Garry Kasparov: Chess, Deep Blue, AI, and Putin | Lex Fridman Podcast #46

the following is a conversation with Gary Kasparov he's considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time from 1986 until his retirement in 2005 he dominated the chess world ranking world number one for most of those 19 years while he has many historical matches against human chess players in 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 civilizations future that excitement inspired an entire generation of AI researchers including myself to get into the field gary is also a pro-democracy political thinker and leader a fearless human rights activist and author of several books including how life imitates chess which is a book on strategy and decision-making winter is coming which is a book articulating his opposition to the Putin regime and deep thinking which is a book on the role of both artificial intelligence and human intelligence in defining our future this is the artificial intelligence podcast if you enjoy it subscribe on YouTube give it five stars and iTunes support it on patreon or simply connect with me on Twitter Alex Friedman spelled Fri D ma a.m. and now here's my conversation with Garry Kasparov as perhaps the greatest chess player of all time when you look introspectively your psychology throughout your career what was the bigger motivator the love of winning or the hatred of losing tough question I have to confess I never heard it before each 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 I always believed that the result of the game had to be decided by the quality of my play okay you may say it sounds arrogant but it helped me to move forward because I always knew that there was room for improvement so it's the was there the fear the mistake actually fear of mistake guarantees mistakes and the difference between top players and 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 they're always hesitations people like your you're just you know at the crossroad you can go right you can go left you can go straight you can turn and go back and the consequences are just very uncertain yes you have certain ideas what happens on the right or on the left or on 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 it's 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 feel confidence that I will go through going back to the original question is I would say neither it's just it's the it's love for winning hateful losing there were important elements psychological elements but the key element it's the I would say the the driving force was always my passion for for making it make any difference it's just I can move forward and I can always its I can always enjoy not just playing but creating something new creating something new how do you think about that it's just finding new ideas in the openings you know some regional plan in the middle game it's actually that helped me to make the transition from the game of chess where I wasn't a very top two to another life where I knew I would not be number one I would don't 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 were I knew my influence may not be as decisive as in chess but still strong enough to help people to make their choices so you can still create something new that makes a difference in the world outside of chess but wait you've kind of painted a beautiful picture of your motivations to chess to create something new to look for those moments of some brilliant new ideas but were you haunted by something see you make it seem like to be at the level you are at you can get away without having demons without without having fears without being driven if by some of the darker forces I mean you sound almost religious you know dark forces to reach you know humans and we do have a pole for a priest now just let's go back to you 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 always had an opponent across the chessboard opposite me but no matter how strong their point was well they just were ordered player or another wall champion I can't leak or proof I haven't called respect for my opponent I still believe that it's it's up to me to make the difference and I I knew I I was not invincible I made mistakes I made some blunders and you know with age I mean more blunders okay good 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 get played carolallan Khurana fatphobia Khurana it's number two number two number three player well these days we play this 960 which they fish for so call Fisher a random chairs from shuffling 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 got so much upset I mean I know as I said in my interview I can fight any opponent but not my biological clock it's fighting time with is is 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 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 as strong and DTS are another sharp but I could get him just you know almost you know two on the ropes Oh got it it's still got it and that's you know and it's it's my wife said it well I mean she said look Gary it's somehow it's something you just fighting viola your biological clock it's just you know maybe it's a signal because you know the goddess of chess since you spoke lean religious the goodness of chess Keysha maybe she didn't wound you twin because you know if you could beat number - number three pride in the world I mean this is this one of the better top players who just recently played World Championship match if you could beat him it's that was really bad for the game of chess just what people who say oh look the game of chess you know it's it's it's not make any progress the game is just you know it's it's totally devalued because Italy 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 okay I've been following your logic we should always look for you know demons you know superior forces and other things that did you know if not dominate our lives but somehow in a play a significant role in in the outcome yeah so the goddess's chess had to send a message yeah 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 twenty years even still got it is there a moment you said you always look to create something new is there is there games or moments where you're especially proud of in terms of your brilliance of a new creative move we've talked about mikhail tall as somebody who was aggressive and creative chess player in your own game look you mentioned mikhail call it's very aggressive very sharp player famous ways combinations and sacrifices even called magician from riga so for his very unique style but any any world champion you know it's yeah was a creator some of them were so flamboyant and flash like call some of their world no just you know less discerned at 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 pieces are hanging and and it's all of a sudden you know being material down rube or just you know queen down the the the weaker side delivers the the final blow on just you know amazing opponent's king but this there are other kinds of beauty slow positioning when you ring you know looking for witnesses and just and and gradually really 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 then I could I could have imagined when I started playing and the reason I thought it was time for me to leave is just I mean I knew that I was not I was not no longer the position to bring bring the same kind of contribution the same kind of new knowledge into the game so and going back I could immediately look at my games again sounds only corpus 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 one game 24 that was decisive game of the match i won and became world champion but also the way a wise was it was a very hard game and i found a unique maneuver that was absolutely new and it became some sort of just a typical now though just when the move was made was made at the on the board and put on display a lot of people thought it was ugly so and another game game 16 and the match or I just also managed to outlay Karpov completely was black pieces just you know paralyzing his entire army 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 one the score was equal at a time and the world champion you know by the rules could retain his title in case of a tie so we still have no 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 reputation of this opening idea and and I think it says for carpel it was double blow because not that he lost the game I should triple blow he lost the game it was a brilliant game and I played impeccably after you know justice this opening Bluff and then you know they discovered that it was a bluff so it's the again I didn't know it I wasn't bluffing so that's why by 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 and 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 does happen these days because everybody has a computer you could immediately see if it works or it doesn't work machines show the refutation in the split of a second but many of the our analysis in the eighties or in the 90s they were not perfect simply because we're humans and they're just you you analyze the game you look for some fresh ideas and then test it happens that there was something that you missed because the level of concentration at the chessboard it's different from one that when you analyze the game just moving the pieces around but somehow if you spend a lot of time at the chessboard preparing so in your studies with your coaches hours and hours and hours and nothing of what you found could had materialized on the our own chests on the chess board somehow these hours helped I don't know I always helped you it's it's as if you know 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 it was 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 you and your passion to discover new ideas and your ability during the game add the chess board when the clock was ticking we still had ticking clock not so to come up with some some some brilliancy and them and I also can mention many games from the 90s so it's the obviously all amateurs would pick up my game against Veselin Topalov in 1999 and we can say again because it was a Bruin game the black king traveled from from its own camp to into D into in the white scam across the entire board it doesn't happen often trust me as you know in in in indie games were professional players top professional players so that's why I visually it was one of the most impressive victories but I could bring to your attention many other games that were not so impressive for for amateurs not so note so beautiful just guess it's sacrifice always beautiful you sacrificed asses and then and then eventually you have so there are 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 in 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 you these days was also a very very big accomplishment since you know I had to find myself to sort of relocate myself yeah we channel the creative energies exactly do you find something worth feel comfortable even confident that my participation still makes the difference beautifully put so let me ask perhaps a silly question but sticking our chests for just a little longer where do you put Magnus Carlsen in the current world champion in a 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 well do something it's the I think it's it's it's not fair because it's any new generation knows much more about the game than their previous one so when people say Gary was the greatest Fischer was the greatest Magnus was the greatest it disregard the fact that the great players of the past where the last year have a plank looking I mean they knew so little about chess by today's standards today just any kid you know that spent few years you know and uh with his or her chess computer when knows much more about the game simply just because you actually 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 proud official you know could be on top but very short period of time then you should also add a time factor yeah I was on top not as big as but but much longer so so and also unlike Fischer I will succeed 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 it's close okay well Anand short Anand the sheer of chromic is already 12 years younger so that's a neck that's but still yet I I competed with them and I just had beat most of them and and I was still dominant when I left at age of the 41 so back to Magnus Madras right consistency is phenomenal the reason Magnus is on top and it seems unbeatable today Magnus is is a lethal combination of Fischer on Karpov but just very it's very unusual because Fischer style was very dynamic just fighting to the last point just using every resource available Karpov was very different as just yet an unparalleled ability to use the every piece with a maximum effect just it's minimal resources always produce maximum effects just so now imagine that you merge these two styles say oh it is it's it's like you know it's a squeezing every stone for drop of water but but doing it you know just you know for 50 60 70 80 moves I mean mangas could go on as long as Fisher who is always passion and energy and at the same time being as meticulous and and and and deadly as corporal by just you know using every little advantage so and yes good you know very good else it's important I mean physical conditions are by the way very important so a lot of people don't recognize it their latest study shows that chess players burn thousands of calories during the game so that puts him on the top of this fuel of of the wall chambers but again it's the discussion that is I so recently in internet whether garry kasparov always peek let's say late 80s could be Magnus Carlsen today I mean something irrelevant because garriga's probably 1989 okay it's played great chess but still I knew very little about chess compared to Magnus crossing 2019 who Biden will learn 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 miss because maybe because he's younger but that's simple your instinct answer is correct because you saw you didn't say marathon 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 in air just it's pillion and Maradona they were just you know there were big stars and it's Macy's already just get I I was gradually losing interest other things so I remember Pele 1970 the final match Brazil Italy so that's the first world war World Cup soccer I watched so that's the and and actually my answer when it just where that just you know I because I I was asked this question as well so I say that is this while it's impossible to make a choice I would sue probably go with Maradona for simple reason the Brazilian team in 1970 could have won without Collette it was absolutely great still could have won maybe but it is the Argentinian team in 1986 without Maradona would not be in the 5s so this is and Messi he still has that's not good 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 Gary Kasparov 99 he would have said I was sure as hell would be magnus carlsen it's just simply the confidence fire simply because simply because again it's just a so mean action so this again it's it's the age factor as important therefore is a passion and energy and and being equipped with all modern ideas but again then you make in a very just important assumption that you could empower Gary Kasparov 89 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years that would not be Garrigus part that would be someone else because again I belong to 1989 I was way ahead of the field and I you know a bit Karpov several times in World Championship matches and I crossed 2,800 which by the way if you look at the chest in rating which is just it's even today so this is this is the rating that I retire so that says it's still you know it's just it's a it's a top two to three so that says this is kerwin and eaglets about the same rating now and I crossed 2,100 in 1990 we just look at the inflation when I cross 2,800 in in 1990 there was only one player in 2700 category Anatoly Karpov now he had more than 50 so just you see this so if you add inflation so I think my 28:51 it could probably could be more valuable as Magnus 2882 which was highest rating but anyway yeah you know so many hypotheticals you're lost to IBM gee blue in 1997 in my eyes there's one of the most seminal moments in the history again I apologize for being romanticized in the notion but in the history of our civilization because humans as the civilizations for century 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 the entire generation of AI researchers and yet to you that laws at least if reading your face was seemed like a tragedy extremely painful like you said physically painful why when you look back at your psychology that lost why was it so painful when you're not able to see the seminal nature of that moment Oh or was that exactly why was that powerful as I already said losing was painful physically passing 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 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 the result of my bad play yes SoDo I played quite poorly you know just when you started looking at the games today I made tons of mistakes but you know I had all reasons to believe that you know there were other other factors that had nothing to do with the game of chess and that's what 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 it was probably one exception is that considering chess you know as the sort of as a pinnacle of intellectual activities what's our mistake because you know we just thought oh it's a it's a game of the highest intellect and I just you know you have to be so you know intelligent and as you could see things that you know the or the ordinary ordinary mortals could not see it's a game and all machines had to do with this game is just to make fewer mistakes not to solve the game because the game cannot be solved I mean according to Shannon the number of legal moves is ten to the 46 power too many zeroes for any computer to finish the job you know in in in neck 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 shrug II with video games it's a demonstration that it's the machines will always beat humans in what I call closed systems the moment you build a closed system no matter how this system is called chess go froggie daughter machines will prevail simply because they will bring down number of mistakes machines don't have to solve it they just have to it's the way they outplay us it's not by just being more intelligent it's just by by doing something else but eventually it's just it's capitalizing on our mistakes when you look at the chess machines ratings today in compare compare this to Magnus Carlsen is the same as comparing Ferrari to Hussein bold it's the the gap is is I meant by chess standards is insane thirty four thirty five hundred to twenty eight hundred twenty eight twenty eight twenty eight fifty one man knows it's like difference between macros and AB 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 we we have to learn from 1997 experience and from further encounters with computers and sort of the the current state state of affairs was alpha zero you beating other machines the idea that we can compete with computers in so-called intellectual fields it's it was wrong from the very beginning it's just it's by the way if 1997 match was not the first victory of machines over our masters or masters yeah no actually it's I played against first decent chess computers from late from late 80s so I played with the prototype of deep blue called deep thought in 1989 to repeat chest in New York I want handily those games we played against new chess engines like Fritz and other programs and then it Steve was Israeli problem jr. that appeared in yeah so there were several problems I you know I lost few games in blitz I lost one match against the computer a chess engine 1994 rapid chess so I lost one game 2d blue in 1996 match the manner the match chef I want 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 twenty five minutes just because we didn't have enough time if you play a longer match we will not make the same mistake 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 I will always be stated inconsistent compared to humans instabilities and inconsistencies and today we are at a point where yes nobody talks about you know humans playing use machines machines can offer handicap two to two top players still you know will will will be favoring I think we're just learning that is it's it's no longer human versus machines it's about human working with machines that's what I recognized in 1998 just after licking my wounds and spending one year in just in a ruminating Saudi so what's happened at in this match and I knew that though we still could play against the machines I had two more matches in 2003 playing both a deep freeze and deep jr. both matches and there's a tie mmm-hmm though this machines were not weaker at least I promise stronger and II blue and by the way today just app on your mobile phone is probably stronger than the blue individual I'm not speaking of any bit about chess engines that are so much superior and by the way when you analyze games who played against the blue 90 97 on your chess engine they'll be laughing yeah so this is and it's also shows that's how it just changed because just commentators they look at some of our games like game for Game five and idea now you asked stockfish you asked Houdini you asked Commodore all the leading chess engines yeah within 30 seconds they will show you how many mistakes booze Gary and D blue mate in the game that was from Pettitte as the as a great chess match in 1997 well okay so you've made an interesting if you can untangle that comment so now in retrospect it was a mistake to see chess as the peak of human intellect nevertheless that was done for centuries so even in Europe because you know you move to the far east they will go there shogi games again I guess some of the games like you look our board games yes yes yeah so if I push back a little bit so now you say that okay but it was a mistake to see chess as the epitome and now and then now there's other things maybe like language that conversation like some of the things that in your view is still way out of reach of computers but inside humans do you think can you talk about what those things might be and do you think just like chess that might fall soon with the same set of approaches if you look at alpha zero the same kind of learning approaches as the machines grow in size no no it's not about in size it's about again it's about understanding the difference but in closed system an open-ended system so you think that key difference so the board games are closed in terms of the rules that they actions simple 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 the territory of diminishing returns hmm it's the simple in a different way machine doesn't know how to ask right questions it can ask questions but we'll never tell you which questions are relevant so this D it's like about the it's the it's a direction so these it's I think is in human relations we have to consider so our role and people many people feel uncomfortable that is the territory that that belongs to us is is shrinking I'm saying so what you know is this is eventually will belong to the last few decimal points but it's like having so very powerful gun that's and and and and all you can do there is slightly you know alter direction of the bullet maybe you know point one the degree of this angle but that means a mile away ten meters of tourists so so that's we have to recognize that is a certain unique human qualities that machine's in the foreseeable future will not be able to reproduce and and the effectiveness of this cooperation collaboration depends on our understanding what exactly we can bring into the game so the greatest danger is when we try to interfere with machines 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 then rather than having top professor because she will not try to interfere with machines understanding so this 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 it happened we it's like in chess recognize they they do it better see where we can make the difference you mentioned alpha 0 alpha 0 it's a 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 its what's in it and all these the modern technologies that are being competitors as AI it's still boot force it's the all video it's they do optimization it's this they are you know they they keep you know improving the way to process human generated data hmm now alpha zero is is the first step towards you know machine produced knowledge yes which is why what by the way it's quite ironic that the first company that jumped on that was ideal oh it's in backgammon interesting in that again yes you just you should you should you should look at IBM is this it's a new gammon it's the it's the he's still working IBM they had in early nineties it says it's the it's in the program that played in LD alpha 0 type so just trying to come up with own strategies but because of success of the blue this project had been not abandoned but just you know it's it's it wasn't was put on call and now it just you know it's it's it's you know it's every talks about about this t the machines generated knowledge so as a revolutionary and it is but there's still you know many open-ended questions yes alpha 0 generates its own data many ideas that alpha 0 generating chess work quite intriguing so I I looked at these games was not just with interest but was no it was quite exciting to learn how machine could actually you know juggle all the pieces and just play positions with a broken material balance sacrificing material always being ahead of other programs you know one or two moves ahead by by foreseeing the consequence 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 like feels like intuition exactly but there's one problem yeah now the simple question if if alpha 0 faces superior point let's say another powerful computer accompanied by human who could help just to discover certain problems because I already I look at many alpha 0 games I visited their lab spoke to demis hassabis and his team and I I know that certain witnesses there now if these wings are exposed and that question is how many games will it take for alpha zero to correct it the answer is hundreds of thousands even if it keeps losing it it's this because the whole system is based yes so it's now imagine so that says you can have a human by just making few tweaks so humans are still more flexible and and as long as we recognize what is what is our raw where we can play sort of so 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 machine's certainly don't know how to do yet which is morality machines and morality but it's another question that I know just it's that's as being asked all the time these days and I 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 vote machines you know having bias need prejudices 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 itself yes by yourself yes so it's very important to understand is this is you cannot expect machines to to improve the ease of our society and moreover machines will simply know just you know amplified yes yeah but the thing is people are more comfortable with other people doing injustice would 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 because they're much safer statistically they're much safer than then 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 is safer i I think it just goes without saying is the the outcome of the of this alcohol competition but comparison is very clear but the problem is not about being in a safer it's the forty thousand people will show every year died in car accidents United States and it's its statistics one accident ways with autonomous vehicle and it's front page of a newspaper yeah this was cycle so it's while people you know kill each other in car accidents because they make mistakes they make more mistakes for me it's it's it's not a question of course we make more mistakes because we human yes machines old and by the way no machine will ever reach hundred percent perfection that's not that that's another important take story that that that is being fed to the public if machine doesn't reach hundreds and performance is not safe no all you can ask any computer whether it's you know playing chess or or doing the stock market calculations or driving your autonomous vehicle it's to make fewer mistakes and yes I know it's not you know it's not easy for us to accept because ah if you know if you have to humans you know colliding in their cars okay it's like if one of one of these cars is autonomous very vehicle and by the way even if it's humans fault terrible how could you allow a machine to do it you to run without driver ID at the wheel so you know let's think of 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 a match and that's why I was angry because I believe they're lost the match was not you know fairly organized so the states definitely they were unfair advantages for for IBM and I want to play there another match like rubble mess so you're angered or displeasure was a more like at the humans behind IBM versus the actual your absolute algorithm absolutely look I I knew at the time and by the way I was objectively speaking I was stronger at that time so that's that we added to my anger because I knew I could beat machine yeah yeah so this and that's the and 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 hole is this the publicity around the match so I underestimated the effect you know just it's Andy and being called the you know the the brains lost and ounce 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 look I'm pushing forward into what Russia is if you look at the long arc of history of the 20th century what do we take away what do we take away from that I think the lesson of history is clear undemocratic systems totalitarian regimes systems that are based on controlling their citizens and just every aspect of their life not offering opportunities to for private initiative central planning systems they duped they just you know they they cannot be driving force for innovation so they in in history timeline I mean they could cause certain you know distortion of the concept of progress they by the way call themselves progressive but we know that is this the damage that they cost to to humanity is just it's it's 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 a lot of the Rings daddy there's no there's no absolute good but there's an absolutely good you know it comes in many forms but we all you know it's humans or being even you know humans from fairy tales or just some sort of mystical creatures it's they you can always find spots on the song so this is conducting war and just and fighting you 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 absolutely you we know it's for me it's now clear that's I mean it's nobody argues about Hitler being absolutely well but I think it's very poor against Stalin was absolutely communism caused more damage than any other ideology in the 20th century and unfortunately while we all know that fascist was condemned but there was no nerble for common communism and that's why we could see you know still is the these the successors of Stalin are feeling far more comfortable so you is one of them you highlight a few interesting connections actually between Stalin and Hitler I mean there that in in terms of the adjusting or clarifying the the history of war to which they're interesting of course we don't have time so let me ask you I just I just recently delivered a speech in Toronto yeah at a decent roast of Malta ribbon from pact it's something that I believe you know just you know has must must be taught in the schools and the world what you had been started by to dictators by signing these these criminal criminal treaty collusion of two tyrants in August 1939 that the beginning of the world World War two and the fact that eventually Stalin had no choice but to join allies because Hitler attack him so it just doesn't you know eliminated the fact that Stalin helped Hitler to start World War two and he was one of the beneficiary said early at early stage by annexing part of Eastern Europe and as a result of the war with you he annexed always entire Eastern Europe and for many Eastern European nations the end of the world would you was the beginning of communist occupation hmm so Putin you've talked about as a man who stands between Russia and democracy essentially today you've been a strong opponent and critic of Putin let me ask again how much does fear enter your mind and heart so in 2007 there's this interesting comment from Oleg Kalugin KGB general he said that I do not talk details people who knew them are all dead now because they were vocal I'm quiet there's only one man who's vocal and he may be in trouble World 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 oh that's the reason I live in New York so what's they 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 interested Steve I know what happens what happened what is happening who is many of Putin enemies but at the end of the day I mean what can I do it it's I I could be very proactive by trying to change things I can influence but here are way effects I 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 were you know my security could be at risk there's so many invitations to speak at different locations in the world and I have to say that many countries are just now are not destinations that I can afford to travel my mother still lives in Moscow and meet her a few times a year she was devastated when I had to leave Russia because since my father died in 1971 so she was 33 and she dedicated her entire life to her only son but she recognized in just a year or so since I left Russia that it was the only chance for me to continue my normal life so just is to I mean to be relatively safe and to to do what she taught me to do to make the difference do you think you will ever return to Russia or oh I'm sure when it won't sooner than many people think because I think Putin regime is facing insurmountable different difficulties and again I read enough historical books to know that dictatorships they they end suddenly it's just on Sunday dictator feels comfortable he believes he's popular on Monday morning his bust the good news and bad news I mean the bad news is that I don't know when and how Putin rule ends the good news he also doesn't know okay well put let me ask a question that seems to preoccupy the American mind from the perspective of Russia one did Russia interfere in the 2016 US election government-sanctioned and future two will rush into fear in the 2020 US election and what does that interference look like it's very old you know we had such an intelligent conversation and you are ruining everything by asking such as healthy but it's it's insulting for my intellect okay of course they did interfere over horse they did absol everything to elect Trump I mean they said it many times he this is you know I met enough KGB Colonels in my life to tell you that you know just the way put it looks at Trump yeah this is the way Luke said I don't have to hear what he says what Trump says it just is I don't need to go through congressional instigations the way he put it looks at Trump it's the way the KGB officers looked at the assets it's just and following to 20/20 of course they will do absolutely everything to help Trump to survive because I think they damage that Trump's relations could cause to America and to the free world it's just it's beyond one's imagination I think basically from was reelected she'll 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 think about it my problem is not just Trump because Trump is basically it's a symptom but the problem is that I don't see it just it's the in American political horizon politicians who could take on Trump for for all damage that he's doing for the free world not just things that that's happened that went wrong in America so this the it seems to me that the campaign political campaign on the Democratic side is is fixed on certain important but still second duration guess when you have the foundation the Republican jeopardy I mean you cannot talk about health care I mean understand how important it is but it's still secondary because the a framework familiar political life is at risk and you have rather intrusion just you know just it's having the free hands bye-bye he's by attacking America and other free countries and by doing we have so much evidence about Russia intervals and brexit in elections in almost every European country and thinking that they will be shy of attacking America in 2020 now is we strong in the office yeah I think it's um yeah it definitely diminishes the intellectual quality falklands 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 could 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-just is this it's the it's look I made many mistakes in my life so I just it's there I know that at the end of the day it's I believe in the butterfly effect so is the it's the I knew moments where I could now if I'm there at that point in 89 in 93 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 compliments yeah I just I'm I'm afraid that you know we just have to just follow this if you make all wisdom before is Gumpy know it's the life as this you know it's this it's a box of affair of chocolate and you don't know what's inside but you have to go one by one so it's the I'm 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 of the game of chess but not it's not you know directly derived from from the game I'm grateful for my wife so who helped me to build his life we actually married in 2005 it was my sure marriage that's why I said that make mistakes in my wife but I died by the way I'm close with two kids from my previous marriages so that's tasty I mean I managed to sort of to balance my life and and hear it I live in New York so we have our two kids born here in New York it's its 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 said I still you know taking time and energy but life is exciting and as long as I can feel that I've energy I have strengths I have passion to make the difference I'm happy I think that's a beautiful moment and on Gary spicy buh-bye sure thank you very much for talking to me thank you possible you

Channel: Lex Fridman

Views: 307,750

Rating: 4.8965516 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: 8RVa0THWUWw

Length: 55min 24sec (3324 seconds)

Published: Sun Oct 27 2019