to preoccupy
00:49:24 the American mind from the perspective of Russia.
00:49:28 One, did Russia interfere in the 2016 U.S. election,
00:49:33 government sanction and future?
00:49:37 Two, will Russia interfere in the 2020 U.S. election?
00:49:42 And what does that interference look like?
00:49:45 It’s very old.
00:49:46 We had such an intelligent conversation.
00:49:48 And you are ruining everything
00:49:51 by asking such a stupid question.
00:49:53 It’s insulting for my intellect.
00:50:01 Of course they did interfere.
00:50:03 Of course they did absolutely everything to elect Trump.
00:50:05 I mean, they said it many times.
00:50:07 It is just, you know, I met enough KGB colonels in my life
00:50:11 to tell you that, you know,
00:50:12 just the way Putin looks at Trump, this is the way.
00:50:16 Look, and I don’t have to hear what he says,
00:50:18 what Trump says, it just is,
00:50:20 I don’t need to go through congressional investigations.
00:50:23 The way Putin looks at Trump
00:50:24 is the way the KGB officers looked at the assets.
00:50:28 It’s just, and following to 2020,
00:50:31 of course they will do absolutely everything
00:50:33 to help Trump to survive.
00:50:35 Because I think the damage that Trump’s reelections
00:50:37 could cause to America and to the free world,
00:50:40 it’s just, it’s beyond one’s imagination.
00:50:42 I think basically if Trump is reelected,
00:50:44 he will ruin NATO, because he’s already heading
00:50:47 in this direction, but now he’s just,
00:50:49 he’s still limited by the reelection hurdles.
00:50:56 If he’s still in the office after November, 2020,
00:51:01 okay, January, 2021, I don’t want to think about it.
00:51:05 My problem is not just Trump,
00:51:07 because Trump is basically, it’s a symptom.
00:51:09 But the problem is that I don’t see,
00:51:11 it’s just, it’s the, in American political horizon,
00:51:18 politicians who could take on Trump
00:51:22 for all damage that he’s doing for the free world.
00:51:25 Not just things that has happened
00:51:27 that went wrong in America.
00:51:28 So there’s the, it seems to me that the campaign,
00:51:30 political campaign on the Democratic side
00:51:32 is fixed on certain important, but still secondary issues.
00:51:37 Because when you have the foundation of the republic
00:51:40 in jeopardy, I mean, you cannot talk about healthcare.
00:51:44 I mean, I understand how important it is,
00:51:45 but it’s still secondary because the entire framework
00:51:48 of American political life is at risk.
00:51:50 And you have Vladimir Putin just,
00:51:53 it’s having, fortunately, free hands
00:51:56 by attacking America and other free countries.
00:52:00 And by the way, we have so much evidence
00:52:02 about Russian interference in Brexit,
00:52:04 in elections in almost every European country.
00:52:07 And thinking that they will be shy of attacking America
00:52:11 in 2020, now with Trump in the office, yeah.
00:52:15 I think it’s, yeah, it definitely diminishes
00:52:19 the intellectual quality of our conversation.
00:52:21 I do what I can.
00:52:24 Last question.
00:52:26 If you can go back, just look at the entirety of your life,
00:52:28 you accomplished more than most humans will ever do.
00:52:33 If you could go back and relive a single moment
00:52:35 in your life, what would that moment be?
00:52:43 There are moments in my life when I think
00:52:46 about what could be done differently, but.
00:52:52 No, experience happiness and joy and pride.
00:52:56 Just a touch once again.
00:52:58 I know, I know, but it’s the, it’s the,
00:53:00 I made many mistakes in my life.
00:53:01 So I just, it’s the, I know that at the end of the day,
00:53:05 it’s, I believe in the butterfly effect.
00:53:07 So it’s the, it’s the, I knew moments where I could,
00:53:11 now if I’m there at that point in 89 and 93,
00:53:16 you pick up a year, I could improve my actions
00:53:20 by not doing this stupid thing.
00:53:25 But then how do you know
00:53:26 that I will have all other accomplishments?
00:53:27 I just, I’m, I’m afraid that, you know,
00:53:31 we just have to just follow this,
00:53:34 if you may call wisdom before is gump, you know,
00:53:36 it’s the life is this, you know, it’s, this is,
00:53:38 it’s a box of, of, of, of chocolate
00:53:41 and you don’t know what’s inside,
00:53:42 but you have to go one by one.
00:53:44 So it’s the, I’m, I’m happy with who I am
00:53:47 and where I am today.
00:53:49 And I am very proud, not only with my chess accomplishments,
00:53:52 but that I made this transition.
00:53:54 And since I left chess, you know,
00:53:56 I built my own reputation that had some influence
00:54:00 on the game of chess, but not, it’s not, you know,
00:54:03 directly derived from, from, from the game.
00:54:06 I’m grateful for my wife.
00:54:08 So help me to build this life.
00:54:10 We actually married in 2005.
00:54:11 It was my third marriage.
00:54:12 That’s why I said I’d made mistakes in my life.
00:54:14 But, and by the way, I’m close with two kids
00:54:17 from my previous marriages.
00:54:18 So that’s, that’s the, I’m, you know,
00:54:20 I managed to sort of to balance my life and,
00:54:23 and here in, I live in New York.
00:54:25 So we have our two kids born here in New York.
00:54:28 It’s, it’s new life and it’s, you know, it’s, it’s busy.
00:54:31 Sometimes I wish I could, you know, I could limit
00:54:33 my engagement in many other things that are still,
00:54:37 you know, taking time and energy,
00:54:42 but life is exciting.
00:54:44 And as long as I can feel that I have energy,
00:54:48 I have strengths, I have passion to make the difference,
00:54:54 I’m happy.
00:54:56 I think that’s a beautiful moment to end on.
00:54:59 Gary, thank you very much for talking today.
00:55:02 Thank you.