The following is a conversation with Garry Kasparov.

He's considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time.

From 1986 until his retirement in 2005, he dominated the chess world, ranking world number 1 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 into the field.

Gary is also a pro-democracy political thinker and leader, a fearless human rights activist, and author of several books, including How Life Imitates Chess, which is a book on strategy and decision making, Winter is Coming, which is a book articulating his opposition to the Putin regime, and Deep Thinking, which is a book on the role of both artificial intelligence and human intelligence in defining our future.

This is the Artificial intelligence podcast.

If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, give it 5 stars on iTunes, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter, Alex Friedman, spelled F-R-I-D-M-A-N.

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

As perhaps the greatest chess player of all time, when you look introspectively at your psychology throughout your career, what was the bigger motivator?

The love of winning or the hatred of losing?

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

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.

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.

Actually, fear of mistake guarantees mistakes.

And the difference between top players, the very top, is that it's the ability to make a decision without predictable consequences.

It's just intuitively, I can go this way or that way.

People are like, you are just at the crossroad.

You can go right, you can go left, you can go straight.

And The consequences are just very uncertain.

You have certain ideas what happens on the right or on the left, or just 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.

So I can make this decision, I will stand firm, and I'm not going to waste my time because I have full confidence that I will go through.

Now going back to your original question is, I would say neither.

It's just, it's love for winning, hate for losing.

They were important elements, psychological elements, but the key element, it's the, I would say, the driving force was always my passion for making a difference.

It's just, I can move forward and I can always enjoy, not just playing, but creating something new.

It's just finding new ideas in the openings, some original plan in the middle game.

Actually, that helped me to make the transition from the game of chess, where I was on the very top, to another life, where I knew I would not be number 1, I would not be necessarily on the top, but I could still be very active and productive by my ability to make a difference by influencing people, say, joining the democratic movement in Russia or talking to people about human machine relations.

There's so many things where I knew my influence may not be as decisive as in chess, but still strong enough to help people to make their choices.

So you can still create something new that makes a difference in the world outside of chess.

But wait, you've kind of painted a beautiful picture of your motivations to chess, to create something new, to look for those moments of some brilliant new ideas.

So you make it seem like to be at the level you're at, you can get away without having demons, without having fears, without being driven by some of the darker forces.

I mean, you sound almost religious, you know, darker forces, spiritual demons.

Now, just let's go back to these crucial chess moments where I had to make big decisions.

As I said, 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, yes, I always had an opponent across the chessboard, opposite me.

But no matter how strong the opponent was, whether just an ordinary player or another world champion like Anatoly Karpov, having all respect for my opponent, I still believe that it's up to me to make the difference.

But it's still 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, Fabio Caruana, this number 2, number 2, number 3 player in the world these days.

We play this 960 with the so-called Fischer random chess, reshuffling pieces.

Yeah, I lost very badly, but it's because I made mistakes.

I mean, 15 years ago, I would have crushed him.

And it's, you know, while I lost, I was not so much upset.

I mean, I know, as I said in the interview, I can fight any opponent, but not my biological clock.

So, it's fighting time is always a losing proposition.

But even today at age 56, you know, 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 1 of the top players in the world, I mean, gave me a certain amount of pleasure.

That is, even today, I haven't lost my touch.

Not the same, you know, okay, the jaws are not as strong and the teeth are not as sharp, but I could get him just, you know, almost, you know, on the ropes.

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 not you 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, right?

The goddess of chess, Keisha, maybe she didn't want you to win, because if you could beat number 2, number 3 player in the world, I mean, that's 1 of the top players who just recently played a World Championship match.

If you could beat him, that would be really bad for the game of chess.

But just what 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, look, the guy coming out of retirement, just 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 demons, superior forces, and other things that could, if not dominate our lives, but somehow play a significant role in the outcome.

Yeah, so the goddess of chess had to send a message.

Now for a question that you have heard before, but give me a chance.

You've dominated the chess world for 20 years, even still got it.

Is there a moment you said you always look to create something new.

Is there games or moments where you're especially proud of in terms of your brilliance of a new creative move?

You've talked about Mikhail Tal as somebody who was aggressive and creative chess player in your own game?

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 world champion, you know, was a creator.

Some of them were so flamboyant and flash like tall.

Some of them were, you know, just, you know, less discerned at the chess board like Tigran Petrozian.

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 the brilliant games where pieces being sacrificed, it's all just, you know, all pieces are hanging.

And it's all of a sudden, you know, being material down, rook down, or just, you know, queen down, the weaker side delivers the final blow and just mating opponents king.

I mean, there's a slow positional maneuvering, looking for weaknesses and just, and gradually strangling your opponent and eventually delivering sort of a positional masterpiece.

So I think I made more difference in the game of chess than I could have imagined when I started playing.

And the reason I thought it was time for me to leave, was just, I mean, I knew that I was not, I was not, no longer the position to bring the same kind of contribution, the same kind of new knowledge into the game.

So, and going back, I could immediately look at my games against Anatoly Karpov.

It's not just I won the match in 1985 and became a world champion at age 22, but there were at least 2 games in that match.

Of course, the last 1, game 24, that was decisive game of the match, I won and became world champion.

But also the way I won, it was a very sharp game and I found a unique maneuver that was absolutely new and it became some sort of, just a typical now, though just when the move was made, was made on the board and put on display, a lot of people thought it was ugly.

And another game, game 16 in the match where I just also managed to outplay Karpov completely with black pieces, just paralyzing his entire army in its own camp.

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

Yeah, I think it was a big blow to Karpov.

I think it was a big psychological victory for a number of reasons.

1, the score was equal at the time and the world champion, by the rules, could retain his title in case of a tie.

So we still have, before game 16, we have 9 games to go.

And also it was some sort of a bluff because neither me nor Karpov saw the refutation of this opening idea.

And I think it's as for Karpov, it was double blow because not that he lost the game, I should triple blow.

And I played impeccably after, you know, just this opening bluff.

And then, you know, they discovered that it was a bluff.

So it's the again, I didn't know I was bluffing.

And it's just what I found out, and this is again, going back to your spiritual theme is that you could spend a lot of time working.

And when I say you could, It's in the 80s, in the 90s.

It doesn't happen these days because everybody has a computer.

You could immediately see 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 80s or in the 90s, they were not perfect simply because we're humans and you analyze the game, you look for some fresh ideas, and then just it happens that there was something that you missed.

Because the level of concentration at the chessboard is different from 1 that when you analyze the game, just moving the pieces around.

But somehow, if you spend a lot of time at the chessboard preparing, so in your studies with your coaches, hours and hours and hours, And nothing of what you found had materialized on the chessboard.

Somehow these hours helped, I don't know why, always helped you.

It's as if the amount of work you did could be transformed into some sort of spiritual energy that helped you to come up with other great ideas during the board.

Again, even if there was no direct connection between your preparation and your victory in the game, there was always some sort of invisible connection between the amount of work you did, your dedication to actually to, and your passion to discover new ideas, and your ability during the game at the chessboard when the clock was ticking, we still had ticking clock, not digital clock at the time.

And I also can mention many games from the 90s.

So it's the, obviously all amateurs would pick up my game against Veselin Topalov in 1999 in Vykon Zy.

Again, because it was a brilliant game, the Black King traveled from its own camp into White's camp across the entire board.

It doesn't happen often, trust me, as you know, in the games with professional players, top professional players.

So that's why visually it was 1 of the most impressive victories.

But I could bring to your attention Many other games that were not so impressive for amateurs, not so beautiful, just because it's sacrifice always beautiful, you sacrifice pieces.

And then eventually you have so very few 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 up to the very end, again, less and less, but still up to the very end, I always had games with some sort of 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 big accomplishment.

Since I had to find myself to sort of relocate myself.

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

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?

You know, the moment you start ranking world

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 disregards the fact that the great players of the past, the last year, Cabo Blanco, 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 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 Fisher, but much longer.

So, and also, unlike Fisher, I succeeded in beating next generation.

Let's see if you still got the fire, speaking of the 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 was 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, you know, it's 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 this field of the world champions.

But again, it's the discussion that I saw recently on 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, has 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, Pele, Maradona, or Messi?

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, you know, when I was just following it, you know, it's Pelé and Maradona, they were just, you know, they were big stars, and Messi's 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.

And actually my answer when I just, you know, 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 simple reason.

The Brazilian team in 1970 could have won without Pelé.

Maybe, but it is, the Argentinian team in 1986 without Maradona would not be unified.

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

That's- 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 be 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.

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 2,700 category, Anatoly Karpov.

So just when you see this, so if you add inflation, so I think my 2,851, it probably could be more valuable as Magnus 2,882, which was his highest rating.

But anyway, again, too many hypotheticals.

In my eyes, that is 1 of the most seminal moments in the history, Again, I apologize for being romanticizing the notion, but in the history of our civilization, because humans as a civilization for centuries saw chess as 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, seemed like a tragedy, extremely painful, like you said, physically painful.

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?

Or was that exactly why it was that painful?

As I already said, losing was Painful, physically painful.

And the match I lost in 1997 was not the first match I lost to a machine.

Yeah, that makes all the difference to me.

Now, I lost and the reason I was so angry that I just, you know, I had suspicions that my loss was not just a result of my bad play.

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 factors that had nothing to do with the game of chess.

We can analyze this match and this is, with everything you said, I agree.

With probably 1 exception, is that considering chess, you know, as the sort of, as a pinnacle of intellectual activities, was our mistake.

Because we just thought, oh, it's a game of the highest intellect and it's just, you have to be so intelligent and you could see things that, the ordinary mortals could not see.

And 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 Koval Shanin, the number of legal moves is 10 to the 46th power.

Too many zeros, so just for any computer to finish the job, you know, in the next few billion years.

And I think that's the mismatch actually.

And what's happened afterwards with other games, with Go, with Shogi, with video games, it's a demonstration that it's the Machines will always beat humans in what I call closed systems.

The moment you build a closed system, no matter how the system is called, chess, go, shogi, dota, machines will prevail simply because they will bring down number of mistakes.

The way they outplay us, it's not by just being more intelligent.

It's just by doing something else, but eventually it's capitalizing on our mistakes.

When you look at the chess machines ratings today and compare this to Magnus Carlsen, it's the same as comparing Ferrari to Usain Bolt.

The gap is, I mean, by chess standards is insane.

It's like difference between Magnus and an ordinary player from an open international tournament.

It's not because machine understands better than Magnus Carlsen, but simply because it's steady.

And I think that is what we have to learn from 1997 experience and from further encounters with computers and sort of the current state of affairs with AlphaZero, beating other machines.

The idea that we can compete with computers in so-called intellectual fields, It was wrong from the very beginning.

By the way, the 1997 match was not the first victory of machines over.

No, actually, I played against first decent chess computers from late 80s.

So I played with the prototype of Deep Blue called Deep Thought in 1989, 2 rapid chess games in New York.

See all Lex Fridman transcripts on Youtube

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