Garry Kasparov: Chess, Deep Blue, AI, and Putin

The following is a conversation with Garry Kasparov. He is 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 a 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 5 stars on iTunes, support on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter lexfridman spelled F R I D M A N. And now, here's my conversation with Garry 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. 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 it's. I always believe 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 at 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 intuitively, I can go this way or that way. And there are always hesitations. People like you are just, you know, at a 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. Yes, you have certain ideas what happens on the right or on the left or just you know, if you go straight, but it's not enough to make well calculated choice. And when you play chess at the very top is, 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 love for winning, hateful losing. They were important elements, psychological elements. But the key element, 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 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, some original plan in the middle game, 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 chest to create something new, to look for those moments of some brilliant new ideas. But were you haunted by something? So you make it seem like to.

Be at the level you're 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, you know, darker forces, spiritual demons. I mean, do you have a call for a priest?

That's what I'm dressed.

Yeah. No, just. Let's go back to, to, to these crucial chess moments where I had to make big decisions. As I said, it's, it's, you know, 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 the. Yes, I, I, 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, I, having all respect for my opponent, I still believe that it's, it's up to me to make the difference. And I, you know, I knew I, I was not Invincible. I made mistakes, I made some blunders and you know, with age they, I, I made more blunders. So I knew it. But it's, it's still, you know, it's, it's very much for me to be decisive factor in the game. I mean even now. Look, I just, you know, my latest chess experience was horrible. I mean I, I played car Carana, Fabi carana. This number two, number two, number three player in the world these days we play this 960 was a Fischer so called Fisher 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, it's, you know, while I lost, I was not so much upset. I mean, I know as I said in my, 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, 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, gave me a 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 that sharp, but I could see, get him just, you know, almost, you know, on the ropes.

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 only just fighting by your biological clock. It's just, you know, maybe it's a signal because, you know, the goddess of chess, since you spoke right religious, the goodness 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, that's one of the top players who just recently played world championship match. If you could beat him, that was really bad for the game of chess, but just what people will say, oh look, the game of chess, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's not making any progress. The game is just, you know, it's, it's totally devalued. Because look, the, 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. 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 Mikel Tale, 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 was a creator. Some of them were so flamboyant and flashlight Tal. Some of them were just less discerned, the chessboard, like Tigran 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, you know, the brilliant games where pieces being sacrificed, it's all just, you know, all piece are hanging and it's all of a sudden, you know, being material down, rook down, or just, you know, queen down. The weaker side delivers the. The final blow and just, you know, mating opponent's king. But there's. There are other kinds of beauty. I mean, it's a slow positional maneuvering, you know, looking for weaknesses and just. And. And gradually strangling your opponent and eventually delivering sort of a positional masterpiece. Yeah, so I think I. I made more difference in the game of chess than I could, I could have imagined when I started playing. And the reason I thought it was time for me to. To leave is that, I mean, I knew that I was no longer in the position to bring the same kind of contribution, the same kind of new knowledge into the game. 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 world champion at age 22, but there were at least two games in that match. Of course, the Last 1, game 24, that was decisive game of the match, I won and became world champion. But also the way I won it was. 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, was made on the board and put on display, a lot of people thought it was ugly. So. And another game, game 16 in the match, where I just also managed to outplay Karpov completely with black pieces, just, you know, paralyzing his entire army in, in its own, its own camp.

Technically or psychologically? Or was that a mix of both in game 16?

Yeah, it, I think it was a big blow to Karpov. I think it was a big psychological victory for a number of reasons. Why? One, the score was equal at the 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, I should triple blow. Lost the game. It was a brilliant game and I played impeccably after, you know, just this, this, this opening bluff. And then, you know, they discovered that it was a bluff. So it's the. Again, I didn't know I was not bluffing. So that's why it's, it happens very often. It's when, you know, some ideas could be refuted. And it's just what I found out. And this is again going back to your, you know, spiritual theme is that it's, it's. You could spend a lot of time working. And when I say you could, it's just, it's, it's in the 80s, in the 90s, it doesn't happen these days because everybody has a computer. You know, you could immediately see if, if it works or it doesn't work. Machine shows your reputation in a split of a second. But many of the, our analysis in the 80s or in the 90s, they were not perfect simply because we were humans and they just, you, you, 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 and, 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 could 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, some, some brilliancy and, and I also can mention many games from the 90s. So it's the. Obviously all amateurs would pick up my game against veselin Topolov in 1999 and Vikingse again because it was a brilliant game. The Black king traveled from its own camp into white's camp across the entire board. It doesn't happen often, trust me. As you know, in the games of professional players, top professional players. So that's why visually it was one of the most impressive victories. But I could bring to our attention many other games that were not so impressive for, for amateurs. Not so, not so beautiful. Just because it's sacrifice. Always beautiful. You sacrifice pieces and then, and then eventually you have so very few resources left and you, you, you use them just to, to, to, to crush your, your opponent basically to. It's. You have to make the kink because you have almost, almost nothing, nothing, nothing left at your disposal. But I, you know, I up to the very end get less and less, but still up to the very end I always had games with some sort of, you know, interesting ideas and, and games that gave me great satisfaction. But I think it's. What happened from 2005 up to these days was also a very, very big accomplishment since, you know, I had to find myself, to sort of relocate myself.

Yeah, re. Channel the creative energies.

Exactly. And to, 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. You know, the moment you start ranking.

Yeah. You lose something.

It's the, I think it's, it's, it's not fair because it's the. 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 disregard the fact that the great players of the past, whether Lask or Cavaplan Lokhin, I mean, they knew so little about chess by today's standards. I mean, today just any kid, you know, that spent few years, you know, with his or her chess computer knows much more about the games 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, you know, could be on top, but very short period of time. Then you should also add a time factor. Yes, I was on top. Not as big as, but much longer. So that's so. And also unlike Fischer, I was succeed. I succeeded in beating next generation.

Yeah, here's the question. Yeah, let's see if you still got the fire speaking of the next generation, because you did succeed beating the next generation next.

It's close. Okay. And short. Anand the sheer of Kramnik is already 12 years younger. So that's a. That's. But still yet I, I competed with them and I just, I beat most of them and, 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 yet an unparalleled ability to use the every piece with a maximum effect. Just. It's minimal resources always produce maximum effect. Just so now imagine that you merge these two styles. So it is, it's. It's like, you know, it's squeezing every stone for a drop of water. But, 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. There are 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, it's the discussion that is, I saw recently in Internet, whether Garry Kasparov always peak, let's say late 80s.

Yeah.

Could beat Magnus Carlson 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 Carlson 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 see Maradona in action. I saw all of them in action. So that's why. But it's, 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, there were big stars and it's. Messi is already just, I, I, I was gradually losing interest, other things. So I remember Pele in 1970, the final match, Brazil, Italy. So that's the first world, World World cup soccer I watched. So that's the, and, and actually my answer when I just, when I just, you know, I, because I, 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 the 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 yes, you could say if you ask Maradona, if you look in his eyes, especially let's say Garry Kasparov in 1989, he would have said, I was sure as hell would beat Magnus Carlsen.

Just simply the confidence, the fire. Simply because. Simply because, again, they saw me in action. So this, again, it's. The age factor is important, definitely, with the passion and energy and being equipped with all modern ideas. But again, then you make a very just important assumption that you could empower Garry Kasparov, 89 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years. That would not be Garag Esparov, that would be someone else. Yeah, because again, I belong 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 ingest in rating, which is this, it's even today. So this is, this is the rating that I retired.

So that's.

It's still, you know, it's just, it's a, it's a top two to three. So that's as. This is Caruana and Ding. It's about the same rating now. And I crossed 2800 in 1990, which is. You look at the inflation. When I crossed 2800 in 1990, there was only one player in 2700 category, Anatoly Karpov. Now he 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 the 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 beat a 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 you said, physically painful. Why, when you look back, your psychology of that loss, why was it so painful? Were you not able to see the seminal nature of that moment?

Or.

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. Yes, 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, I Had all reasons to believe that, you know, there were other, 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 what under the bridge we can analyze this match. And this is with everything you said I, I agree with 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 could see things that you know, the ordinary mortals could not see. It's a game and all machines had to do game is just to make fewer mistakes, not to solve the game because the game cannot be solved. I mean according to Kuala Shannon the number of legal moves is 10 to the 46 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 Shogi, with video games, it's a demonstration that machines will always beat 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 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. The gap is, I mean by chess standards is insane. 3435-002080-02850 on Magnus it's like difference between Magnus and an ordinary player from an open international tournament. It's not because machine understands 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 of affairs with Alphazero beating other machines, the idea that we can compete with computers in so called intellectual fields, it was wrong from the very beginning. By the way, the 1997 match was not the first victory of machines over.

Or grandmasters over grandmasters.

Yeah, no, actually I played against first decent chess computers from late 80s. So I played with the prototype of Deep Blue called deep thought in 1989. Two rapid chess games in New York. I won handily both games. We played against new chess engines like Fritz and other programs. And then it's the was Israeli program Junior that appeared in 1985. Yeah, so there were several programs. I, you know, I lost few games in blitz. I lost one match against the computer chess engine, 1994 rapid chess. So I lost one game to D 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. Yes. Because we didn't have enough time. If you play a longer match, we will not make the same mistakes. Nonsense. So this. Yeah, we had more time, but we still make mistakes. And machine also has more time. And machines, machine will always, you know, we always be steady and consistent compared to humans instabilities and inconsistencies. And today we are at a point where nobody talks about humans playing as machines. Now machines can offer handicap to top players and still will be favored. I think we're just learning that it's no longer human versus machines. It's about human working with machines. That's what I recognized in 1998, just after leaking my wounds and spending one year 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 D Blue. I'm not speaking about chess engines that are so much superior. And by the way, when you analyze games we played against dblue 1997 on your chess engine, they'll be laughing. Yeah. So this is. And it 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. Yeah. Within 30 seconds they will show you how many mistakes both Gary and D Blue made in the game that was trumpeted as the, as a great Chess match in 1997.

Well, okay, so you've made an interesting, if you can untangle that kind of 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 by the way in Europe, because you know, you move to the Far east, they will go, they, they, they had shown games, games again some of the games like you know, board games. Yes, there's a. 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, like 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 flip 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 ruleset, 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 these, it's, I think it's in human machine relations we have to consider so our role and people, many people feel uncomfortable that this, the territory that belongs to us is shrinking. I'm saying so what you know, this is eventually will belong to the last few decimal points. But it's like having so very powerful gun that's. 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, 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 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 rather than having 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 is just it's, it's, it's one or another variation of what Claude Shannon characterized as a brute force is a type A machine. Whether it's Deep Blue, whether it's Watson, it's. And all these, these modern technologies that are being trumpeted as, as AI it's still brute force. It's the, all they do, it's. They do optimization, it's this they are, you know, they, 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 Backgammon.

Interesting, interesting in backgammon.

Yes. You should look at IBM it's a neuro Gammon. It's the scientist called Cesaro, he's still working at IBM they had in the early 90s. It's the program that played 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 called and now just you know, everybody talks about 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 generated in chess were quite intriguing. So I, I looked at these games with. Not just with interest but with you know it's 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. Now the simple question, if Alphazero faces superior point, 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, spoke to Demis Kasabis 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's this because the whole system is based. So it's. Now imagine Solar says you can have a human by just making a few tweaks. So humans are still more flexible and as long as we recognize what is our role where we can play sort of the most valuable part 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, is being asked all the time these days, and I think it's another phantom that is haunting a general public because it's just being fed with this, you know, illusions is that how can we avoid machines, you know, having bias, being prejudices. Yeah, you cannot, because it's like looking in the mirror and complaining about what you 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. By yourself, yes. So it's very important to understand is this is you cannot expect machines to, to improve the ills of our society. And moreover, machines will simply, you know, just, you know, amplify.

Yes. Yeah, but the thing is, people are more comfortable with other people doing injustice, 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 place on machines with autonomous vehicles, they have to be much safer. With automated systems, of course, they're much safer.

Statistically, they're much safer 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 think it just goes without saying the outcome 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 statistics. One accident with autonomous vehicle and it's front page of a newspaper.

Yes.

So again it's about psychologists. 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're human. Yes, machines always. And by the way, no machine will ever reach 100% perfection. That's another, that's another important fake story that, that, that, that is being fed to the public. If machine doesn't reach 100% performance is not safe. No. All you can ask any computer, whether it, you know, or platform playing chess or doing the stock market calculations or driving your autonomous vehicle, it's to make fewer mistakes. And yes, I know it's not easy for us to accept because ah, 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 humans fault, terrible. How could you allow a machine 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 D 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 it. The match was not, you know, fairly organized. So it's definitely. They were unfair 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 absolute algorithm?

Absolutely. Look, I mean I, 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 this, and that's the, and I lost. 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, I underestimated the effect. You know, just, it's and, and being called the, you know, the, the, the brain's last stand, you know, it's. Okay, 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 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 for private initiative, central planning systems, they doomed, they just, you know, 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 its factors. I always like to mention, you know, one of my favorite books, the Lord of the Rings, that the, there's no, 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 not clear. It's. I mean, nobody argues about Hitler being absolutely evil, but I think it's very important to recognize Stalin was absolutely 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 Nurburgrism. And that's why we could see still the successors of Stalin are feeling far more comfortable. Putin is one of them.

You highlight a few interesting connections actually between Stalin and Hitler in, in terms of the adjusting or clarifying the, the history of World War II, which is very interesting. Of course, we don't have time, so let me ask, you can ask.

You know, I just I just recently delivered a speech in Toronto.

Yeah.

At 80th anniversary of Malta Ribbentrop Pact. It's something that I believe, you know, just, you know, has. Must. Must be taught in the schools that the World War II had been started by two dictators by signing these. This criminal treaty, collusion of two tyrants in August 1939 that led to the beginning of 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 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 is vocal, and he may be in trouble. World chess 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 what's the. Was not my first choice, but I knew I had to leave Russia at one point, and among other places, New York is the safest. Is it safe? No. I mean, it's just. It's the. I know what happens, what happened, what is happening with many of Putin 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 we 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 Soviet dissidents. Do what you must, and so be it. I could try to be cautious by not traveling to certain places where my security could be at risk. There are 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 it just in 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. When?

Even sooner than many people think. Because I think Putin's regime is facing unsurmountable 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. 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 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? Two, 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, and you are ruining everything by asking such a stupid question.

It's just go downhill the entire way.

Yeah, but it's, it's, it's, it's, it's insulting for my intellect. Okay. 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. Yeah, this is the way looks. And I don't have to hear what he says. What Trump says, you know, just is, I don't need to go through congressional investigations. The way Putin looks at Trump is the way the KGB officers looked at the assets. It's just, and following to 2020, of course they will do absolutely everything to help Trump to survive. Because I think the damage that Trump's re elections 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 re election 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 a symptom, but the problem is that 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 happen that went wrong in America. So it seems to me that the 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, I mean, you cannot talk about health care, I mean, 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 Russia, 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, I think it's. Again, it definitely diminishes the intellectual quality of our Congress.

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?

There are moments in my life when I think about what could be done differently, but no.

Experience happiness and joy and pride just. Just to, just to touch.

What is this? It's the. 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, in 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 wisdom of Forest Gump. You know, it's the life is this. You know, it's a box of, 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 made mistakes in my life. But. And by the way, I'm close with two kids from my previous marriages, so that's, that's the. I mean, I managed to sort of to balance my life. And. And here, you know, I live in New York, so we have our two kids born here in New York. It's. It's new life, and it's, you know, it's. 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 strength, 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 today.

Thank you.