Kind: captions
Language: en
the following is a conversation with
Gary Kasparov he's considered by many to
be the greatest chess player of all time
from 1986 until his retirement in 2005
he dominated the chess world ranking
world number one for most of those 19
years while he has many historical
matches against human chess players in a
long arc of history he may be remembered
for his match against the machine IBM's
deep blue his initial victories and
eventual loss to deep blue captivated
the imagination of the world of what
role artificial intelligence systems may
play in our civilizations future that
excitement inspired an entire generation
of AI researchers including myself to
get into the field gary is also a
pro-democracy political thinker and
leader a fearless human rights activist
and author of several books including
how life imitates chess which is a book
on strategy and decision-making winter
is coming
which is a book articulating his
opposition to the Putin regime and deep
thinking which is a book on the role of
both artificial intelligence and human
intelligence in defining our future this
is the artificial intelligence podcast
if you enjoy it subscribe on YouTube
give it five stars and iTunes
support it on patreon or simply connect
with me on Twitter Alex Friedman spelled
Fri D ma a.m.
and now here's my conversation with
Garry Kasparov
as perhaps the greatest chess player of
all time when you look introspectively
your psychology throughout your career
what was the bigger motivator the love
of winning or the hatred of losing tough
question I have to confess I never heard
it before
each is again congratulations it's quite
an accomplishment losing was always
painful for me it was almost like a
physical pain because I knew that if I
lost the game it's just because I made a
mistake so it I always believed that the
result of the game had to be decided by
the quality of my play okay you may say
it sounds arrogant but it helped me to
move forward because I always knew that
there was room for improvement so it's
the was there the fear the mistake
actually fear of mistake guarantees
mistakes and the difference between top
players and very top is that it's the
ability to make a decision without
predictable consequences you don't know
what's happening it's intuitively I can
go this way or that way and they're
always hesitations people like your
you're just you know at the crossroad
you can go right you can go left you can
go straight you can turn and go back and
the consequences are just very uncertain
yes you have certain ideas what happens
on the right or on the left or on just
you know if you go straight but it's not
enough to make well calculated choice
and when you play chess at the very top
is it's it's it's about your inner
strength so I can make this decision I
will stand firm and I'm not going to
waste my time because I feel confidence
that I will go through going back to the
original question is I would say neither
it's just it's the it's love for winning
hateful losing there were important
elements psychological elements but the
key element it's the I would say the the
driving force was
always my passion for for making it make
any difference it's just I can move
forward and I can always its I can
always enjoy not just playing but
creating something new creating
something new how do you think about
that it's just finding new ideas in the
openings you know some regional plan in
the middle game it's actually that
helped me to make the transition from
the game of chess where I wasn't a very
top two to another life where I knew I
would not be number one I would don't be
necessarily on the top but I could still
be very active and productive by my
ability to make the difference by
influencing people say joining the
democratic movement in Russia or talking
to people about human-machine relations
there's so many things were I knew my
influence may not be as decisive as in
chess but still strong enough to help
people to make their choices so you can
still create something new that makes a
difference in the world outside of chess
but wait you've kind of painted a
beautiful picture of your motivations to
chess to create something new to look
for those moments of some brilliant new
ideas but were you haunted by something
see you make it seem like to be at the
level you are at you can get away
without having demons without without
having fears without being driven if by
some of the darker forces I mean you
sound almost religious you know dark
forces to reach you know humans and we
do have a pole for a priest now just
let's go back to you to to these crucial
chess moments where I had to make big
decisions as I said it's it's you know
it was all about my belief from very
early days that I can make all the
difference by playing well or by making
mistakes so the yes I I always had an
opponent across the chessboard opposite
me
but no matter how strong their point was
well they just were ordered player or
another wall champion I can't leak or
proof I haven't called respect for my
opponent I still believe that it's it's
up to me to make the difference and I I
knew I I was not invincible I made
mistakes I made some blunders and you
know with age I mean more blunders okay
good I knew it but it's it's still you
know it's it's very much for me to be
decisive factor in the game I mean even
now look I just you know my latest chess
experience was horrible I mean I get
played carolallan Khurana fatphobia
Khurana it's number two number two
number three player well these days we
play this 960 which they fish for so
call Fisher a random chairs from
shuffling pieces yeah I lost very badly
but it's because I made mistakes I mean
I had so many winning positions I mean
15 years ago I would have crushed him so
and it's it's you know while I lost I
got so much upset I mean I know as I
said in my interview I can fight any
opponent but not my biological clock
it's fighting time with is is is always
a losing proposition but even today at
age 56 you know I I knew that you know I
could play great game I couldn't finish
it because I didn't have enough energy
or just you know I couldn't have the
same level concentration but you know in
number of games where I completely
outplayed one of the top players in the
world I mean gave me a certain amount of
pleasure that is even today I haven't
lost my touch not the same you know okay
the jaws are not as as strong and DTS
are another sharp but I could get him
just you know almost you know two on the
ropes Oh got it it's still got it and
that's you know and it's it's my wife
said it well I mean she said look Gary
it's somehow it's something you just
fighting viola your biological clock
it's just you know maybe it's a signal
because you know the goddess of chess
since you spoke lean religious the
goodness of chess Keysha maybe she
didn't wound you twin because you know
if you could beat number
- number three pride in the world I mean
this is this one of the better top
players who just recently played World
Championship match if you could beat him
it's that was really bad for the game of
chess just what people who say oh look
the game of chess you know it's it's
it's not make any progress the game is
just you know it's it's totally devalued
because Italy the guy coming out of
retirement you know just you know
winning games maybe that was good for
chess not good for you but it's okay
I've been following your logic we should
always look for you know demons you know
superior forces and other things that
did you know if not dominate our lives
but somehow in a play a significant role
in in the outcome yeah so the goddess's
chess had to send a message yeah okay
okay so Gary you should do something
else
time now for a question that you have
heard before but give me a chance
you've dominated the chess world for
twenty years even still got it is there
a moment you said you always look to
create something new is there is there
games or moments where you're especially
proud of in terms of your brilliance of
a new creative move we've talked about
mikhail tall as somebody who was
aggressive and creative chess player in
your own game look
you mentioned mikhail call it's very
aggressive very sharp player famous ways
combinations and sacrifices even called
magician from riga so for his very
unique style but any any world champion
you know it's yeah was a creator some of
them were so flamboyant and flash like
call some of their world no just you
know less discerned at the chessboard
like Tigran Petrosian but every world
champion every top player brought
something into the game of chess and
each contribution was priceless because
it's not just about sacrifices of course
amateurs they enjoy you know the
brilliant games where pieces being
sacrificed it's all just you know pieces
are hanging and and it's all of a sudden
you know being material down rube
or just you know queen down the the the
weaker side delivers the the final blow
on just you know amazing opponent's king
but this there are other kinds of beauty
slow positioning when you ring you know
looking for witnesses and just and and
gradually really strangling your
opponent and eventually delivering sort
of a positional masterpiece
yeah so I think I I made more difference
in the game of chess then I could I
could have imagined when I started
playing and the reason I thought it was
time for me to leave is just I mean I
knew that I was not I was not no longer
the position to bring bring the same
kind of contribution the same kind of
new knowledge into the game so and going
back I could immediately look at my
games again sounds only corpus not just
I won the match in 1985 and became world
champion at age 22 but there were at
least two games in that match of course
the last one game 24 that was decisive
game of the match i won
and became world champion but also the
way a wise was it was a very hard game
and i found a unique maneuver that was
absolutely new and it became some sort
of just a typical now though just when
the move was made was made at the on the
board and put on display a lot of people
thought it was ugly so and another game
game 16 and the match or I just also
managed to outlay Karpov completely was
black pieces just you know paralyzing
his entire army in its own its own camp
technically or psychologically or was
that a mix of both in game 16 yeah it I
think it was a big blow to Karpov I
think it was a big psychological victory
for a number of reasons one the score
was equal at a time and the world
champion you know by the rules could
retain his title in case of a tie so we
still have no before game 16 we have
nine games to go and also it was some
sort of a bluff because
neither me nor Karpov saw the reputation
of this opening idea and and I think it
says for carpel it was double blow
because not that he lost the game I
should triple blow he lost the game it
was a brilliant game and I played
impeccably after you know justice this
opening Bluff and then you know they
discovered that it was a bluff so it's
the again I didn't know it I wasn't
bluffing
so that's why by it happens very often
it's when you know some ideas could be
refuted and it's just what I found out
and this is again going back to your you
know spiritual theme is that and it's
you could spend a lot of time working
and when I say you could it's just it's
it's in the 80s in the 90s it does
happen these days because everybody has
a computer you could immediately see if
it works or it doesn't work
machines show the refutation in the
split of a second but many of the our
analysis in the eighties or in the 90s
they were not perfect simply because
we're humans and they're just you you
analyze the game you look for some fresh
ideas and then test it happens that
there was something that you missed
because the level of concentration
at the chessboard it's different from
one that when you analyze the game just
moving the pieces around but somehow if
you spend a lot of time at the
chessboard preparing so in your studies
with your coaches hours and hours and
hours and nothing of what you found
could had materialized on the our own
chests on the chess board somehow these
hours helped I don't know I always
helped you it's it's as if you know the
amount of work you did could be
transformed into some sort of spiritual
energy that helped you to come up with
other great ideas during the board again
even if it was there was no direct
connection between your preparation and
your victory in the game there was
always some sort of invisible connection
between the amount of work you did your
dedication to actually to you and your
passion to discover new ideas and your
ability during the game add the chess
board when the clock was ticking we
still had ticking clock not
so to come up with some some some
brilliancy and them and I also can
mention many games from the 90s so it's
the obviously all amateurs would pick up
my game against Veselin Topalov in 1999
and we can say again because it was a
Bruin game
the black king traveled from from its
own camp to into D into in the white
scam across the entire board it doesn't
happen often trust me as you know in in
in indie games were professional players
top professional players so that's why I
visually it was one of the most
impressive victories but I could bring
to your attention many other games that
were not so impressive for for amateurs
not so note so beautiful just guess it's
sacrifice always beautiful you
sacrificed asses and then and then
eventually you have so there are very
few resources left and you you you use
them just to to to to crush your your
opponent basically to it's you have to
make the kink because you have almost
almost nothing nothing nothing left at
your disposal but I you know I up to the
very end in less and less but still up
to the very end I always had games with
some sort of you know interesting ideas
and and games that gave me great
satisfaction but I think it's what
happened from 2005 up to you these days
was also a very very big accomplishment
since you know I had to find myself to
sort of relocate myself yeah we channel
the creative energies exactly do you
find something worth feel comfortable
even confident that my participation
still makes the difference beautifully
put
so let me ask perhaps a silly question
but sticking our chests for just a
little longer
where do you put Magnus Carlsen in the
current world champion in a list of all
time greats in terms of style moments of
brilliance consistency it's a tricky
question you know the moment you start
ranking yeah well do something it's the
I think it's it's
it's not fair because it's any new
generation knows much more about the
game than their previous one so when
people say Gary was the greatest Fischer
was the greatest Magnus was the greatest
it disregard the fact that the great
players of the past where the last year
have a plank looking I mean they knew so
little about chess by today's standards
today just any kid you know that spent
few years you know and uh with his or
her chess computer when knows much more
about the game simply just because you
actually have access to this information
and it has been discovered generation
after generation we added more and more
knowledge to the game of chess it's
about the gap between the world champion
and the rest of the field so it's the
now if you look at the gap then proud
official you know could be on top but
very short period of time then you
should also add a time factor yeah I was
on top not as big as but but much longer
so so and also unlike Fischer I will
succeed in beating next generation yeah
here's the question yeah let's see if
you still got the fire speaking of the
next generation because you did succeed
beating the next generation it's close
okay well Anand short Anand the sheer of
chromic is already 12 years younger so
that's a neck that's but still yet I I
competed with them and I just had beat
most of them and and I was still
dominant when I left at age of the 41 so
back to Magnus Madras right consistency
is phenomenal
the reason Magnus is on top and it seems
unbeatable today Magnus is is a lethal
combination of Fischer on Karpov
but just very it's very unusual because
Fischer style was very dynamic just
fighting to the last point just using
every resource available Karpov was very
different as just yet an unparalleled
ability to use the every piece with a
maximum effect just it's minimal
resources always produce maximum effects
just so now imagine that you merge these
two styles say oh it is it's it's like
you know it's a squeezing every stone
for drop of water but but doing it you
know just you know for 50 60 70 80 moves
I mean mangas could go on as long as
Fisher who is always passion and energy
and at the same time being as meticulous
and and and and deadly as corporal by
just you know using every little
advantage so and yes good you know very
good else it's important I mean physical
conditions are by the way very important
so a lot of people don't recognize it
their latest study shows that chess
players burn thousands of calories
during the game so that puts him on the
top of this fuel of of the wall chambers
but again it's the discussion that is I
so recently in internet whether garry
kasparov always peek let's say late 80s
could be Magnus Carlsen today I mean
something irrelevant because garriga's
probably 1989 okay it's played great
chess but still I knew very little about
chess compared to Magnus crossing 2019
who Biden will learn from me as well so
that's why yeah
I'm extremely cautious in making any
judgment that involves you know time
gaps you ask you know soccer fans so who
is your favorite Pele Maradona or Messi
yeah yeah who's your favorite Messi miss
because maybe because he's younger but
that's simple your instinct answer is
correct because you saw you didn't say
marathon in action I saw all of them in
action so that's why but it's but since
you know when I was you know just
following it in air just it's pillion
and Maradona they were just you know
there were big stars and it's Macy's
already just get I I was gradually
losing interest other things so I
remember Pele 1970 the final match
Brazil Italy so that's the first world
war World Cup soccer I watched so that's
the and and actually my answer when it
just where that just you know I because
I I was asked this question as well so I
say that is this while it's impossible
to make a choice I would sue probably go
with Maradona for simple reason the
Brazilian team in 1970 could have won
without Collette it was absolutely great
still could have won
maybe but it is the Argentinian team in
1986 without Maradona would not be in
the 5s so this is and Messi he still has
that's not good argue for that for an
hour but yes you could say if you ask
Maradona if you look in his eyes
especially let's say Gary Kasparov 99 he
would have said I was sure as hell would
be magnus carlsen it's just simply the
confidence fire simply because simply
because again it's just a so mean action
so this again it's it's the age factor
as important therefore is a passion and
energy and and being equipped with all
modern ideas but again then you make in
a very just important assumption that
you could empower Gary Kasparov 89 with
all ideas that have been accumulated
over 30 years that would not be Garrigus
part that would be someone else because
again I belong to 1989 I was way ahead
of the field and I you know a bit Karpov
several times in World Championship
matches and I crossed 2,800 which by the
way if you look at the chest in rating
which is just it's even today so this is
this is the rating that I retire so that
says it's still you know it's just it's
a it's a top two to three so that says
this is kerwin and eaglets about the
same rating now and I crossed 2,100 in
1990 we just look at the inflation when
I cross 2,800 in in 1990 there was only
one player in 2700 category Anatoly
Karpov now he had more than 50 so just
you see this
so if you add inflation so I think my
28:51 it could probably could be more
valuable as Magnus 2882 which was
highest rating but anyway yeah you know
so many hypotheticals you're lost to IBM
gee blue in 1997 in my eyes there's one
of the most seminal moments in the
history again I apologize for being
romanticized in the notion but in the
history of our civilization because
humans as the civilizations for century
saw chess as you know the peak of what
man can accomplish of intellectual
mastery right and that moment when a
machine could beat a human being was
inspiring to just an entire anyone who
cares about science innovation
the entire generation of AI researchers
and yet to you that laws at least if
reading your face was seemed like a
tragedy extremely painful like you said
physically painful why when you look
back at your psychology that lost why
was it so painful when you're not able
to see the seminal nature of that moment
Oh
or was that exactly why was that
powerful as I already said losing was
painful physically passing and the match
I lost in 1997 was not the first match I
lost to a machine it was the first match
I lost period yes
that's oh yeah it's right yeah that
makes all the difference to me yes first
time I lost it's just now I lost and the
reason I was so angry that I just you
know I had suspicions that my loss was
not just the result of my bad play yes
SoDo I played quite poorly you know just
when you started looking at the games
today I made tons of mistakes but you
know I had all reasons to believe that
you know there were other other factors
that had nothing to do with the game of
chess and that's what I was angry but
look it was 22 years ago
it's what under the bridge we can
analyze this match and this is with
everything you said I I agree it was
probably one exception is that
considering chess you know as the sort
of as a pinnacle of intellectual
activities
what's our mistake because you know we
just thought oh it's a it's a game of
the highest intellect and I just you
know you have to be so you know
intelligent and as you could see things
that you know the or the ordinary
ordinary mortals could not see it's a
game and all machines had to do with
this game is just to make fewer mistakes
not to solve the game because the game
cannot be solved I mean according to
Shannon the number of legal moves is ten
to the 46 power too many zeroes for any
computer to finish the job you know in
in in neck
billion years but it doesn't have to
it's all about making fewer mistakes and
I think that's the this match actually
and what's happened afterwards with
other games with go with shrug II with
video games it's a demonstration that
it's the machines will always beat
humans in what I call closed systems the
moment you build a closed system no
matter how this system is called chess
go
froggie daughter machines will prevail
simply because they will bring down
number of mistakes machines don't have
to solve it they just have to it's the
way they outplay us it's not by just
being more intelligent it's just by by
doing something else but eventually it's
just it's capitalizing on our mistakes
when you look at the chess machines
ratings today in compare compare this to
Magnus Carlsen is the same as comparing
Ferrari to Hussein bold it's the the gap
is is I meant by chess standards is
insane thirty four thirty five hundred
to twenty eight hundred twenty eight
twenty eight twenty eight fifty one man
knows it's like difference between
macros and AB and an ordinary player
from an open international tournament
it's not because machine understands
better than magnus carlsen but simply
because it's steady machine has steady
hand and I think that is what we we we
have to learn from 1997 experience and
from further encounters with computers
and sort of the the current state state
of affairs was alpha zero you beating
other machines the idea that we can
compete with computers in so-called
intellectual fields it's it was wrong
from the very beginning it's just it's
by the way if 1997 match was not the
first victory of machines over our
masters or masters yeah no actually it's
I played against first decent chess
computers from late from late 80s so I
played with the prototype of deep blue
called deep thought in 1989 to repeat
chest
in New York I want handily those games
we played against new chess engines like
Fritz and other programs and then it
Steve was Israeli problem jr. that
appeared in yeah so there were several
problems I you know I lost few games in
blitz I lost one match against the
computer a chess engine 1994 rapid chess
so I lost one game 2d blue in 1996 match
the manner the match chef I want some
people you know tend to forget about it
that I won the first match yes
but it's it's we we made a very
important psychological mistake thinking
that the reason we lost blitz matches
five five minutes games the reason we
lost some of the rapid chess matches
twenty five minutes just because we
didn't have enough time if you play a
longer match we will not make the same
mistake nonsense so this yeah we had
more time but we still make mistakes and
machine also has more time and machines
machine will always you know I will
always be stated inconsistent compared
to humans instabilities and
inconsistencies and today we are at a
point where yes nobody talks about you
know humans playing use machines
machines can offer handicap two to two
top players still you know will will
will be favoring I think we're just
learning that is it's it's no longer
human versus machines it's about human
working with machines that's what I
recognized in 1998 just after licking my
wounds and spending one year in just in
a ruminating Saudi so what's happened at
in this match and I knew that though we
still could play against the machines I
had two more matches in 2003 playing
both a deep freeze and deep jr. both
matches and there's a tie mmm-hmm though
this machines were not weaker at least I
promise stronger and II blue and by the
way today just app on your mobile phone
is probably stronger than the blue
individual I'm not speaking of any bit
about chess engines that are so much
superior and by the way when you analyze
games who played against the blue 90 97
on your chess engine they'll be laughing
yeah so this is and it's also shows
that's how it just changed because
just commentators they look at some of
our games like game for Game five and
idea now you asked stockfish you asked
Houdini
you asked Commodore all the leading
chess engines yeah within 30 seconds
they will show you how many mistakes
booze Gary and D blue mate in the game
that was from Pettitte as the as a great
chess match in 1997 well okay so you've
made an interesting if you can untangle
that comment so now in retrospect it was
a mistake to see chess as the peak of
human intellect nevertheless that was
done for centuries
so even in Europe because you know you
move to the far east they will go there
shogi games again I guess some of the
games like you look our board games yes
yes yeah so if I push back a little bit
so now you say that okay but it was a
mistake to see chess as the epitome and
now and then now there's other things
maybe like language that conversation
like some of the things that in your
view is still way out of reach of
computers but inside humans do you think
can you talk about what those things
might be and do you think just like
chess that might fall soon with the same
set of approaches if you look at alpha
zero the same kind of learning
approaches as the machines grow in size
no no it's not about in size it's about
again it's about understanding the
difference but in closed system an
open-ended system so you think that key
difference so the board games are closed
in terms of the rules that they actions
simple the state space
everything is just constrained you think
once you open it the machines are lost
not lost but again the effectiveness is
very different because machine does not
understand the moment it's reaching the
territory of diminishing returns hmm
it's the simple in a different way
machine doesn't know how to ask right
questions it can ask questions but
we'll never tell you which questions are
relevant so this D it's like about the
it's the it's a direction so these it's
I think is in human relations we have to
consider so our role and people many
people feel uncomfortable that is the
territory that that belongs to us is is
shrinking I'm saying so what you know is
this is eventually will belong to the
last few decimal points but it's like
having so very powerful gun that's and
and and and all you can do there is
slightly you know alter direction of the
bullet maybe you know point one the
degree of this angle but that means a
mile away ten meters of tourists so so
that's we have to recognize that is a
certain unique human qualities that
machine's in the foreseeable future will
not be able to reproduce and and the
effectiveness of this cooperation
collaboration depends on our
understanding what exactly we can bring
into the game so the greatest danger is
when we try to interfere with machines
superior knowledge so that's why I
always say that sometimes you'd rather
have by reading these pictures in
radiology you may probably prefer an
experienced nurse then rather than
having top professor because she will
not try to interfere with machines
understanding so this it's very
important to know that if machines knows
how to do better things in 95% 96% of
territory we should not touch it because
it's it happened we it's like in chess
recognize they they do it better see
where we can make the difference you
mentioned alpha 0 alpha 0 it's a it's
actually a first step into what you may
call AI because everything that's being
called AI today is just it's it's it's
one or another variation of what Claude
Shannon characterized as a brute force
is a type a machine whether it's deep
blue whether its what's in it and all
these the modern technologies that are
being competitors as AI it's still boot
force it's the all video it's they do
optimization it's this they are you know
they
they keep you know improving the way to
process human generated data hmm now
alpha zero is is the first step towards
you know machine produced knowledge yes
which is why what by the way it's quite
ironic that the first company that
jumped on that was ideal oh it's in
backgammon interesting in that again yes
you just you should you should you
should look at IBM is this it's a new
gammon it's the it's the he's still
working IBM they had in early nineties
it says it's the it's in the program
that played in LD alpha 0 type so just
trying to come up with own strategies
but because of success of the blue this
project had been not abandoned but just
you know it's it's it wasn't was put on
call and now it just you know it's it's
it's you know it's every talks about
about this t the machines generated
knowledge so as a revolutionary and it
is but there's still you know many
open-ended questions yes
alpha 0 generates its own data many
ideas that alpha 0 generating chess work
quite intriguing so I I looked at these
games was not just with interest but was
no it was quite exciting to learn how
machine could actually you know juggle
all the pieces and just play positions
with a broken material balance
sacrificing material always being ahead
of other programs you know one or two
moves ahead by by foreseeing the
consequence not over calculating because
machines other machines were at least as
powerful in calculating but it's having
this unique knowledge based on
discovered patterns after playing 60
million games almost something like
feels like intuition exactly but there's
one problem
yeah now the simple question if if alpha
0 faces superior point let's say another
powerful computer accompanied by human
who could help just to discover certain
problems because I already I look at
many alpha 0 games I visited their lab
spoke to demis hassabis and his team and
I I know that certain witnesses there
now if these wings are exposed and that
question is how many games will it take
for alpha zero to correct it the answer
is hundreds of thousands even if it
keeps losing it it's this because the
whole system is based yes so it's now
imagine so that says you can have a
human by just making few tweaks so
humans are still more flexible and and
as long as we recognize what is what is
our raw where we can play sort of so the
most valuable part in this collaboration
so it's it will help us to understand
what are the next steps in human machine
collaboration beautifully put
so let's talk about the thing that
machine's certainly don't know how to do
yet which is morality machines and
morality but it's another question that
I know just it's that's as being asked
all the time these days and I I think
it's another phantom that is haunting a
general public because it's just being
fed with this you know illusions is that
how can we vote machines you know having
bias need prejudices you cannot because
it's like looking in the mirror and
complaining about what you see if you
have certain bias in the society machine
will will just follow it it's just it's
it's you know you look at the mirror you
don't like what you see there you can
you know you can break it you can try to
distort it or you can try to actually
change something just itself yes
by yourself yes so it's very important
to understand is this is you cannot
expect machines to to improve the ease
of our society and moreover machines
will simply know just you know amplified
yes yeah but the thing is people are
more comfortable with other people doing
injustice would being biased
we're not comfortable with machines
having the same kind of bias so that's a
that's an interesting standard that we
place on machines with autonomous
vehicles they have to be much safer with
automated systems because they're much
safer statistically they're much safer
than then of course why would they it's
not of course it's it's not given
autonomous vehicles you have to work
really hard to make them
is safer i I think it just goes without
saying is the the outcome of the of this
alcohol competition but comparison is
very clear but the problem is not about
being in a safer it's the forty thousand
people will show every year died in car
accidents United States and it's its
statistics one accident ways with
autonomous vehicle and it's front page
of a newspaper yeah this was cycle so
it's while people you know kill each
other in car accidents because they make
mistakes they make more mistakes for me
it's it's it's not a question of course
we make more mistakes because we human
yes machines old and by the way no
machine will ever reach hundred percent
perfection that's not that that's
another important take story that that
that is being fed to the public if
machine doesn't reach hundreds and
performance is not safe no all you can
ask any computer whether it's you know
playing chess or or doing the stock
market calculations or driving your
autonomous vehicle it's to make fewer
mistakes and yes I know it's not you
know it's not easy for us to accept
because ah if you know if you have to
humans
you know colliding in their cars okay
it's like if one of one of these cars is
autonomous very vehicle and by the way
even if it's humans fault
terrible how could you allow a machine
to do it you to run without driver ID at
the wheel
so you know let's think of that for a
second that double standard the way you
felt with your first loss against D blue
were you treating the Machine
differently than you would have a human
or so what do you think about that
difference between the way we see
machines and humans no it's a match and
that's why I was angry because I believe
they're lost the match was not you know
fairly organized so the states
definitely they were unfair advantages
for for IBM and I want to play there
another match like rubble mess
so you're angered or displeasure was a
more like at the humans behind IBM
versus the actual your absolute
algorithm absolutely look I I knew at
the time and by the way I was
objectively speaking I was stronger at
that time so that's that
we added to my anger because I knew I
could beat machine yeah yeah so this and
that's the and I lost and I knew I was
not well prepared so because they I have
to give them credit they did some good
work from 1996 and I but I still could
beat the machine so I made too many
mistakes also this is the hole is this
the publicity around the match so I
underestimated the effect you know just
it's Andy and being called the you know
the the brains lost and ounce okay no
pressure okay well let me ask so I was
born also in the Soviet Union what
lessons do you draw from the rise and
fall of the Soviet Union
in the 20th century when you just look
at this nation that is now look I'm
pushing forward into what Russia is if
you look at the long arc of history of
the 20th century what do we take away
what do we take away from that I think
the lesson of history is clear
undemocratic systems totalitarian
regimes systems that are based on
controlling their citizens and just
every aspect of their life not offering
opportunities to for private initiative
central planning systems they duped they
just you know they they cannot be
driving force for innovation so they in
in history timeline I mean they could
cause certain you know
distortion of the concept of progress
they by the way call themselves
progressive but we know that is this the
damage that they cost to to humanity is
just it's it's it's yet to be measured
but at the end of the day they fail they
fail and it's and the end of the Cold
War was a great triumph of the free
world it's not that the free world is
perfect it's very important to recognize
its factors I always like to mention you
know one of my favorite books a lot of
the Rings daddy there's no there's no
absolute good but there's an absolutely
good you know it comes in many forms but
we all you know it's humans or being
even you know humans from fairy tales or
just some sort of mystical creatures
it's they you can always find spots on
the song so this is conducting war and
just and fighting you for justice there
are always things that you know can be
easily criticized and human history is
the is a never-ending quest for
perfection but we know that there is
absolutely you
we know it's for me it's now clear
that's I mean it's nobody argues about
Hitler being absolutely well but I think
it's very poor against Stalin was
absolutely communism caused more damage
than any other ideology in the 20th
century and unfortunately while we all
know that fascist was condemned but
there was no nerble for common communism
and that's why we could see you know
still is the these the successors of
Stalin are feeling far more comfortable
so you is one of them you highlight a
few interesting connections actually
between Stalin and Hitler I mean there
that in in terms of the adjusting or
clarifying the the history of war to
which they're interesting of course we
don't have time so let me ask you I just
I just recently delivered a speech in
Toronto yeah at a decent roast of Malta
ribbon from pact it's something that I
believe you know just you know has must
must be taught in the schools and the
world what you had been started by to
dictators by signing these these
criminal criminal treaty
collusion of two tyrants in August 1939
that
the beginning of the world World War two
and the fact that eventually Stalin had
no choice but to join allies because
Hitler attack him so it just doesn't you
know eliminated the fact that Stalin
helped Hitler to start World War two and
he was one of the beneficiary said early
at early stage by annexing part of
Eastern Europe and as a result of the
war with you he annexed always entire
Eastern Europe and for many Eastern
European nations the end of the world
would you was the beginning of communist
occupation hmm
so Putin you've talked about as a man
who stands between Russia and democracy
essentially today you've been a strong
opponent and critic of Putin let me ask
again how much does fear enter your mind
and heart so in 2007 there's this
interesting comment from Oleg Kalugin
KGB general he said that I do not talk
details people who knew them are all
dead now because they were vocal I'm
quiet there's only one man who's vocal
and he may be in trouble
World Chess Champion Kasparov he has
been very outspoken in his attacks on
Putin and I believe he's probably next
on the list so clearly your life has
been and perhaps continues to be in
danger how do you think about having the
views you have the ideas you have being
in opposition as you are in this kind of
context when your life could be in
danger oh that's the reason I live in
New York
so what's they was not my first choice
but I knew I had to leave Russia at one
point and among other places New York is
the safest is it safe no I mean
interested Steve I know what happens
what happened what is happening who is
many of Putin enemies but at the end of
the day I mean what can I do it it's I I
could be very proactive by trying to
change things I can influence but here
are way effects I I cannot stop doing
what I've been doing for a long time
it's the right thing to do I grew up
with my family teaching me sort of the
wisdom of Soviet dissidents do what you
must and so be it
I could try to be cautious by not
traveling to certain places were you
know my security could be at risk
there's so many invitations to speak at
different locations in the world and I
have to say that many countries are just
now are not destinations that I can
afford to travel my mother still lives
in Moscow and meet her a few times a
year she was devastated when I had to
leave Russia because since my father
died in 1971 so she was 33 and she
dedicated her entire life to her only
son but she recognized in just a year or
so since I left Russia that it was the
only chance for me to continue my normal
life so just is to I mean to be
relatively safe and to to do what she
taught me to do to make the difference
do you think you will ever return to
Russia or oh I'm sure when it won't
sooner than many people think because I
think Putin regime is facing
insurmountable different difficulties
and again I read enough historical books
to know that dictatorships they they end
suddenly it's just on Sunday dictator
feels comfortable he believes he's
popular on Monday morning his bust the
good news and bad news I mean the bad
news is that I don't know when and how
Putin rule ends the good news he also
doesn't know
okay well put let me ask a question that
seems to preoccupy the American mind
from the perspective of Russia one did
Russia interfere in the 2016 US election
government-sanctioned
and future two will rush into fear in
the 2020 US election and what does that
interference look like
it's very old you know we had such an
intelligent conversation and you are
ruining everything by asking such as
healthy but it's it's insulting for my
intellect okay of course they did
interfere over horse they did absol
everything to elect Trump I mean they
said it many times he this is you know I
met enough KGB Colonels in my life to
tell you that you know just the way put
it looks at Trump yeah this is the way
Luke said I don't have to hear what he
says what Trump says it just is I don't
need to go through congressional
instigations the way he put it looks at
Trump it's the way the KGB officers
looked at the assets it's just and
following to 20/20 of course they will
do absolutely everything to help Trump
to survive because I think they damage
that Trump's relations could cause to
America and to the free world it's just
it's beyond one's imagination I think
basically from was reelected she'll ruin
NATO because he's already heading in
this direction but now he's just he's
still limited by the re-election hurdles
if he's still in the office after
November 2020 okay January 2021 I don't
think about it my problem is not just
Trump because Trump is basically it's a
symptom but the problem is that I don't
see it just it's the in American
political horizon politicians who could
take on Trump for for all damage that
he's doing for the free world not just
things that that's happened that went
wrong in America so this the it seems to
me that the campaign political campaign
on the Democratic side is is fixed on
certain important but still second
duration guess when you have the
foundation the Republican jeopardy I
mean you cannot talk about health care I
mean understand how important it is but
it's still secondary because the a
framework familiar political life is at
risk and you have rather intrusion just
you know just it's having the free hands
bye-bye he's by attacking America
and other free countries and by doing we
have so much evidence about Russia
intervals and brexit in elections in
almost every European country and
thinking that they will be shy of
attacking America in 2020
now is we strong in the office yeah I
think it's um yeah it definitely
diminishes the intellectual quality
falklands I do what I can
last question if you can go back just
look at the entirety of your life you
accomplished more than most humans will
ever do if you could go back and relive
a single moment in your life what would
that moment be there are moments in my
life when I think about what could be
done differently but no experience
happiness and joy and pride
just-just-just is this it's the it's
look I made many mistakes in my life so
I just it's there I know that at the end
of the day it's I believe in the
butterfly effect so is the it's the I
knew moments where I could now if I'm
there at that point in 89 in 93 pick up
a year I could improve my actions by not
doing this stupid thing but then how do
you know that I will have all other
compliments yeah I just I'm I'm afraid
that you know we just have to just
follow this if you make all wisdom
before is Gumpy know it's the life as
this you know it's this it's a box of
affair of chocolate and you don't know
what's inside but you have to go one by
one so it's the I'm I'm happy with who I
am and where I am today and I am very
proud not only with my chess
accomplishments but that I made this
transition and since I left chess you
know i built my own reputation that had
some influence of the game of chess but
not it's not you know directly derived
from from the game I'm grateful for my
wife so who helped me to build his life
we actually married in 2005 it was my
sure
marriage that's why I said that make
mistakes in my wife but I died by the
way I'm close with two kids from my
previous marriages so that's tasty I
mean I managed to sort of to balance my
life and and hear it I live in New York
so we have our two kids born here in New
York it's its new life and it's you know
it's it's busy sometimes I wish I could
you know I could limit my engagement in
many other things that said I still you
know taking time and energy but life is
exciting and as long as I can feel that
I've energy I have strengths I have
passion to make the difference I'm happy
I think that's a beautiful moment and on
Gary spicy buh-bye sure thank you very
much for talking to me thank you
possible
you