Lex Fridman Podcast - Garry Kasparov: Chess, Deep Blue, AI, and Putin

Episode Date: October 27, 2019

Garry Kasparov is considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time. From 1986 until his retirement in 2005, he dominated the chess world, ranking world number 1 for most of those 19 years. While he has many historic matches against human chess players, in the long arc of history he may be remembered for his match again a machine, IBM's Deep Blue. His initial victories and eventual loss to Deep Blue captivated the imagination of the world of what role Artificial Intelligence systems may play in our civilization's future. That excitement inspired an entire generation of AI researchers, including myself, to get into the field. Garry is also a pro-democracy political thinker and leader, a fearless human-rights activist, and author of several books including How Life Imitates Chess which is a book on strategy and decision-making, Winter Is Coming which is a book articulating his opposition to the Putin regime, and Deep Thinking which is a book the role of both artificial intelligence and human intelligence in defining our future. This conversation is part of the Artificial Intelligence podcast. If you would like to get more information about this podcast go to https://lexfridman.com/ai or connect with @lexfridman on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Medium, or YouTube where you can watch the video versions of these conversations. If you enjoy the podcast, please rate it 5 stars on Apple Podcasts or support it on Patreon. Here's the outline with timestamps for this episode (on some players you can click on the timestamp to jump to that point in the episode): 00:00 - Introduction 01:33 - Love of winning and hatred of losing 04:54 - Psychological elements 09:03 - Favorite games 16:48 - Magnus Carlsen 23:06 - IBM Deep Blue 37:39 - Morality 38:59 - Autonomous vehicles 42:03 - Fall of the Soviet Union 45:50 - Putin 52:25 - Life

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 No. 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 Amitaze Chess, which is a book of 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 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 Gary 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? Tough question. I have to confess I never heard it before, which 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 game it's just because I made a mistake. So I always believed that the result of the game had to be decided by the quality of my play. Okay, you may say it sounds arrogant, but it helped me to move forward because I always knew that there was room for improvement. Was there the fear of 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 that always has a taste. People are like

you are just, you know, the crossroads. 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. You have certain ideas what happens on the right or on the left or on just, you know, if you go straight, but it's not enough to make well calculated choice. And when you play chess at the very top, it's about your inner strength. So I can make this decision. I will stand firm and I'm not going to waste my time because I have full confidence that I will go through.

Now, going back to the original question is, I would say neither. It's just that it's the lawful winning, hateful losing, there were important elements, psychological elements, but the key element, 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. Creating something new. How do you think about that? It's just finding new ideas in the openings, you know, some original plan in the middle game. It's actually that helped me to make the transition from the game of chess, where I was on the very top,

to another life, where I knew I would not be number one. I would not be necessarily on the top, but I could still be very active and productive by my ability to make 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 could 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 of chess, to create something new, to look for those moments of some brilliant new ideas. But were you haunted by something? 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.

I mean, do you have a call for a priest? Ha ha ha ha. That's what I'm dressed at. Yeah, no, just let's go back to these crucial chess moments where I had to make big decisions. As I said, 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 always had an opponent across the chess board opposite me. But no matter how strong

the opponent was, whether it was just an ordinary player or another wall champion, like an elderly corp of. I, having all respect for my opponent, I still believe that it's up to me to make the difference. And I, I knew I was not invincible. I made mistakes. I made some blunders and, you know, with age, they all, I made more blunders. So I knew it. But it's still you know, it's very much for me to be decisive factor in the game. I mean, even now look, I just you know, my latest

chess experience was horrible. I mean, I played Karana, Fabi Karana, this number two, number two, number three player in the world these days. We played this 960 with the fish or so called fish or random chess, we 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. And it's, you know, while I lost, I was not so much upset. I mean, I know, as I said in my interview, I can fight any opponent, but not my biological clock.

So it's fighting time is always a losing proposition. But even today, at age 56, I knew that 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 in a number of games where I completely outplayed one of the top lessons in the world, I mean, gave me certain amount of pleasure that is, even today, I haven't lost my touch.

Not the same, you know, okay. The jaws are not as strong and the teeth are not as sharp, but I could get them just, almost on the ropes. He's still got it. Still got it and it's, you know, and I think it's my wife said it well. I mean, she said, look, Gary, it's somehow, it's only just fighting biological clock.

It's just, you know, maybe it's a signal because, you know, the goddess of chess since you spoke great, the religious, the goddess of chess, Keisha, maybe she didn't want you to win because, you know, if you could beat number two, number three players in the world, I mean, that's this, this one of the top players who just recently played 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 game of chess, you know, it's it's it's not making any progress. The game is just, you know, it's it's totally devalued because look, the the guy coming out of retirement, you know, just, you know, winning games. Maybe that was good for chess, not good for you, but it's, look, I've been following your logic, we should always look for, you know, demons, you know, superhero forces and other things that could, you know, if not dominate our lives, but somehow, you know, play a significant role in the outcome. Yeah, so the goddess of chess had to send a message. Yeah, that's 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 20 years and even still got it. Is there a moment you said you always looked 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, is somebody who was aggressive and creative chess player in your own game. Look, you mentioned Mikhail Tal.

It's very aggressive, very sharp player, famous for his combinations and sacrifices. We even called Magician from Riga, so for his very unique style. But any world champion, you know, it's, yeah, 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 chessboard like the Grand 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, amateur were staying joy, you know, the brilliant games where pieces being sacrificed, it's all just, you know, it's all piece of hanging and it's all of a sudden, you know, being material down, and it roog down, or just, you know, going down the week aside, delivers the final blow, and just, you know, mating upon his king. But there's other kinds of beauty. I mean, it's a slow, positional maneuvering, you know, looking for weaknesses, and just, and gradually, you're strangling your opponent, and eventually delivering sort of a position of 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 that 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 against Anzoli Karpov. It's not just I won the match in 1985 and became

a wall champion at age 22, but there were at least two games in that match. Of course, the last one, game 24, that was the size of the game of the match, I won and became a wall 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 when the move 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, what I just also managed to outlay carp of completely with black pieces, just to paralyzing his army in its own camp. Technically or psychologically, it was a mix of both in game 16. Yeah, I think it was a big blow to carp of, I think it was a big psychological victory for a number of reasons. One, this score was equal at a time.

And the World Champion, you know, by the rules, could retain his title in case of a tie. So we still have, you know, before game 16 we had nine games to go. And also it was some sort of a bluff because neither mean or carp of solid refutation of this opening idea. And I think it says for carp, it was double blow because not that he lost the game. I should triple blow. He lost the game. It was a brilliant game. And I played impeccably after, you know,

just this opening blow. And then, you know, they discovered that it was a bluff. So it's the, again, I didn't know, I was not bluffing. So that's why it happens very often. And it's when some ideas could be refuted. And it's just, what I found out, and it's just, 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 and 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 your reputation in a split of a second. But many of the hour analysis in the 80s or in the 90s, they were not perfect simply because we were humans and they're just you 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 chess board is different from one that when you analyze

the game, moving the pieces around. Interesting. 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 chessboard. had materialized on chessboard. Some of these hours help, 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 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, and your passion

to discover new ideas, and your ability during the game at the chess board, when the clock was ticking, we still had ticking clock, during the game at the chess board when the clock was ticking, we still had ticking clock, not the clock at the time. So to come up with some some some brilliance and and I also can mention many games from the 19s. So it's the obviously all amateurs would pick up my game against Vessel in Topolo for the 1990, 1990,zee again because it was a Berlin game. The Black King traveled from its own camp to into the white scams across the entire board. It doesn't happen often, trust me, as you know, in the games of professional players,

top professional players. So that's why visually it was one of the most impressive victories. But I could bring to to your attention. Many other games that were not so impressive for for mentors, not so not so beautiful. Just guess it's sacrifice always beautiful. You sacrifice passes and then and then eventually you have so there are very few resources left and you you use them just to to to to crush your your opponent basically to it's you have to make the king because you have almost almost nothing nothing nothing left at your disposal. But I you know I up to the very end get less and less but still up to the very end, get less and less, but still up to the very end, I always had games with some sort of, you know, interesting ideas and games that gave me great satisfaction.

But I think it's what happened from 2005 up to these days was also a very big accomplishment since, you know, I had to find myself to relocate myself. Yeah, re-channel the creative energies. Exactly. And to 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 on chest for just a little longer. Where do you put Magnus Carlson, the current world champion in the list of all time grades? In terms of style, moments of brilliance, consistency. It's a tricky question. You know, the moment you start ranking, yeah, well, something. It's the, I think it's, it's, it's not fair because it's the, any new generation knows much more about the game than the previous one. So when people say Gary was the greatest, Fisher was the greatest, Magnus was the greatest, it disregard the fact that the great place of the past, the last year, come a plank, I mean they knew so little about chess

by today's standards. Do they just any kid, you know, that spent a few years, you know, with his or her chess computer, knows much more about the games, 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 proud of Fisher, you know, it 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 much longer so that's so I, unlike Fisher, I will succeed, I succeeded in beating next generation. Yes. Here's the question. Yeah. Let's see if you still got the fire, speaking to the next generation,

because you did succeed beating the next generation. Next, it's close. What? And short and end, uh, uh, that sheer of, Kramnik has already 12 years, Yangos, so that's a neck, that's, but still yet, I, I competed with them, and I just beat most of them, and, uh a neck. But still yet, I competed with them,

and I just beat most of them, and I was still dominant when I left at age of 41. So back to Magnus. Magnus, I mean, consistency is phenomenal. The reason Magnus is on top, and it seems unbeatable today, Magnus is a lethal combination of Fisher and Corpov, which is very unusual,

because Fisher's style is very dynamic, just fighting to the last point, I mean, just using every resource available. Corpov was very different, it's just an unparalleled ability to use every piece with a maximum effect, but just its minimal resources always produce maximum effect.

So now imagine that you merge these two styles. So it's squeezing every stone for drop of water. But doing it, you know, just for 56 to 78 moves. I mean, Magnus could go on as long as Fisher with always passion and energy. And at the same time being as meticulous and deadly as as as as Carpoh by just you know using every little advantage. So and he has good you know very good health. It's important. I mean physical conditions are by the way very important. So a lot of people don't recognize it. There are later

studies shows that chess players burn thousands of calories during the game. So that puts him on the top of this fuel of the world champions. But again, it's the discussion that is I saw recently in Internet where the Gary Kasparov always peak, let's say late 80s Could be Magnus Carlson today. I mean, it's certainly irrelevant because Gary Kasparov in 1989, okay, it's played a great chess, but still I knew very little about chess compared to Magnus Carlson 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, you know, time gaps. You ask, you know, soccer fans, so who is your favorite, Pele, Maradona, or Messi? Yeah, who is your favorite? Messi.

Messi. Why? Because... Maybe Maradona, maybe. No, because younger, but that's simple. Your instinct answer is correct, because you saw, you didn't say Maradona in action. I saw all of them in action, so that's why.

But since when I was just following it, just it's Pele and Maradona, they were just big stars. And it's nice to see it's already just, I was gradually losing interest in other things. So I remember Pele in 1970, the final match was literally. So that's the first World Cup soccer I watched.

So that's the, and actually my answer, when I just, because, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, wall, still could have won. Maybe not, but it is. Argentinian team in 1986 was out of Maradona would not be unified. So this is and Messi, he still hasn't won a title. That's that's good. I'll give you for that for an hour. But you could say if you ask Maradona, if you look in his eyes, especially let's say Gary Caspar of 1989, he would have said, I was sure as hell would beat Magnus Carlson. I just simply the confidence is simply because again, they saw me in action. So 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 Gary Kasparov in the nine with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years. That would not be Gary Kasparov, that would be someone else. Because again, I belonged to 1989. I was way ahead of the field and I, you know, a big corporal of several times

in the World Championship matches and I crossed 2800, which by the way, if you look at the interest in rating, which is just, even today, so this is the rating that I retire. So it's still, you know, it's just, it's a top two, two, three. So that's as this is Karwan and Ding. It's about the same rating now. And I crossed 2800 in 1990. We'll just look at the inflation.

When I crossed 2800 in 1990, there was only one player in 2700 category, and I told the carpool. Now we had more than 50. So I'm just gonna see this. So if you add inflation, so I think my 2851, it could probably could be more valuable as Magnus 2882, which is highest rating.

But anyway, again, in our so many hypotheticals. You're lost to IBM D blue in 1997. In my eyes, there's one of the most seminal moments in the history, again, I apologize for being romanticizing the notion, but in the history of our civilization, because humans, as the civilizations for centuries, saw Chess as, you know, the peak of what man can accomplish of intellectual mastery, right?

And that moment when a machine could be the 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 this 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. It was the first match I lost period. Yeah. That's, oh wow. So, oh wow. 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 backplay. Yes. 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. And that's what I was angry. But look, it was 22 years ago. It's what under the bridge. We can analyze this marriage and this, with everything you said, I agree. With probably one exception, is that considering chess, as a pinnacle of intellectual activities,

was our mistake. Because we just thought, oh, it's a game of the highest intellect and it just, you have to be so intelligent and you can see things that the ordinary mortals could not see. It's a game 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. According to the World Shannan, the number of legal moves is 10 to the 46 power. Too many zeros. So just for any computer to finish the job, you know, in next few 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 Goh, with Shogi, with video games, it's a demonstration that at the machines will always be humans in what I call closed systems. The moment you build a closed system, no matter how the system is called, chess, shogi, daughter, machines will prevail simply because they will bring down a number of mistakes. Machines don't have to solve it. They just have to, the way they outplay us, it's not by just being more intelligent. It's just 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 Carlson,

it's the same as comparing Ferrari to Usain Bolt. The gap is, I mean, by chess standards is insane. 34, 3500 to 2800, 2800, 2800, 2500, and Magnus. It's like difference between Magnus and an ordinary player from an open international tournament. It's not because machine understand the better Magnus course, but simply because it's steady. Machine has steady hand.

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 Alpha Zero, you are 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, 1997 match was not the first victory of machines over. Grandmasters, over grandmasters. 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 to rapid chess games in New York. I won Handlely to both games. We played against new chess engines like Fritz and other programs and then it was Israeli program junior that appeared in 1995. Yeah, so there were there were several programs. I you know, I lost a few games and blitz I lost one match against the computer Chess engine 1994 rapid chess So I lost one game to de blue in 1996 match the man at the match. I won 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 minutes games. The reason we lost some of the rapid chess matches, 25 minutes chess, because we didn't have enough time. If you play a longer match, we will not make the same mistakes, nonsense. So, yeah, we had more time, but we still make mistakes, and machine also has more time.

And machines, machine will we had more time, but we still make mistakes. And machine also has more time. And machines, machine will always be state and consistent compared to humans' instabilities and inconsistencies. And today we are at the point where nobody talks about humans playing as machines. Our machines can offer handicap to top to to players are still you know Well, we'll 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 leaking my wounds and spending one year just you know Ruminating so the so what's happened at in this match? And I knew that though we still could play against the machines spending one year, just you know, ruminating so the, so what's happened in this match?

And I knew that though we still could play against the machines. I had two more matches in 2003 playing both deep freights and deep junior, both matches ended as a tie. Though these machines were not weaker at least, I actually brought a stronger than the blue. And by the way, today, just app on your mobile phone is probably stronger than De Blue. I'm not speaking about chess engines that are so much superior. And by the way,

when you analyze games with plugins, De Blue 1997 on your chess engine, they will be laughing. So this is, and it's also shows that's how chess changed because chess commentators, they look at some of our games like game four, game five, brulee and idea. Now, you ask Stockfish, you ask Houdini, you ask Commodore all the leading chess engines. Within 30 seconds, they will show you how many mistakes.

Boos, Gary and D. Blue made in the game that was trumpeted 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 in, by the way, in Europe, because you move to the Far East, they will go, they have short games.

Some of the games, like, you know, are board games. Yeah, agree. So, if I push back a little bit, so now, you say that, okay, but it was a mistake to see chess as the epitome. And now, and then now there's other things, maybe like language, like conversation, like some of the things that in your view is still way out of reach of computers, but inside humans, do you think, can you talk about what those things might be? And do you think, just like chess, that might fall?

Soon, with the same set of approaches, if you look at Alpha Zero, the same kind of learning approaches as the machines grow in size. No, no, it's not about the growing in size. It's about, again, it's about understanding the difference between the closed system and open-ended system. So you think that key difference? So the board games are closed in terms of the rules, the actions, 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 territory of diminishing returns. It's the, to put it in a different way, machine doesn't know how to ask right questions. It can ask questions, but it will never tell you which questions are relevant. So it's like about it, it's the direction. So I think it's in human-maching relations, we have to consider so our role.

And many people feel uncomfortable that this territory that belongs to us 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. And all you can do there is slightly out of direction of the bullet, maybe you know, 0.1 degree of this angle. But that means a mile away, 10 meters of the target.

So that's, we have to recognize that is a certain unique human qualities that machines in a foreseeable future will not be able to reproduce. And the effectiveness of this cooperation, collaboration, depends on how understanding what exactly we can bring into the game. So the greatest danger is when we try to interfere with machine superior knowledge. So that's why I always say that sometimes

you'd rather have, by reading this history, pictures in radiology, you may probably prefer an experienced nurse than rather than having a top professor because she will not try to interfere with machines understanding. So it's very important now that if machines knows how to do better things in 95%, 96% territory,

we should not touch it because it's happened. It's like in chess, recognize, they do it better. See where we can make the difference. You mentioned alpha zero. I mean alpha zero is, it's actually a first step into what you may call AI because everything that's being called AI today is just, it's one or another variation of what Cloud Channel characterizes as a brute force. It's a type A machine whether it's D blue, whether it's what's on it and all these these modern technologies that are being transmitted as AI, it's still brute force.

It's the all they do, it's the new optimization. It's this. They are, you know, they keep improving the way to process human-generated data. Now, Alpha Zero is the first step towards, you know, machine-produced knowledge. Which is by the way, it's quite ironic that the first company that championed that was IBM. Oh, it's in backgammon. Interesting. In backgammon. Yes, you should look at IBM as it's a newer gammon. It's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the program that played in the Alpha Zero 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 was put on calls. And now, you know, it's every talks about, about the machine's generated knowledge, so as revolutionary. And it is, but there's still many open-ended questions.

Yes, Alpha Zero generates its own data. Many ideas that Alpha Zero generate in chess were quite intriguing. So I looked at these games with, not just with interest, but with, it's 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, for seeing the consequence, not overcalculating, 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 that feels like intuition. Exactly, but there's one problem. Yeah. The simple question, if Alpha Zero faces superior oil, let's say another powerful computer

accompanied by a human who could help just to discover certain problems. Because I already, I look at many Alpha Zero games, I visited the lab, spoke to them in Kassabia, said, esteem, and I know there are certain witnesses there. Now if these witnesses are exposed, then the 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 can't. It's just because the whole system is based. So, it's now imagine so that you can have a human by just making few tweaks. So, humans are still more flexible. And as long as we recognize what is our role, where we can play sort of, so the

most valuable part in this collaboration. So it will help us to understand what are the next steps in human machine collaboration. Beautiful put. So let's talk about the thing that machines certainly don't know how to do yet, which is morality. Machines and morality. It's another question that is being asked all the time these days. I think it's another phantom that is hunting a general public because it's just being fed with this, you know, illusions, is that how can we avoid machines, you know, having bias, being prejudiced?

You cannot, because it's like looking the mirror and complaining about what you see. If you have certain bias in the society, machine will, we'll just follow it. It's just, 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 by yourself. By yourself. So it's very important to understand is that you cannot expect machines to improve the yields of our society. And moreover, machines will simply amplify it. Yes. But the thing is, people are more comfortable with other people doing injustice with being biased.

We're not comfortable with machines having the same kind of bias. So that's an interesting standard that we play some machines with autonomous vehicles. They have to be much safer with automated systems. Of course, of course, they're much safer. Statistically, they're much safer than that. Son, of course. Why would it? It's not, of course, they're much safer. Statistically, they're much safer than that. Of course. Why would the, it's not of course. It's not given. Autonomous vehicles, you have to work really hard to make them safer. I think it just goes without saying. It's the outcome of this,

I would call it competition, but comparison is very clear. But the problem is not about being safer. It's the 40,000 people or so every year died in car accidents in the United States. And it's statistics. One accident with autonomous vehicle and it's front page of a newspaper. Yes, so it's, again, it's about cyclists.

So, while people kill each other in car accidents because they make mistakes, they make more mistakes. For me, it's, it's not a question. Of course, we make more mistakes because we're human. Yes, machines, old and by the way, no machine will ever reach 100% perfection. That's another, that's another important fake story that, that, that, that is being federal to public. If machine doesn't reach 100% performance is not safe.

No, all you can ask any computer, whether it's playing chess or doing the stock market calculations or driving your autonomous vehicle, it's to make fewer mistakes. And yes, I know it's not easy for us to accept because if you have two humans colliding in their cars, okay, it's like if one of these cars is autonomous vehicle and by the way, even if it's humans fall terrible, how could you allow a machine to run without a driver at the wheel?

So, let's think of that for a second, that double standard, the way you felt with your first loss against DiBlue, were you treating the machine differently than you would of a human? So what do you think about that difference between the way we see machines and humans? No, at that time, you know, for me it was a match and that's why I was angry because I believed that. The match was not, you know, fairly organized. So. And that's why I was angry because I believed it. The match was not fairly organized.

So the states definitely they were unfair advantages for IBM and I wanted to play another match like rubber match. So you're angered or this pleasure was aimed more like at the humans behind IBM versus the actual your algorithm. Absolutely. Look, I knew at a time and by the way, I was objectively speaking, I was stronger at

that time. So that's probably added to my anger, because I knew I could beat the machine. Yeah. And I knew I was not well prepared, so because they, I have to give them credit, they did some good work from 1996, but I still could beat the machine. So I made too many mistakes. Also this is the whole, this is the publicity be the machine. So I made too many mistakes. Also, this is the whole, this publicity around the match. So I underestimated the effect, you know,

just it's under and being called the, you know, the brains last stand. Now it's okay. No, 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 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? What do we take away from that? I think the lesson of history is clear. And democratic 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 doomed, they just, you know, they, they cannot be driving force for innovation. So they, in the history of timeline, I mean, they could cause certain, you know, distortion of the concept of progress. They may call themselves progressive, but we know that is the damage that they cost to humanity, it's just, it's yet to be measured.

But at the end of the day, they fail. They fail and the end of the Cold War was a great triumph of the free well. It's not that the free world is perfect. It's very important to recognize, it's a fact that I always like to mention one of my favorite books, A Lot of the Rings, that there's no absolute good, but there is an absolute evil.

Good comes in many forms, but we all, it's being humans or being even, you know, humans from fairy tales or just some sort of mythical creatures, it's the, you can always find spots on the sound. So this is conducting war and just and fighting for justice, there are always things that, you know, can be easily criticized. And human history is a never ending quest for perfection. But we know that there is absolutely evil. We know it's for me, it's not clear. I mean, nobody argues about Hitler being absolutely evil,

but I think it's very important to reckon that Stalin was absolutely evil. Communism caused more damage than any other ideology in the 20th century. And unfortunately, while we all know that fascism was condemned, but there was no nerve-wracking for commonism. And that's why we could see, you know, still the successors of Stalin are feeling far more comfortable. So you're one of them. You highlight a few interesting connections actually between Stalin and Hitler. I mean, in terms of the adjusting or clarifying the history of World War II, which is very interesting, of course, we don't have time. So let me ask you. You can ask it. I just recently delivered the speech in Toronto at 80s and Roaster of

Motel of Ribbon Trompact. It's something that I believe in, you know, just, you know just must be taught in the schools that the World War II had been started by two dictators, by signing this criminal treaty, collusion of two tyrants in August, 1939, that led to the beginning of the World War II. And the fact is that eventually Stalin had no choice, but to join allies because Hitler attacked him. So it just doesn't you know eliminate the fact that Stalin helped Hitler to start World War II and he was

one of the beneficiaries at early at early stage by a next-sync part of Eastern Europe and as a result of the World War II he annexed almost entire Eastern Europe and for many Eastern European nations, the end of the world was a beginning of communist occupation. 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 Kallugan, 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 an opposition as you are in this kind of context when your life could be in danger. That's the reason I live in New York. So it's the

was not my first choice, but I knew I had to live Russia at one point and among other places, New York is the safest. Is it safe? No, I mean, it's just, I know what happened, what happened, what is happening with many of Putin's enemies, but at the end of the day, I mean, what can I do? I could be very proactive by trying to change things I can influence, but here are our facts. 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 self-dissidents, do what you must and so be. I could try to be cautious by not traveling to certain places where my security could be at risk. There are so many invitations to speak at different locations in the world, and I have to say that many countries are just now are not destinations that I can afford to travel.

My mother still lives in Moscow, I meet her a few times a year. She was devastated when I had to leave Russia because since my father died in 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 to be relatively safe and to do what she talked me to do to make the difference. Do you think you will ever return to Russia or let me ask a different way? Sure. We want sooner than many people to think because I think Putin regime is facing an instrumental difference, difficultness. And again, I read enough historical books to know that dictatorships, 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 ruins. 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 sanction, and future to will Russia interfere in the 2020 US election?

And what does that interference look like? It's very old, you know, we had such an intelligent conversation. 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 stupid questions. It's been going down hill the entire way. It's insulting for my intellect. Of course they did interfere. Of course they did absolutely everything to elect Trump.

I mean, they said it many times. It is just, you know, I met enough KGB kernels in my life to tell you that, you know, just the way Putin looks at Trump. Yeah. This is the way, looks, and I don't have to hear what he says, what Trump says, you know, just is, I don't need to go through congressional investigations. The way Putin looks at Trump,

is the way the KGB officers looked at the assets. It's just, and following to 2020, of course, they will do absolutely everything to help Trump to survive, because I think the damage that Trump's elections could cause to America and to the free world, it's just, it's beyond one's imagination. I think basically if Trump is elected, he will rule NATO. Because he's already heading in this direction, but now he's just, he's still limited by the reelection 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 a symptom. But the problem is that I don't think about it. My problem is not just Trump, because Trump is basically a symptom. But the problem is that I don't see it just, it's the, in American political horizon, politicians who could take on Trump for all damage that he's doing for the free world. Not just things that just happened that went wrong in America. So it seems to me that the campaign political campaign on the democratic societies is fixed on

certain important, but still secondary issues. I guess when you have the foundation for the Republican jeopardy, I mean, you cannot talk about healthcare. I mean, I understand how important it is, but it's still secondary because the entire framework of a political life is at risk. And you have Vladimir Putin just, you know, just it's having free hands by by his by attacking America and other free countries. And by the way, we have so much evidence about Russian interference in Brexit in elections in almost

every European country. And thinking that they will be shy of attacking America in 2020, now with strong in the office, yeah, I think it's, yeah, it definitely diminishes the intellectual quality of our economy. 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 can go back and relive a single moment in your life, what would that moment be? Ah, ah, ah, ah, that moment in my life when I think about There are moments in my life when I think about what could be done differently.

But... No, experience, happiness, enjoy, and pride. Just to touch once again. I know, but it's the... I made many mistakes in my life, so I just... I know that at the end of the day, I believe in the butterfly effect. So it's the... I knew moments where I could, now if I'm there at that point in 89, in 93, it 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 accomplishments? Yeah, I just, I'm afraid do you know that I will have all other accomplishments? I'm afraid that we just have to follow this, if you may call it, wisdom before is gumpy. It's the life with this. It's a box of chocolate and you don't know what's inside. But you have to go one by one.

So I'm happy with who I am and where I am today. And I'm very proud not only with my chess accomplishments, but that I made this transition. And since I left chess, I built my own reputation that had some influence on the game of chess, but it's not directly derived from the game. I'm grateful for my wife, so help me to build this life. We actually married in 2005. It was my third marriage that was that made mistakes in my life. But and by the way, I'm close with two kids from my previous marriages. So that's the, I mean, I managed you sort of to balance my life. And here in I live in New York, so we have two kids born here in New York. It's new life and it's, you know, it's busy. Sometimes I wish I could, you know, I could limit my engagement in many other things that

still, you know, taking time and energy. But life is exciting. And as long as I can feel that I have energy, I have strengths, I have passion to make the difference, I'm happy. I think that's a beautiful moment to end on Gary's. Thank you very much for talking to me. Thank you. Thank you. Merci Bon.