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

Garry Kasparov 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 1 for most of those 19 years. While he has many historic matches against human chess players, in the long arc of history he may be remembered for his match again a 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. Garry 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 the role of both artificial intelligence and human intelligence in defining our future. This conversation is part of the Artificial Intelligence podcast. If you would like to get more information about this podcast go to https://lexfridman.com/ai or connect with @lexfridman on Twitter https://twitter.com/lexfridman, LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman/, Facebook https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman, Medium https://medium.com/@lexfridman, or YouTube https://www.youtube.com/lexfridman where you can watch the video versions of these conversations. If you enjoy the podcast, please rate it 5 stars on Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/artificial-intelligence/id1434243584 or support it on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman. Here’s the outline with timestamps for this episode (on some players you can click on the timestamp to jump to that point in the episode): 00:00 – Introduction 01:33 – Love of winning and hatred of losing 04:54 – Psychological elements 09:03 – Favorite games 16:48 – Magnus Carlsen 23:06 – IBM Deep Blue 37:39 – Morality 38:59 – Autonomous vehicles 42:03 – Fall of the Soviet Union 45:50 – Putin 52:25 – Life

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Lex Fridman?

  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 the long arc of history, he may be remembered for his match against the machine, IBM's Deep Blue. His initial victories and eventual loss to Deep Blue captivated the imagination of the world, of what role artificial intelligence systems may play in our civilization's future. That excitement inspired an entire generation of AI researchers, including myself, to get

• 0:45Lex Fridman?

  into the field. Garry is also a pro-democracy political thinker and leader, a fearless human rights activist, and author of several books, including How Life Imitates Chess, which is a book on strategy and decision-making, Winter Is Coming, which is a book articulating his opposition to the Putin regime, and Deep Thinking, which is a book on the role of both artificial intelligence and human intelligence in defining our future. This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, give it five stars on iTunes, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter at @LexFriedman, spelled F-R-I-D-M-A-N.

• 1:28Lex Fridman?

  And now, here's my conversation with Garry Kasparov.

• 1:50Lex Fridman?

  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?

• 2:03Speaker 01

  Tough question.

• 2:06Speaker 01

  Have to confess, I never heard it before, which is, again, congratulations, it's quite an accomplishment.

• 2:15Speaker 01

  Losing was always painful. For me, it was almost like a physical pain because I knew that if I lost the game, it's just because I made a mistake. So I always believed that the result of the game had to be decided by the quality of my play. Okay, you may say it sounds arrogant, but it helped me to move forward because I always knew that there was room for improvement. So it's the Was there the fear of the mistake? Actually, fear of mistake guarantees mistakes.

• 2:53Speaker 01

  And the difference between top players, the very top, is that it's the ability to make a decision without predictable consequences. You don't know what's happening. It's just intuitively, I can go this way or that way. And there are always hesitations. People are like, you're 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 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, it's about your inner strength.

• 3:35Speaker 01

  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 the original question is, I would say neither. It's just, it's the, it's love for winning, hate for losing. There were important elements, psychological elements. But the key element, it's the, I would say, the driving force was always my

• 4:06Speaker 01

  Passion for for making a making a difference. It's just I can move forward and I can always. It's I can always enjoy not just playing, but creating something new.

• 4:18Lex Fridman?

  Creating something new. How do you think about that?

• 4:21Speaker 01

  It's just finding new ideas in the openings, you know, some original plan in the middle game. It's actually that helped me to make the transition from the game of chess, where I was on the very top to 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

• 5:03Speaker 01

  strong enough to help people to make their choices.

• 5:08Lex Fridman?

  So you can still create something new that makes a difference i- in the world outside of chess. But wait, you've kind of painted a beautiful picture of your motivations in 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're at, you can get away without having demons, without without having fears, without being driven by some of the darker forces.

• 5:43Speaker 01

  I mean, you sound almost religious, you know, darker forces, spiritual demons. I mean, do you have a call for a priest?

• 5:53Lex Fridman?

  That's why I'm dressing.

• 5:54Speaker 01

  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 they just were 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.

• 6:35Speaker 01

  I knew I was not invincible. I made mistakes. I made some blunders and, you know, with age, I made more blunders. I knew it, but it's still, you know, 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 played Caruana, Fabi Caruana, this number two, number two, number three player in the world these days. We played this 960 with the Fisher, 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

• 7:17Speaker 01

  it's, it's, you know, while I lost, I was not so much upset. I mean, I know, as I said in my 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 a number of games where I completely outplayed one of the top players in the world, I mean, gave me certain amount of pleasure. That is, even today, I haven't lost my touch. Not the same, you know,

• 7:56Speaker 01

  okay, the jaws are not as strong and the teeth are not as sharp, but I could get him just, you know, almost, you know, on the ropes. 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 your biological clock. It's just, you know, maybe it's a signal." Because, you know, the goddess of chess, since you spoke Yeah, religiously. The goddess of chess, Keisha, maybe she didn't want you to win because, you know, if you could beat... Number two, number three player in the world. I mean, that's one of the top players who just recently played world championship match. If you could beat him, that would be really

• 8:38Speaker 01

  bad for the game of chess. People will say, oh, look, the game of chess, you know, it's not making any progress. The game is just, you know, it's totally devalued because the guy coming out of retirement, you know, just, you know, winning games. Maybe that was good for chess. Not good for you. But it's, look, I've been following your logic. We should always look for, you know, demons, you know, superior forces and other things that could, you know, if not dominate our lives, but somehow, you know, play a significant role in, in the outcome.

• 9:12Lex Fridman?

  Yeah. So the goddess of chess had to send a message.

• 9:14Speaker 01

  Yeah, that's okay. Okay. So Gary, you should do something else. Time.

• 9:20Lex Fridman?

  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, 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 an aggressive and creative chess player in your own game.

• 9:50Speaker 01

  Look, you mentioned Mikhail Tal. It's very aggressive, very sharp player, famous for his combinations and sacrifices, even called magician from Riga. So for his very unique style. But any, any world champion, you know, it's, yeah, was a creator. Some of them were so flamboyant and flash like Tal. Some of them were, you know, 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,

• 10:32Speaker 01

  the brilliant games where pieces being sacrificed. It's all just, you know, the whole piece are hanging. And, 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 on 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.

• 11:15Speaker 01

  And the reason I thought it was time for me to to leave is that, I mean, I knew that I was not, I was not no longer in the position to bring bring the same kind of contribution, the same kind of new knowledge in into the game. So and going back, I could immediately look at my games against Anatsoly Karpov. It's not just I won the match in nineteen eighty five and became world champion at age twenty two, but there were at least two games in that match. Of course, the last one, game twenty four, that was decisive game of the match, I won and became world champion.

• 11:57Speaker 01

  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 atypical 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 sixteen in the match, where I just also managed to outplay Karpov completely with black pieces, just, you know, paralyzing his army in in in its own its own camp.

• 12:30Lex Fridman?

  Technically or psychologically, or was that a mix of both in game sixteen?

• 12:34Speaker 01

  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, you know, before game sixteen, 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 and I think it's for Karpov, 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, just this, this, this opening bluff.

• 13:12Speaker 01

  And then, you know, they discovered that it was a bluff. So it's the, uh, again, I didn't know, I was not bluffing. So that's why, 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 eighties, in the nineties. It doesn't happen these days because everybody has a computer. You could immediately see if, if it works or it doesn't work. Machine shows you refutation in a split of a second. But many of the analysis in the eighties or in the nineties, they were not perfect simply because we were humans and they're just, you, you, you analyze the game, you look for some fresh ideas. And then, yes, it happens that there, there was something that you missed.

• 13:57Speaker 01

  Because the level of concentration at the chessboard is different from one that when you analyze the game, just moving the pieces around and.

• 14:06Speaker 01

  But somehow, if you spend a lot of time at the chessboard preparing, so in your studies with your, uh, coaches, it's hours and hours and hours and nothing of what you found could, you know, had materialized on the, on, on, on chess, on the chessboard. Somehow these hours helped, I don't know why, always helped you. It's, it's as if, you know, the amount of work you did, uh, could be transformed into some sort of yeah, spiritual energy that helped you to come up with other great ideas during the board.

• 14:44Speaker 01

  Again, even if it's, 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, uh, your dedication to actually to, and your passion to, uh, 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 brilliance and, um, and I also can mention many games from the nineties. So it's the. Obviously, all amateurs would pick up my game against Veselin Topolov in 1999

• 15:23Speaker 01

  and Vika Zay. Again, because it was a brilliant game, the Black King travelled from its own camp to into the White's camp across the entire board. It doesn't happen often, trust me, as you know, in the games with professional players, top professional players. So that's why visually, it was one of the most impressive victories. But I could bring to our attention many other games that were not so impressive for amateurs, not so beautiful. Just because sacrifice is always beautiful. You sacrifice pieces. And then eventually, you have so, you have very few

• 16:04Speaker 01

  resources left, and you use them just to crush your opponent, basically. You have to make the king, because you have almost nothing left at your disposal. But I, you know, up to the very end, again, less and less, but still up to the very end, I always had games with some sort of, you know, interesting ideas and games that gave me great satisfaction. But I think it's what happened from 2005 up to these days was also a very, very big accomplishment, since, you know, I had to find myself to sort of relocate myself.

• 16:45Lex Fridman?

  Yeah, re-channel the creative energies.

• 16:47Speaker 01

  Exactly. And to find something where I feel comfortable, even confident that my participation still makes the difference.

• 16:58Lex Fridman?

  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?

• 17:14Speaker 01

  It's a tricky question. You know, the moment you start ranking.

• 17:18Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 17:18Speaker 01

  World champions. It's the, I think it's, it's not fair, because it's the, any...

• 17:27Speaker 01

  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 Lasky or Kapalov, 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 game. Simply just because you have access to this information. And it has been discovered, generation after generation, we added more and more knowledge to the game of chess. It's about the gap between the world champion and the rest of the field.

• 18:08Speaker 01

  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.

• 18:18Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 18:18Speaker 01

  I was on top, not as big as Fischer, but much longer. So that's... So, and also, unlike Fischer, I succeeded in beating next generation.

• 18:28Lex Fridman?

  Here's the question.

• 18:29Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 18:30Lex Fridman?

  Let's see if you still got the fire, speaking of the next generation, because you did succeed beating the next generation.

• 18:35Speaker 01

  Next, it's close. Okay, Anand, short, Anand, the Shirov... Kramnik is already 12 years younger, so that's a next... But still, yet, I competed with them, and I just beat most of them. And I was still dominant when I left, at age of 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 point, just using every resource available. Karpov was very different.

• 19:18Speaker 01

  It's just, he had an unparalleled ability to use the... Every piece with a maximum effect. Just minimal resources, always...

• 19:27Speaker 01

  Produce maximum effect. So now imagine that you merge these two styles. So it's like, you know, it's squeezing every stone for a drop of water. But but doing it, you know, just, you know, for fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty 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 Carpe 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 studies 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.

• 20:12Speaker 01

  But again, it's the discussion that is, I saw recently in the internet, whether Garry Kasparov of his peak, let's say, late eighties, could beat Magnus Carlsen today. I mean, it's totally irrelevant because Garry Kasparov in nineteen eighty-nine, okay, has played great chess, but still I knew very little about chess compared to Magnus Carlsen two thousand nineteen, 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, who is your favorite? Messi. Messi. Why? Because. Maybe Maradona, maybe. Not because he's younger, but that's simple.

• 20:56Speaker 01

  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 since, you know, when I was, you know, just following it, you know, just it's Pele and Maradona, they were just, you know, they were big stars and it's Messi is already just, I was gradually losing interest in just other things. So I remember Pele in nineteen seventy, the final match Brazil-Italy. So that's the first World Cup soccer I watched. So that's the, and actually my answer, when I just, when I just, you know, because I was asked this question as well. So I say that is just while it's impossible to make a choice, I would still probably go with Maradona for a simple reason. The Brazilian team in nineteen seventy could have won without Pele.

• 21:38Speaker 01

  It was absolutely great. Still could have won. Maybe, but it is. The Argentinean team in 1986 without Maradona would not be in the final. That's right. So this is, and Messi, he still hasn't won a title. That's, that's.

• 21:50Lex Fridman?

  Could argue for that, uh, for an hour, but.

• 21:52Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 21:53Lex Fridman?

  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.

• 22:05Speaker 01

  Uh, just simply because.

• 22:06Lex Fridman?

  The confidence, the fire.

• 22:07Speaker 01

  Simply because, simply because, again, it's just they saw me in action. So this, again, it's, it's the age factor is important. Definitely with the passion and energy and, and being equipped with all modern ideas. But again, then you make, you know, a very just important assumption that you could empower Garry Kasparov in 89 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years. That would not be Garry Kasparov. That would be someone else. Yeah. Because again, I belong to 1989. I was way ahead of the field, uh, uh, and I, you know, I beat Karpov, uh, several times in the world championship matches and I crossed 2,800, which, by the way, if you look at the, in just in rating, which is just, it's, uh,

• 22:47Speaker 01

  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, two, three. So that's, there's, it's Caruana and Ding. It's about the same rating now. And I crossed 2,800 in 1990, which if you look at the inflation, when I crossed 2,800 in, in 1990, there was only one player in 2,700 category and not only Karpov. Now he had more than 50. So just, when you see this. So i- if you add inflation, so I think my 2,851, it could probably could be more valuable as Magnus 2,882, which was his hi- hi- highest rating. But anyway, again. Enough. Too many hypotheticals.

• 23:23Lex Fridman?

  Your loss to IBMD 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.

• 23:40Lex Fridman?

  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 at your psychology of that loss, why was it so painful? Were you not able to see the seminal nature of that moment?

• 24:23Lex Fridman?

  Or was that exactly why was that painful?

• 24:28Speaker 01

  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.

• 24:40Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 24:41Speaker 01

  That's.

• 24:43Lex Fridman?

  Oh, wow.

• 24:46Lex Fridman?

  Oh, wow.

• 24:47Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's.

• 24:48Lex Fridman?

  Right.

• 24:49Speaker 01

  Yeah, that makes all the difference to me.

• 24:52Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 24:53Speaker 01

  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.

• 25:06Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 25:06Speaker 01

  So though I played quite poorly, you know, just when you started looking at the games today, I made tons of mistakes. But, you know, I had all reasons to believe that, you know, there were other, 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 more than the bridge. We can analyze this match and this is with everything you said, I agree with probably one exception is that.

• 25:32Speaker 01

  Considering chess, you know, as the sort of, uh, as a pinnacle of intellectual activities, was our mistake. Because, you know, we just thought, oh, it's a, it's a game of the highest intellect and it just, you know, you have to be so, you know, intelligent and you could see things that, you know, the, uh, the ord- the, the, uh, ordinary mortals could not see. Uh huh. It's a game and, uh, all machines had to do in this game is just to make fewer mistakes, not to solve the game. Because the game cannot be solved. I mean, according to Paul Shannon, the number of legal moves is ten to the forty-sixth power. Hmm. Too many zeros, so just for any computer to finish the job, you know, uh, uh, in, in, in, in next few billion years. Uh. Uh, but it doesn't have to.

• 26:17Speaker 01

  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, with Goo, with Shogi, uh, with, uh, video games. It's a demonstration that, that'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, Goo, Shogi, Dota, uh, machines will prevail simply because they will bring down number of mistakes. Um, 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.

• 27:00Speaker 01

  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 and compare, compare this to Magnus Carlsen, is the same as comparing Ferrari to Usain Bolt. Hmm. It's the, the gap is, is, I mean, by chess standards is insane. Thirty-four, thirty-five hundred to twenty-eight hundred, twenty, twenty, twenty-eight, fifty on Magnus. It's like difference between Magnus and a, and an ordinary player from an open international tournament. Uh. It's not because machine understandings better than Magnus Carlsen, but simply because it's steady. Machine has steady hand. And I think that is what we we we we have to learn

• 27:45Speaker 01

  from nineteen ninety seven experience and from further encounters with computers and sort of the the current state state of affairs with Alpha Zero, you are 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, the nineteen ninety seven match was not the first victory of machines over.

• 28:12Lex Fridman?

  Over grandmasters.

• 28:13Speaker 01

  Over grandmasters, yeah. No, actually, it's I played against first decent chess computers from late from late eighties. So I played with the prototype of Deep Blue called Deep Thought in nineteen eighty nine. Two rapid chess games in New York, I won handily to both games. We played against new chess engines like Fritz and other programs. And then it's the Israeli program Junior that appeared in nineteen ninety five.

• 28:39Lex Fridman?

  I remember.

• 28:40Speaker 01

  Yeah, so there were there were several programs. I, you know, I lost few games in Blitz. I lost one match against the computer chess engine nineteen ninety four Rapid Chess. So I lost one game to Deep Blue in nineteen ninety six match, the man, the match I won. Some people, you know, tend to forget about it that I won the first match.

• 28:58Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 28:59Speaker 01

  But it's it's we we made a very important psychological mistake, thinking that the reason we lost Blitz matches, five five-minute games, the reason we lost some of the Rapid Chess matches, twenty-five minutes chess, 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, uh, will always be steady and consistent compared to humans' instabilities and inconsistencies. And today we are at the point where, yes, nobody talks about, you know, uh, humans playing against machines.

• 29:41Speaker 01

  Now, machines can offer handicap to to to top players and still, you know, uh, will will will be favored. I think we're just learning that it's it's it's no longer human versus machines. It's about human working with machines. That's what I recognized in nineteen ninety eight. Just after licking my wounds and spending one year and just, you know, ruminating Saudi. So what's happened in this match? And I knew that though we still could play against the machines. I had two more matches in 2003, playing both Deep Fritz and Deep Junior. Both matches ended as a tie. Though these machines were not weaker, at least actually probably stronger than Deep Blue. And by the way, today chess app on your mobile phone is probably stronger than Deep Blue.

• 30:26Lex Fridman?

  Than Deep Blue.

• 30:27Speaker 01

  I'm not speaking about chess engines that are so much superior. And by the way, when you analyze games we played against Deep Blue 997 on your chess engine, they'll be laughing. 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. Within 30 seconds, they will show you how many mistakes both Gary and Deep Blue made in the game that was trumpeted as a great chess match in 1997.

• 31:07Lex Fridman?

  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.

• 31:23Speaker 01

  So. By the way, in Europe, because you know, you move to the far east, they will go, they they.

• 31:30Lex Fridman?

  Right, but games, games.

• 31:32Speaker 01

  Again, some of the games like, you know, are board games.

• 31:36Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 31:37Speaker 01

  There's, yeah, I agree.

• 31:38Lex Fridman?

  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 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.

• 32:14Speaker 01

  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.

• 32:22Lex Fridman?

  So you think that key difference, so the board games are closed in terms of the rule set, the actions, the state space, everything is just constrained. You think once you open it, the machines are lost?

• 32:36Speaker 01

  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 there's the, it's like about the, it's a direction. So these, 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, that belongs to us is shrinking. I'm saying so what, you know, this is, eventually we'll belong to the last few decimal points.

• 33:17Speaker 01

  But it's like having so very powerful gun, and all you can do there is slightly, you know, outer direction of the bullet. Maybe, you know, point one, a 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, and the effectiveness of this cooperation, collaboration depends on our understanding what exactly we can bring into the game. So the greatest danger is when we try to interfere with machine super knowledge.

• 34:02Speaker 01

  So that's why I always say that sometimes you'd rather have, by reading these pictures in radiology, you may probably prefer an experienced nurse than, rather than having 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 happened. It's like in chess, recognize, they, they do it better. See where we can make the difference. You mentioned AlphaZero. I mean, AlphaZero is it's it's it's actually a first step into what you you may call AI. Because everything that's being called AI today is just it's uh it's it's one or another variation

• 34:47Speaker 01

  of what Claude Shannon characterized as a brute force. It's a type A machine, whether it's Deep Blue, whether it's uh Watson. And all these these are the modern technologies that are being trumpeted as as AI. It's still brute force. It's the all they do is they do optimization. It's this they are, you know, they uh they keep, you know, improving the way to process human generated data. Now, AlphaZero is is the first step towards, you know, machine-produced knowledge.

• 35:20Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 35:21Speaker 01

  Which is, by the way, by the way, it's quite ironic that the first company that championed that was IBM. Oh, it's it's in backgammon.

• 35:30Lex Fridman?

  Interesting, in backgammon.

• 35:32Speaker 01

  Yes, you just you should you should you should look at IBM, it's it's a neurogammon. It's the it's the scientist called Tsarov. He's still working at IBM. They had in the early nineties. It's just it's the it's the in the program that played in all the AlphaZero types, so just trying to come up with own strategies. But because of success of Deep Blue, this project uh had been not abandoned, but just, you know, it's it's it wasn't it was put on call. And now we just, you know, it's it's it's uh, you know, it's everybody talks about about this, the 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 uh uh data.

• 36:14Speaker 01

  Many ideas that AlphaZero generated in chess were quite intriguing. So I I I looked at these games with.

• 36:23Speaker 01

  Not just with interest, but with, you know, it's quite exciting to learn how a 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 sixty million games.

• 36:54Lex Fridman?

  Almost something that feels like intuition.

• 36:56Speaker 01

  Exactly, but there's one problem.

• 36:58Lex Fridman?

  Yep.

• 36:58Speaker 01

  Now, a simple question, if AlphaZero faces superior opponent, let's say another powerful computer,

• 37:09Speaker 01

  accompanied by a human, who could help just to discover certain problems, because I already, I look at many AlphaZero games, I visited their lab, you know, spoke to them, his team, and I know there's certain weaknesses there. Now, if these weaknesses are exposed, then 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 just because the whole system is based.

• 37:32Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 37:33Speaker 01

  So, it's, now imagine so, this is 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, what is our role, 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.

• 37:57Lex Fridman?

  Beautifully put, so let's talk about the thing that machines certainly don't know how to do yet, which is morality.

• 38:03Speaker 01

  Machines and morality, it's another question that, you know, just, it's, it's, it's being asked all the time these days. And I think it's another phantom that is haunting a 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 prejudiced?

• 38:23Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 38:24Speaker 01

  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, 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.

• 38:42Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 38:42Speaker 01

  Or you can try to actually change something.

• 38:44Lex Fridman?

  By yourself.

• 38:45Speaker 01

  By yourself, yes. So it's very important to understand is that you cannot expect machines to to improve the ideals of our society. And moreover, machines will simply, you know, just, you know, amplify.

• 38:58Lex Fridman?

  Yes.

• 38:58Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 38:59Lex Fridman?

  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.

• 39:20Speaker 01

  Of course, they're much safer. Statistically, they're much safer than than.

• 39:24Lex Fridman?

  It's not of course. Why would it? It's not of course. It's it's not given. Autonomous vehicles, you have to work really hard to make them safer.

• 39:35Speaker 01

  I I I think it just it goes without saying is the the outcome of the of this, I would call it competition with comparison is very clear. But the problem is not about being, you know, safer. It's the forty thousand people or so every year died in car accidents in the United States. And it's it's statistics. One accident with with autonomous vehicle and it's front page of a newspaper.

• 40:00Lex Fridman?

  Yes, so.

• 40:01Speaker 01

  So it's the it's again, this was psychological. So it's while people, you know, kill each other in car accidents because they make mistakes. They make more mistakes. For me, it's it's it's not a question. Of course, we make more mistakes because we're human. Yes, machines old. And by the way, no machine will ever reach hundred percent perfection. That's another that's another important fake story that that that is being fed to the public. If machine doesn't reach hundred percent performance is not safe. No, all you can ask any computer, whether it's, you know, playing chess or or doing the stock market calculations or driving your autonomous vehicle, it's to make fewer mistakes. And yes, I know it's not, you know, it's not easy for us to accept because ah, if you

• 40:42Speaker 01

  know, if you have two humans, you know, colliding in their cars, okay, it's life. If one of one of these cars is autonomous vehicle, and by the way, even if it's it's human's fault, terrible. How could you allow a machine to to to to run without a driver at the wheel?

• 40:59Lex Fridman?

  So, you know, let's linger that for a second, that double standard. The way you felt with your first loss against Deep Blue, were you treating the machine differently than you would of a human? So what do you think about that difference between the way we see machines and humans?

• 41:19Speaker 01

  No, it's the, at that time, you know, for me, it was a match. And that's why I was angry because I believe that the match was not, you know, fairly organized. So it's, it's, uh, definitely there were unfair advantages for, for IBM. And I want to play there another match, like a rubber match.

• 41:33Lex Fridman?

  So your angered or displeasure was aimed more like at the humans behind IBM versus the actual pure algorithm?

• 41:41Speaker 01

  Absolute, absolute. 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 probably added to my anger because I knew I could beat machine.

• 41:50Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 41:51Speaker 01

  Yeah. So this, and that's the, and as I lost, and I knew I was not well prepared. So because they, I have to give them credit, they did some good work, uh, from 1996 and I, but I still could beat the, 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. Now it's, okay. No, no pressure.

• 42:19Lex Fridman?

  Okay. Well, let me ask. Uh, 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, 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?

• 42:45Speaker 01

  I think the lesson of history is clear.

• 42:52Speaker 01

  Undemocratic systems, totalitarian regimes, systems that are based on controlling their citizens and just, uh, every aspect of their life, not offering opportunities to, for private initiative.

• 43:09Speaker 01

  Central planning systems, they doomed. They just, you know, they, they cannot be driving force for innovation. So they, in a history timeline, I mean, they could cause certain, you know, distortion of, of, of the concept of progress. They, by the way, they may call themselves progressive, but we know that is there's the damage that they caused 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 this fact as, I always like to mention, you know,

• 43:51Speaker 01

  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 sound. So this is, conducting war and just, and, and fighting for justice, there are always things that, you know, can be easily criticized. And human history is the, is a never ending quest for perfection. But we know that there is absolute evil. We know it's, for me, it's no clear, it's, I mean, it's nobody argues about Hitler being

• 44:34Speaker 01

  absolute evil, but I think it's very important to recognize Stalin was absolute evil. Communism caused more damage than any other ideology in the 20th century. And unfortunately, while we all know that fascism was condemned, but there was no Nuremberg for communism. And that's why we could see, you know, still this, the, the successors of Stalin are feeling far more comfortable. And Putin is one of them.

• 44:57Lex Fridman?

  You highlight a few interesting connections actually between Stalin and Hitler. I mean, they're, they're, 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.

• 45:12Speaker 01

  You can ask it, I just, I just recently delivered a speech in Toronto. Uh, at eighty six, the Roosevelt Molotov-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 Two uh uh had been started by two dictators. By signing this this uh criminal criminal treaty collusion of two tyrants in August nineteen thirty nine that led to the beginning of the World World War Two. And the fact is that eventually Stalin had no choice but to join allies because Hitler a- attacked him. So it just doesn't, you know, uh uh eliminated the fact that Stalin helped Hitler to start World War Two. And he was one of the beneficiaries at early at early stage by uh annexing a part of Eastern Europe.

• 45:57Speaker 01

  And as a result of World War Two, he annexed almost entire Eastern Europe. And for many Eastern European nations, the end of the World War Two was the beginning of of communist occupation.

• 46:07Lex Fridman?

  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 two thousand and seven, there's this interesting comment from Oleg Kalugan, 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.

• 46:53Lex Fridman?

  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 the in this kind of context when your life could be in danger?

• 47:12Speaker 01

  That's the reason I live in New York. So it'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. And what is happening with many of Putin enemies. But at the end of the day. I mean, what can I do? I mean, it's I I could be very proactive by trying to change things I can influence. But here are we have facts. I I cannot stop doing what I've been doing for a long time. It's the right thing to do. I grew up, you know, with my family, teaching me sort of the wisdom of Soviet dissidents. Do what you must and so be it.

• 47:58Speaker 01

  I could try to be cautious by not traveling to certain places where, you know, my security could be at risk. Uh, 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 nineteen seventy one, so she was thirty three 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.

• 48:43Speaker 01

  So just to, I mean, to be relatively safe and to to do what she taught me to do, to make the difference.

• 48:52Lex Fridman?

  Do you think you will ever return to Russia? Or let me ask a different way.

• 48:56Speaker 01

  When? Even sooner than many people think, because I think Putin regime is facing unsurvival of different difficulties. And again, I read enough historical books to know that dictatorships, they they end

• 49:13Speaker 01

  suddenly. It's just on Sunday dictator feels comfortable. He believes he's popular on Monday morning. He's bust. The good news and bad news. I mean, the the bad news is that I don't know when and how Putin rule ends. The good news, he also doesn't know.

• 49:35Lex Fridman?

  Okay, well put. Let me ask

• 49:40Lex Fridman?

  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 Russia interfere in the 2020 US election? And what does that interference look like?

• 50:02Speaker 01

  It's very old, you know, we had such an intelligent conversation. And you are ruining everything by asking such a stupid question.

• 50:12Lex Fridman?

  It's going downhill the entire way.

• 50:14Speaker 01

  Yeah, but it's insulting for my intellect.

• 50:17Lex Fridman?

  Okay.

• 50:18Speaker 01

  Of course they did interfere. Of course they did absolutely everything to elect Trump. I mean, they said it many times. It is this, you know, I met enough KGB colonels in my life to tell you that, you know, just the way Putin looks at Trump.

• 50:31Lex Fridman?

  Yeah.

• 50:32Speaker 01

  This is the way he looks, and I don't have to hear what he says, what Trump says, you know, just his, I don't need to go through congressional investigations. The way Putin looks at Trump is the way the KGB officers looked at their assets. It's just, and following to 2020, of course they will do absolutely everything to help Trump to survive. Because I think the damage that Trump's reelections could cause to America and to the free world, it's just, it's beyond one's imagination. I think basically if Trump is reelected, he will ruin NATO. Because he's already heading in this direction, but now he's just, he's still limited by the reelection hurdles.

• 51:13Speaker 01

  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 a symptom. But the problem is that I don't see, it's just, it's the...

• 51:31Speaker 01

  In American political horizon, politicians who could take on Trump

• 51:38Speaker 01

  for for all damage that he is doing for the free world. Not just things that that's happened that went wrong in America. So there's the it seems to me that the campaign, political campaign on the democratic side is 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 healthcare. I mean, I understand how important it is, but it's still secondary because the entire framework of American political life is at risk. And you have Vladimir Putin, just, you know, just it's having virtually free hands by by his by attacking America and other free countries. And by the way, we have so much evidence about Russian interference in Brexit in elections in almost every European country.

• 52:24Speaker 01

  And thinking that they will be shy of attacking America in 2020. Now with with Trump in the office. Yeah, I I think it's, um, yeah, it definitely diminishes the intellectual quality of our conversation.

• 52:40Lex Fridman?

  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?

• 53:00Speaker 01

  There are moments in my life when I think about what could be done differently, but.

• 53:08Lex Fridman?

  No, experience happiness and joy and pride, just just to just to touch.

• 53:15Speaker 01

  I know, I know, but it's 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 eighty nine and ninety three, you pick up a year, I could improve my actions by not doing this stupid thing.

• 53:41Speaker 01

  But then, how do you know that I will have all other accomplishments? Yeah, I just, I'm, I'm afraid that, you know, we just have to just follow this, if you may call wisdom before is gump, you know? It's the life is this, you know, it's this, it's, it's a box of, of, 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, 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, from, from the game.

• 54:22Speaker 01

  Uh, I'm grateful for my wife, so who helped me to build this life. We actually married in two thousand and five. It was my third marriage, that's why I said I made mistakes in my life. But, uh, uh, 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, uh, and here, you know, I live in New York, so we have our two kids born here in New York. Uh, 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 uh, that are still, you know, uh, uh, taking time and energy. But life is exciting. And, um, as long as I can feel that I have energy, I have strength,

• 55:06Speaker 01

  I have, uh, passion to make the difference, I'm happy.

• 55:13Lex Fridman?

  I think that's a beautiful moment to end on. Gary, gracias, thank you very much for talking today.

• 55:19Speaker 01

  Thank you. Gracias.