This is a clip from a conversation with Garry Kasparov from Oct 2019. New full episodes once or twice a week and 1-2 new clips or a new non-podcast video on all other days. You can watch the full conversation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RVa0THWUWw
(more links below)

Podcast full episodes playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4

Podcasts clips playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41

Podcast website:
https://lexfridman.com/ai

Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
https://apple.co/2lwqZIr

Podcast on Spotify:
https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8

Podcast RSS:
https://lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/

Note: I select clips with insights from these much longer conversation with the hope of helping make these ideas more accessible and discoverable. Ultimately, this podcast is a small side hobby for me with the goal of sharing and discussing ideas. For now, I post a few clips every Tue & Fri. I did a poll and 92% of people either liked or loved the posting of daily clips, 2% were indifferent, and 6% hated it, some suggesting that I post them on a separate YouTube channel. I hear the 6% and partially agree, so am torn about the whole thing. I tried creating a separate clips channel but the YouTube algorithm makes it very difficult for that channel to grow unless the main channel is already very popular. So for a little while, I'll keep posting clips on the main channel. I ask for your patience and to see these clips as supporting the dissemination of knowledge contained in nuanced discussion. If you enjoy it, consider subscribing, sharing, and commenting.

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.

Subscribe to this YouTube channel or connect on:
- 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
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

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?

You know, the moment you start ranking world champions- Yeah,

I think it's not fair because it's the, any new generation knows much more about the game than the previous 1.

So when people say, oh, Gary was the greatest, Fisher was the greatest, Magnus was the greatest.

It disregard the fact that the great players of the past, whether Lasky or Capaplanca, Alokian, I mean, they knew so little about chess by today's standards.

I mean, today, just any kid, you know, that spent a few years, you know, with his or her chess computer and 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.

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.

I was on top, not as big as Fischer, but much longer.

So, and also, unlike Fischer, I succeeded in beating Next Generation.

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

Okay, Anand, Short, Anand, the sheer of, Kramnik is already 12 years younger, so that's a neck.

But still yet, I competed with them, and I just, I beat most of them, and I was still dominant when I left at age 41.

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 is very dynamic, just fighting to the last poem, just using every resource available.

It's just, he had an unparalleled ability to use every piece with a maximum effect.

Just its minimal resources always produce maximum effect.

So now imagine that you merge these 2 styles.

So It's like squeezing every stone for a drop of water, but doing it just for 50, 60, 70, 80 moves.

I mean, Magnus could go on as long as Fischer with all his passion and energy, and at the same time being as meticulous and deadly as Karpov by just using every little advantage.

So, and he has good, very good health, it's important.

I mean, physical conditions are by the way, very important.

There are latest studies shows that chess players burn thousands of calories during the game.

So that puts him on the top of the world champions.

But again, it's the discussion that I saw recently in the internet, whether Garry Kasparov of his peak, let's say late 80s, could beat Magnus Carlsen today.

I mean, it's certainly irrelevant because Garry Kasparov in 1989, okay, he's played great chess, but still, I knew very little about chess compared to Magnus Carlsen in 2019, who, by the way, learned from me as well.

I'm extremely cautious in making any judgment that involves time gaps.

You ask soccer fans, so who is your favorite?

No, because you're younger, but that's simple.

Your instinctive answer is correct because you didn't see Maradona in action.

I saw all of them in action, so that's why.

But since when I was just following it, it's Pelé and Maradona, they were big stars, and Messi is already just...

I was gradually losing interest in other things.

So I remember Pelé 1970, the final match, Brazil-Italy.

So that's the first World Cup soccer I watched.

Because I was asked this question as well.

So, I say that it's just, while it's impossible to make a choice, I would still probably go with Maradona for a simple reason.

The Brazilian team in 1970 could have won without Pelé.

Still could have won, maybe, but it is, Argentinian team in 1986 without Maradona would not be unified.

So this is, and Messi, he still hasn't won a title.

That's- Could argue for that for an hour, but 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.

Simply because, simply because, again, it's just they saw me in action.

So this, again, it's the age factor that's important.

Therefore, with the passion and energy and being equipped with all modern ideas, But again, then you make a very just important assumption that you could empower Garry Kasparov in 89 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years.

That would not be Garry Kasparov, that would be someone else.

I was way ahead of the field And I beat Karpov several times in the world championship matches, and I crossed 2,800, which, by the way, if you look at the rating, even today, so This is the rating that I retired.

So it's still, you know, it's just, it's a top 223.

When I crossed 2,800 In 1990, there was only 1 player in 2700 category, Anatoly Karpov.

So just when you see this, so if you add inflation, so I think my 2851, it could probably could be more valuable as Magnus 2882, which was his highest rating.

But anyway, again, too many hypotheticals.


Speaker 0: 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?

Speaker 1: It's a tricky question. You know, the moment you start ranking world champions- Yeah,

Speaker 0: you lose something?

Speaker 1: I think it's not fair because it's the, any new generation knows much more about the game than the previous 1. So when people say, oh, Gary was the greatest, Fisher was the greatest, Magnus was the greatest. It disregard the fact that the great players of the past, whether Lasky or Capaplanca, Alokian, I mean, they knew so little about chess by today's standards. I mean, today, just any kid, you know, that spent a few years, you know, with his or her chess computer and 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. 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. I was on top, not as big as Fischer, but much longer.

So, and also, unlike Fischer, I succeeded in beating Next Generation.

Speaker 0: Here's the question. Let's see if you still got the fire, speaking of Next Generation, because you did succeed beating the Next Generation.

Speaker 1: It's close. Okay, Anand, Short, Anand, the sheer of, Kramnik is already 12 years younger, so that's a neck. But still yet, I competed with them, and I just, I beat most of them, and I was still dominant when I left at age 41. So, back to Magnus. Magnus, I mean, consistency is phenomenal.

The reason Magnus is on top and it seems unbeatable today, Magnus is a lethal combination of Fischer and Karpov, which is very, it's very unusual because Fischer's style is very dynamic, just fighting to the last poem, just using every resource available. Karpov was very different. It's just, he had an unparalleled ability to use every piece with a maximum effect. Just its minimal resources always produce maximum effect. So now imagine that you merge these 2 styles.

So It's like squeezing every stone for a drop of water, but doing it just for 50, 60, 70, 80 moves. I mean, Magnus could go on as long as Fischer with all his passion and energy, and at the same time being as meticulous and deadly as Karpov by just using every little advantage. So, and he has good, 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 the world champions. But again, it's the discussion that I saw recently in the internet, whether Garry Kasparov of his peak, let's say late 80s, could beat Magnus Carlsen today. I mean, it's certainly irrelevant because Garry Kasparov in 1989, okay, he's played great chess, but still, I knew very little about chess compared to Magnus Carlsen in 2019, who, by the way, learned from me as well. So that's why, yeah.

I'm extremely cautious in making any judgment that involves time gaps. You ask soccer fans, so who is your favorite? Pelé, Maradona or Messi? Yeah. Yeah, who's your favorite?

Messi. Messi, why?

Speaker 0: Because- Maybe Maradona, maybe.

Speaker 1: No, because you're younger, but that's simple. Your instinctive answer is correct because you didn't see Maradona in action. I saw all of them in action, so that's why. But since when I was just following it, it's Pelé and Maradona, they were big stars, and Messi is already just... I was gradually losing interest in other things.

So I remember Pelé 1970, 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... Because I was asked this question as well.

So, I say that it's just, while it's impossible to make a choice, I would still probably go with Maradona for a simple reason. The Brazilian team in 1970 could have won without Pelé. It was absolutely great. Still could have won, maybe, but it is, Argentinian team in 1986 without Maradona would not be unified. So this is, and Messi, he still hasn't won a title.

Speaker 0: That's- Could argue for that for an hour, but 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.

Speaker 1: It just simply because- The confidence,

Speaker 0: the fire.

Speaker 1: Simply because, simply because, again, it's just they saw me in action. So this, again, it's the age factor that's important. Therefore, with the passion and energy and being equipped with all modern ideas, But again, then you make a very just important assumption that you could empower Garry Kasparov in 89 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years. That would not be Garry Kasparov, that would be someone else. Because again, I belong to 1989.

I was way ahead of the field And I beat Karpov several times in the world championship matches, and I crossed 2,800, which, by the way, if you look at the rating, even today, so This is the rating that I retired. So it's still, you know, it's just, it's a top 223. So that's, it's Caruana and Deane. It's about the same rating now. And I crossed 2,800 in 1990.

Well, just you look at the inflation. When I crossed 2,800 In 1990, there was only 1 player in 2700 category, Anatoly Karpov. Now we have more than 50. So just when you see this, so if you add inflation, so I think my 2851, it could probably could be more valuable as Magnus 2882, which was his highest rating. But anyway, again, too many hypotheticals.

See all Lex Fridman transcripts on Youtube

Garry Kasparov: Magnus Carlsen is a Lethal Combination of Fischer and Karpov | Lex Fridman Podcast