Hikaru Nakamura is a chess super grandmaster and is currently the #1 ranked blitz chess player in the world. He is also one of the top chess streamers on Twitch and YouTube. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Mizzen+Main: https://mizzenandmain.com and use code LEX to get $35 off
- InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off
- NetSuite: http://netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
- SimpliSafe: https://simplisafe.com/lex

EPISODE LINKS:
Hikaru's Twitch: https://twitch.tv/gmhikaru
Hikaru's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/GMHikaru
Hikaru's Twitter: https://twitter.com/GMHikaru
Hikaru's Instagram: https://instagram.com/gmhikaru
Hikaru's Website: https://hikarunakamura.com
Macauley Peterson's video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tGXvcQP6VPo

PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41

OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
1:41 - A private game vs Magnus Carlsen
9:29 - Chess openings
25:42 - Mental preparation
34:22 - Chess tactics
44:45 - Solving chess
50:26 - Aggression and ego
55:11 - Hans Niemann cheating scandal
1:05:03 - How to cheat in chess
1:19:26 - Greatest chess player of all time
1:29:43 - Hikaru's immortal game
1:42:08 - Paul Morphy
1:43:52 - World Chess Championship
1:46:41 - Magnus Carlsen
1:50:16 - Sergey Karjakin
1:52:43 - Beauty of chess
1:59:38 - Day in the life
2:14:16 - Streaming
2:28:56 - Taking risks
2:34:25 - Depression
2:39:14 - Advice for young people
2:46:34 - Love

SOCIAL:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
- Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
- Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

You and Magnus played a private game, 40 games of Blitz in 2010 in Moscow at a hotel.

The reason that I probably should not have agreed to play this match and why I very oftentimes reference it as 1 of the biggest mistakes in terms of competitive chess that I made is specifically because it gave Magnus a chance to understand my style of chess.

Are you and Magnus friends, enemies, frenemies?

Yeah, I think with all the rivalries in chess, everybody tries to hype it up like everyone hates each other.

But the thing is, at the end of the day, yes, we're very competitive.

We want to beat each other, whether it's myself or Magnus or other top players.

But we also realize that it's a very small world.

Like a lot of us are able to make a living playing the game as professionals.

And as I alluded to earlier, the top 20 to 30 players can make a living.

So even though we're competitive against each other, we want to beat each other.

There is a certain level of respect that we have and there is a sort of brotherhood, I would say.

So all of us are, I would say, frenemies.

The following is a conversation with Hikaru Nakamura, a chess super grandmaster.

He's 1 of the greatest chess players in the world, including currently being ranked world number 1 in Blitz chess.

He's also 1 of the most popular chess streamers on Twitch and YouTube, which you should definitely check out.

To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.

And now, dear friends, here's Hikaru Nakamura.

Final score was 24 and a half to 15 and a half from Agnes.

I don't think it was publicly said or it was very briefly said, but it wasn't ever mentioned in a serious way.

I think it's a deep dive based on a few links that started at a subreddit, which is how all great journeys start.

I went out to dinner that final night with someone who was actually very high up within the Internet chess club at that time.

And I think towards the end of the dinner, somehow they got word of this and they relayed the information to me that Magnus wanted to play a private match.

Now I agreed to play this match, probably I should not have, and actually it has nothing to do with like the state of having been out, had a few drinks, anything of that nature.

But the reason that I probably should not have agreed to play this match and why I very oftentimes reference it as 1 of the biggest mistakes in terms of competitive chess that I made is specifically because it gave Magnus a chance to understand my style of chess.

And At the time, I actually had pretty good results against Magnus.

I think maybe he was up 1 or 2 games, but there were many games where I had been pressing close to winning against him prior to that match.

And so when I went and played that match, there were a few things that happened.

First of all, Magnus really started to understand my style because we played all sorts of different openings.

And so I think he understood that at times I wasn't so great in the opening.

And there were many openings where I would play slightly dubious variations as opposed to the main lines.

And then secondly, from my standpoint, the problem that I realized is since we were playing with an increment, there are many games where I was close to winning and he would defend end games amazingly well.

He would defend what are technically drawn end games, but where I would have like an extra pawn, it would be like rook and bishop versus rook and knight.

Say I have 4 pawns, he has 3 pawns, endgames of this nature.

Now if you aren't super into chess, you might not understand what I'm referring to.

But there are endgames where 1 side might have extra material, an extra pawn, say extra 2 pawns, but theoretically it's a draw.

So it's perfectly- Can you Give an example of the set of pieces.

We're talking about 567 pieces, like this kind

Okay, like a very basic 1 would be rook and 4 pawns against rook and 3 pawns.

So that would be 9 total pieces on the board.

4 pawns on 1 side, 3 pawns on the other side.

But it's all on the same side of the board.

It's been known for probably, let's just say, 70 years roughly, give or take, that this is a theoretical draw.

It's just all the pawns are on 1 side of the board.

So it's like, let's just say they're, let's just say they're 4 pawns right here.

They're just 4 pawns and black has 3 pawns.

And there are no other pawns on the board, something like this.

And it's a draw, no matter what the next next like 50 moves of the game are, we know that it's a drawn endgame with perfect play.

And so it was things like this where Magnus actually saved, I want to say like 5 or 6 of these.

And I remember it quite well because I think the score was very, very close up until probably the last like 10 games of the match, and then at the end, he started winning, he started winning in spades.

But there were a lot of situations where he was up like 1 game or maybe 2 games in the match and I had some end game like this and I was not able to win the end game.

And so for me, after that match, it wasn't even so much that I lost the match or the margin I lost by, But it was the fact that I realized how hard it was to beat him, even once you got the advantage.

And I think for Magnus, he learned that my weakness was openings.

I remember because I actually, I don't remember the game itself, but there was a game we played in the Sicilian Nidorf.

And he played this variation with Bishop g5 on move number 6.

I'm sure you can insert a graphic later I can show you.

Sicilian is the opening, Night Orf is the variation.

It was played by Bobby Fischer, the former world champion, Gary Kasparov as well.

And so we played all sorts of different openings because of course it's a serious match, but it's not serious where it's going to count for the ranking.

So you're trying to fill out where your opponent is strong versus weak.

And so there was 1 game, I remember this very clearly, he played the Bishop g5 variation in the Night Orf, and I think I played e5 or I played Knight bd7 in E5, which is dubious.

And that's just 1 example where I was playing things that were a little bit dubious and I was not playing the absolute main line with 20 moves of theory.

So I was trying to get outside of theory.

And I think Magnus learned from that, that even though it appeared that I was very well prepared in these openings, I wasn't quite at that level.

Couldn't you have a different interpretation of you going outside of the main line, that you're willing to experiment, take risks, that you're chaotic, and that's actually a strength, not a weakness, especially when you're sitting in a hotel room late at night, this is past midnight, playing chess.

I mean, why do you interpret that that's your weakness?

Because Magnus going forward was able to figure out the lines where you have to be super precise.

And I got punished out of the opening in many games.

So it was like, it wasn't about the night or if the opening or the variation specifically, but he knew what my repertoire was.

And we would pick lines where I had to play the absolute best lines in order to equalize or I would be much worse.

But nevertheless, it's pretty legendary that the 2 of you, you're 1 of the best chess players in the world throughout the whole period still today, that you just sat down in a hotel room and played a ton of chess.

I mean, what's the, there's a, I think there's a, there is a little, here, there is a little video of it.

I think there was 1 journalist, Macaulay Peterson, who was able to film parts of it.

So it was in a room, it was me and Magnus, I think Henrik was there, I think Macaulay was there and that was it.

People can go on YouTube and watch, it's on Chess Digital Strategies, Macaulay Peterson channel.

For people just listening to this, there's a dimly lit room with a yellow light emerging out of the darkness of the 2 faces of Macaulay Peterson.

I mean, and the deep focus here, and what time is this?

This was, I believe, the day after the final, this was the day that the final round occurred and the closing ceremony, so we're playing afterwards.

I mean, are you able to appreciate the epicness of this?

Many of my favorite memories are actually similar to this.

Another memory that I really have, that I recall very fondly was after the US Championship.

It was called the 2005 US Chess Championship was held at the end of 2004 in, I believe it was in La Jolla in San Diego.

And after that, that event, I was playing Blitz probably for like 4 or 5 hours in the lobby of the hotel.

So it's the same kind of situation where you're just playing for the love of the game as opposed to anything else.

Of course, nowadays, I think both for Magnus and myself, just playing a dimly lit room like this would almost certainly not happen.

There would probably have to be certain stakes involved for us to play, but if you go back in time, these are the sorts of memories and moments that would happen all the time.

So is there a part of you that doesn't regret that this happened?

You know, I think it comes back to my general philosophy.

I feel like everything happens for a reason.

And so because I have that, that's 1 of my core beliefs, like I don't really look back on it as mistakes.

I feel like everything has happened and things have transpired the way they have for a reason.

If I look at it in terms of potentially like world championship aspirations, I think certainly it was a big mistake because from a competitive standpoint, Magnus figured out what my weaknesses were at the time and he exploited it for many, many years.

In fact, I think if you look at the match I played against him in the Meltwater tournament at the, I think that was in June or no, it was later.

It was the finals of the tour and it went all the way to the seventh match.

Magnus won in Armageddon And in that match, my openings were much better.

I was not worse out of the opening in most of the games.

But for many years, he was able to exploit my openings.

And I mean, that's why the score, I mean, it's not the only reason, but it's 1 of the reasons the score is so lopsided the way it is.

Is there any of those games that you mentioned, 7 games that are interesting to look at, to analyze, ideas that you remember that are interesting to you?

I mean, the whole, it was actually, so to set it up, and this probably will come into play in terms of World Championship format.

And after 4 games, say I'm up 2 and a half, 1 and a half, I win match number 1.

Then it's so it's like you have to win 4 matches of 4 games.

couple of Berlin games in the sixth, sixth match, I believe in the seventh match as well, where Magnus actually made some mistakes and I won some critical games.

You're gonna have to explain some basics here.

So Berlin is the type of opening, what's that?

It actually existed all the way back in the 60s, but it really became popular in 2001, I believe it was, when Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik played their world championship match.

Kasparov had been the world champion for a very long time.

I think it was close, I think it was about 15 years roughly, maybe a little bit more than that.

And he lost the match because when Gary had the white pieces, Kasparov was not able to effectively get an advantage.

A lot of those games were very quick draws, and in chess you want to put pressure on your opponent when you have the white pieces.

So Kasparov was not able to do anything with the white pieces and Kramnik was able to beat him when the colors were reversed.

Kramnik won a game in the Grunfeld, he won a game in 1 of the Queens Gambit declined slash Nimzo variations as well.

And that was the reason Garry Kasparov lost the World championship title was because of this variation.

So the opening starts, let me just move this microphone up a little bit, starts with E4, and then it goes E5, Knight F3, Knight C6.

And at which point is this the standard, like this is the Berlin?

Yeah, this is the Berlin, this is the starting position of the Berlin defense, and white has many, many options here.

Now it's interesting because I did work with Gary at a certain point and I remember I had access to his database and he had something like 220 files on the Berlin defense because what happened is is Gary somebody who the way that he learned chess, it's very much like there are certain openings that are OK.

There are other openings that are not OK.

And so this was considered dubious at the time.

And so Gary basically decided to go into this end game with castles.

That means those are the optimal things that you should be doing?

I think they're almost, at least for black, they're absolutely forced or else you end up in trouble.

Black takes back with the pawn in front of the queen.

Yeah, so you get this position where we're in an end game by the 10.

You just ruined all the normal conventions, I guess.

On the other hand, for Kramnik, it was quite brilliant, because Gary, what he was known for was opening preparation and getting the advantage.

He was a very tactical, very aggressive player.

And you're playing an end game right from the start.

Now, Gary basically thought that this was better for white and he tried to prove it and he was unable to prove it.

I think up until maybe it was game 9 or game 11, actually maybe I had the order wrong because I think he was white in the even number games, basically he spent 4 or 5 games with the white pieces trying to win this endgame And he was not able to win.

In fact, he didn't even come close to proving an advantage.

So he kept wasting the white pieces in that match.

When he had the white pieces and Gary had the black pieces, he was able to win some games in very nice style.

So he had, this is a new problem presented in that match and Gary's gut says...

And so in white I'm going to push with this position and I'm going to not change anything from match to match.

I'm going to try to find a way that this is better.

Like what, that's the way of chess, right?

If your gut says this position is better, you should capitalize, right?

I think that's an old school way of thinking in chess, because before computers, basically it was up to humans.

Your intuition, your calculation process really determined whether a position is better.

And so like, in Gary's time, if openings were dubious, they're dubious, It means somebody is better.

But as we've learned with computers now, even small advantages, generally that doesn't mean anything.

And a position is defendable where you won't lose the game if you play optimal moves, even if the advantage is like half a pawn, for example, like 0.50.

With optimal play, a computer will still prove that that position, you can hold it and not lose the game.

And so for Gary, he learned it where like if an opening is not right, like he knows it's not correct.

Now, finally, towards the end of the match, he tried to switch, but it was already way too late and he didn't have time to win with the white pieces.

He did come close in 1 of the later games but he spent the whole match trying to prove that this Berlin defense is not playable.

So this position the computer would say that black is better?

It would say that white's very slightly better because black has moved the king.

You're unable to castle the king and it's kind of open in the center of the board.

Oh, so wait, so Stockfish or the engine would agree with Gary's intuition?

Yes, but at the end of the day, when you go like 5 moves deeper in any number of the sequences, it's gonna go to 0.00.

And that's a bad thing because white should be winning.

Well, you want to put pressure on your opponent when you have the white pieces in any tournament, any match.

So if the engine says 0-0, That means you're not doing a good job of playing white.

There are going to be a lot of draws because the game of chess has drawish tendencies, but you want to try.

Normally, the general approach these days because of computers is you try to put pressure on your opponent when you're white.

And when you're black, you try to be solid, make a draw.

Now, when Gary was actually at his peak, it was quite the opposite.

Gary was trying to win games with the black pieces as well by playing openings like the Sicilian Night Orth.

But with modern technology, and I did a podcast recently where I also spoke about this, computers are so good and players can memorize so many lines that nowadays trying to take risks with the black pieces, it almost always backfires.

Or if you're very lucky, you might make the draw, but you never get the winning chances.

So from a risk reward standpoint, you have to play almost perfectly just to make the draw, but you're never gonna have any winning chances.

Where in the old days, generally you might lose the games, but you're gonna have chances to win as well.

So a lot of players try to be very solid.

This is, by the way, the C Squared podcast?

Yeah, this is an amazing podcast, so shout out to those guys.

I'm glad that they started a thing that seems to be a good thing, and I hope they keep going with this good thing.

That was a great interview that I did with you.

In that podcast, I talked about the Sicilian Night Orf.

The problem is White is the 1 who has the choices.

After the first 5 to 6 moves, White has the choices.

Now we get knight to F3, pawn to D6, pawn to D4, trade, knight to F6, and now pawn to A6.

Bobby Fischer really popularized it in his run up to becoming the world champion.

Gary played it for probably the last 15 to 20 years of his career, so it's a very solid opening defense.

What is it, what are the, sorry to interrupt, what's interesting about this?

So there's a, for people listening, on the white side there's a couple of knights out, and on the black side...

Black can play for b5 here to develop the bishop to b7, because the pawn on a6 guards the pawn on b5.

You can also play other setups, like potentially g6 and putting the bishop on g7.

Okay, so bringing, doing different things and bringing out the...

You can also push the pawn to e5 or push the pawn to e6.

So there are many different setups and it's very, very flexible.

But White is the 1 who has the choice here in terms of what to play.

There's this move that I mentioned before, Bishop to g5, which Magnus played against me.

There's also Bishop to e3, Bishop to c4, and now there are also moves like h3, h4, Rg1, even moves like a3 and a4.

So there basically are 9 or 10 moves that white can play here.

But the move that white plays sort of dictates the direction of the game, and you have to be extremely precise if you're black.

So if white plays something like Bishop g5, this is very sharp and aggressive.

But you can also play something like Bishop to e3, pawn to e5, and something like Knight to f3 here.

These are very advanced sort of setups and what I'm explaining is not at a basic level.

But why is the 1 who chooses a type of game?

Is it very aggressive, very sharp, or both sides of chances?

Is it something very positional where if you're black, you're probably okay, but you have to play the best moves in order to equalize, or you can end up worse.

Okay, so you're always responding as black in this situation.

So how different are all those different variations?

So like with the bishop, with the different, you said you bring out the bishop to this position, to this position, or to that position.

Like how, are those fundamentally different variations?

Like, I just wonder from a AI computational perspective, like a single step.

Yeah, well, I'll make it even simpler here.

If you put the knight here, it's very positional.

If you put the knight on this square, it's very aggressive because normally white is going to push this pawn from F2 to either F3 or F4 and potentially a pawn to G4 later.

See all Lex Fridman transcripts on Youtube

Hikaru Nakamura: Chess, Magnus, Kasparov, and the Psychology of Greatness | Lex Fridman Podcast #330