The following is a conversation with Garry Kasparov. He's considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time. From 1986 until his retirement in 2005, he dominated the chess world, ranking world number one 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. 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 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 on iTunes, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter, @lexfriedman, spelled F-R-I-D-M-A-N. And now, here's my conversation with Garry Kasparov. As perhaps the greatest chess player of all time, when you look introspectively at your psychology throughout your career, what was the bigger motivator, the love of winning or the hatred of losing?

- Tough question. 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, it's just because I made a mistake. I always believed that the result of the game had to be decided by the quality of my play.

Okay, you may say it sounds arrogant, but it helped me to move forward because I always knew that there was room for improvement. - Was there the fear of the mistake? - Actually, fear of mistake guarantees mistakes. And the difference between top players, the very top, is that it's the ability to make a decision without predictable consequences.

You don't know what's happening. It's just intuitively. I can go this way or that way. And there are always hesitations. People are like, "You are just at 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.

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

Now, going back to your original question, I would say neither. It's just, it's love for winning, hate for losing. They were important elements, psychological elements. But the key element, 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, some original plan in the middle game. Actually, that helped me to make the transition from the game of chess, where I was on the very top, to another life, where I knew I would not be number 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 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 in chess, to create something new, to look for those moments of some brilliant new ideas. But were you haunted by something?

So you make it seem like to be at the level you're at, you can get away without having demons, without having fears, without being driven by some of the darker forces. - I mean, you sound almost religious. You know, darker forces, spiritual demons. I mean, do you have a call for a priest?

(both laughing) - That's what I'm dressing. - Now, let's go back to these crucial chess moments, where I had to make big decisions. As I said, it was all about my belief from very early days that I can make all the difference by playing well or by making mistakes.

So yes, I always had an opponent across the chessboard, opposite me. But no matter how strong the opponent was, whether just an ordinary player or another world champion like Anatoly Karpov, having all respect for my opponent, I still believe that it's up to me to make the difference. And I knew I was not invincible.

I made mistakes. I made some blunders. And with age, 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 Fabio Caruana, this number two, number three player in the world these days.

We played this 960 with the so-called Fischer random chess, reshuffling pieces. Yeah, I lost very badly, but it's because I made mistakes. I mean, I had so many winning positions. I mean, 15 years ago, I would have crushed him. So, and it's, you know, while I lost, I was not so much upset.

I mean, I know, as I said in the interview, I can fight any opponent, but not my biological clock. So it's fighting time is always a losing proposition. But even today at age 56, you know, I knew that, you know, I could play great game. I couldn't finish it because I didn't have enough energy or just, you know, I couldn't have the same level of concentration.

But, you know, in number of games where I completely outplayed one of the top players in the world, I mean, it gave me a certain amount of pleasure. That is, even today, I haven't lost my touch. Not the same, you know, okay, the jaws are not as strong and the teeth are not as sharp, but I could get him just, you know, almost, you know, on the ropes.

- You still got it. - Still got it. And it's, you know, and it's, I think it's my wife said it well. I mean, she said, "Look, Gary, it's somehow, it's not you just fighting your biological clock. It's just, you know, maybe it's a signal." Because, you know, the goddess of chess, since you spoke, right?

- Yeah, religiously. - The goddess of chess, Keisha, maybe she didn't want you to win because, you know, if you could beat number two, number three player in the world, I mean, that's one of the top players who just recently played a world championship match. If you could beat him, it's not really bad for the game of chess.

But just, what people will say, "Oh, look, the game of chess, you know, it's not making any progress. The game is just, you know, it's totally devalued because, look, the guy coming out of retirement, 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, superior 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, you even still got it. Is there a moment, you said, you always look to create something new. Is there games or moments where you're especially proud of, in terms of your brilliance, of a new creative move?

You've talked about Mikhail Tal as somebody who was aggressive and creative chess player in your own game. - Look, you mentioned Mikhail Tal. He's very aggressive, very sharp player, famous for his combinations and sacrifices, even called magician from Riga, so for his very unique style. But any world champion, you know, 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 chess board, like Tigran Petrozyan, 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, all pieces are hanging, and it's all of a sudden, you know, being material down, rook down, or just, you know, queen down, the weaker side delivers the final blow and just, you know, mating opponent's king.

But there are other kinds of beauty. I mean, it's a slow positional maneuvering, you know, looking for weaknesses and just gradually strangling your opponent and eventually delivering sort of a positional masterpiece. So I think I made more difference in the game of chess than I could have imagined when I started playing.

And the reason I thought it was time for me to leave was that, I mean, I knew that I was not, I was no longer in the position to bring the same kind of contribution, the same kind of new knowledge into the game. So, and going back, I could immediately look at my games against Anatoly Karpov.

It's not just I won the match in 1985 and became a world champion at age 22, but there were at least 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 I won, it was a very sharp game and I found a unique maneuver that was absolutely new and it became some sort of, just a typical now.

Though just when the move was made on the board and put on display, a lot of people thought it was ugly. So, and another game, game 16 in the match where I just also managed to outplay Karpov completely with black pieces, just paralyzing his entire army in its own camp.

- Technically or psychologically, or was that a mix of both in game 16? - Yeah, 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 the time and the world champion, by the rules, could retain his title in case of a tie.

So we still have, before game 16, we have nine games to go. And also it was some sort of a bluff because neither me nor Karpov saw the refutation of this opening idea. And I think it's just for Karpov, it was double blow because not that he lost the game, it was a triple blow.

He lost the game, it was a brilliant game and I played impeccably after just this opening bluff. And then 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. Some ideas could be refuted and it's just, what I found out, and this is again, going back to your spiritual theme, is that you could spend a lot of time working.

And when I say you could, it's in the 80s, in the 90s. It doesn't happen these days because everybody has a computer. You could immediately see if it works or it doesn't work. Machine shows you refutation in a split of a second. But many of our analysis in the 80s or in the 90s, they were not perfect simply because we're humans and you analyze the game, you look for some fresh ideas.

And then just it happens that there was something that you missed because the level of concentration at the chessboard is different from 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 had materialized on the chessboard.

Somehow these hours helped, I don't know why, always helped you. It's as if the amount of work you did could be transformed into some sort of spiritual energy that helped you to come up with other great ideas during the board. Again, even if there was no direct connection between your preparation and your victory in the game, there was always some sort of invisible connection between the amount of work you did, your dedication to actually to, and your passion to discover new ideas, and your ability during the game at the chessboard when the clock was ticking, we still had ticking clock, not digital clock at the time.

So to come up with some brilliance. 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 V. Gonzay, again, because it was a brilliant game. The Black King traveled from its own camp to into White's camp across the entire board.

It doesn't happen often, trust me, as you know, in the games with professional players, top professional players. So that's why visually it was one of the most impressive victories. But I could bring to your attention many other games that were not so impressive for amateurs, not so beautiful, just because it's sacrifice, always beautiful, you sacrifice pieces.

And then eventually you have so very few resources left, and you use them just to crush your opponent, basically. You have to make the kink, because you have almost nothing left at your disposal. But up to the very end, again, less and less, but still up to the very end, I always had games with some sort of interesting ideas and games that gave me great satisfaction.

But I think it's what happened from 2005 up to these days was also a very big accomplishment, since I had to find myself to sort of relocate myself. - Yeah, rechannel the creative energies into other persons. - Exactly. And to find something where I feel comfortable, even confident that my participation still makes the difference.

- Beautifully put. So let me ask perhaps a silly question, but sticking on chess for just a little longer. Where do you put Magnus Carlsen, the current world champion in the list of all-time greats? In terms of style, moments of brilliance, consistency? - It's a tricky question. The moment you start ranking a world champion-- - Yeah, you lose something?

- I think it's not fair, because any new generation knows much better knows much more about the game than the previous one. So when people say, "Oh, Gary was the greatest, "Fisher was the greatest, Magnus was the greatest," it disregards the fact that the great players of the past, whether Lasky or Capaplanca, Lokian, I mean, they knew so little about chess by today's standards.

I mean, today, just any kid that spent a few years with his or her chess computer knows much more about the game, just 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. Now, if you look at the gap, then probably Fisher could be on top, but very short period of time. Then you should also add a time factor. I was on top, not as big as Fisher, but much longer.

So, and also, unlike Fisher, I succeeded in beating next generation. - Here's the question. 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, Anand, short Anand, the sheer of, Kramnik is already 12 years younger, so that's a neck.

But still yet, I competed with them and I just had beat most of them. And I was still dominant when I left at age 41. So, back to Magnus. Magnus, I mean, consistency is phenomenal. The reason Magnus is on top and it seems unbeatable today, Magnus is a lethal combination of Fisher and Karpov, which is very, it's very unusual, because Fisher's style was very dynamic, just fighting to the last point, I mean, just using every resource available.

Karpov was very different. It's just, he had an unparalleled ability to use every piece with a maximum effect. Just its minimal resources always produce maximum effect. So, now imagine that you merge these two styles. So, it's like squeezing every stone for a drop of water, but doing it just for 50, 60, 70, 80 moves.

I mean, Magnus could go on as long as Fisher with all his passion and energy, and at the same time being as meticulous and deadly as Karpov by just using every little advantage. So, and he has good, very good health, it's important. I mean, physical conditions are, by the way, very important.

So, a lot of people don't recognize it. There are latest studies shows that chess players burn thousands of calories during the game. So, that puts him on the top of this field of the world champions. But again, it's the discussion that is, I saw recently in the internet, whether Garry Kasparov of his peak, let's say late 80s, could beat Magnus Carlsen today.

I mean, it's totally irrelevant because Garry Kasparov in 1989, okay, he's played great chess, but still I knew very little about chess compared to Magnus Carlsen in 2019, who, by the way, learned from me as well. So, that's why, yeah. I'm extremely cautious in making any judgment that involves time gaps.

You ask soccer fans, so who is your favorite? Pelé, Maradona, or Messi? Yeah. Yeah. Who's your favorite? Messi. Messi. Yeah, why? Because- Maybe Maradona, maybe. No, because you're younger, but that's simple. Your instinctive answer is correct because you didn't see Maradona in action. I saw all of them in action, so that's why.

But since when I was just following it, it's Pelé and Maradona, they were big stars, and it's Messi's already just, I was gradually losing interest in just other things. So, I remember Pelé in 1970, the final match, Brazil-Italy. So, that's the first World Cup soccer I watched. So, that's the...

And actually, my answer, when I just, you know, because I was asked this question as well. So, I say that it's just, while it's impossible to make a choice, I would still probably go with Maradona for a simple reason. The Brazilian team in 1970 could have won without Pelé.

It was absolutely great. Still could have won. Maybe, but it is... The Argentinian team in 1986 without Maradona would not be in the final. So, this is... And Messi, he still hasn't won a title. That's... - Could argue for that for an hour, but you could say, if you ask Maradona, if you look in his eyes, especially, let's say, Garry Kasparov in 1989, he would have said, "I was sure as hell would beat Magnus Carlsen." - Yeah, just simply because...

- The confidence, the fire. - Simply because, simply because, again, it's just, they saw me in action. So, this, again, it's the age factor that's important. Therefore, with the passion and energy and being equipped with all modern ideas, but, again, then you make a very just important assumption that you could empower Garry Kasparov in '89 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years.

That would not be Garry Kasparov. That would be someone else. Because, again, I belong to 1989. I was way ahead of the field, and I beat Karpov several times in the world championship matches, and I crossed 2,800, which, by the way, if you look at the rating, which is just, it's...

Even today, so this is the rating that I retired, so it's still, you know, it's just, it's a top two, two, three. So, that's, it's Karwana and Deag. It's about the same rating now. And I crossed 2,800 in 1990. Well, just you look at the inflation. When I crossed 2,800 in 1990, there was only one player in 2,700 category, Anatoly Karpov.

Now, we had more than 50. So, just, when you see this, so if you add inflation, so I think my 2,851, it could probably, could be more valuable as Magnus 2,882, which was his highest rating. But anyway, again, too many hypotheticals. - You're lost to IBM DBlue in 1997.

In my eyes, that is 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 a civilization, for centuries saw chess as the peak of what man can accomplish, of intellectual mastery. And that moment when a machine could beat a human being was inspiring to just an entire, anyone who cares about science, innovation, an entire generation of AI researchers.

And yet, to you, that loss, at least if reading your face, was, seemed like a tragedy, extremely painful. Like you said, physically painful. Why? When you look back at your psychology of that loss, why was it so painful? Were you not able to see the seminal nature of that moment?

Or was that exactly why it was that painful? - As I already said, losing was painful, physically painful. And the match I lost in 1997 was not the first match I lost to a machine. It was the first match I lost, period. - Yeah. - That's... - Oh, wow.

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 a result of my bad play.

- 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 why I was angry. But look, it was 22 years ago. It's more than the bridge. We can analyze this match, and this is with everything you said, I agree, with probably one exception, is that considering chess, you know, as the sort of, as a pinnacle of intellectual activities, was our mistake.

Because, you know, we just thought, oh, it's a game of the highest intellect, and it's just, you know, you have to be so, you know, intelligent, and you could see things that, you know, 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.

I mean, according to Gualt-Shanan, the number of legal moves is 10 to the 46th power. Too many zeros, you know, just for any computer to finish the job, you know, in the next few billion years. But it doesn't have to. It's all about making fewer mistakes. And I think that's this match, actually, and what's happened afterwards with other games, with Go, with Shogi, with video games, it's a demonstration that it's the machines will always beat humans in what I call closed systems.

The moment you build a closed system, no matter how the system is called, chess, Go, Shogi, Dota, machines will prevail simply because they will bring down number of mistakes. 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 capitalizing on our mistakes. When you look at the chess machines ratings today and compare this to Magnus Carlsen, it's the same as comparing Ferrari to Usain Bolt. It's the, the gap is, I mean, by chess standards is insane. 34, 3,500 to 2,800, 2,850 on Magnus.

It's like difference between Magnus and an ordinary player from an open international tournament. It's not because machine understands just better than Magnus Carlsen, 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 AlphaZero, beating other machines.

The idea that we can compete with computers in so-called intellectual fields, it was wrong from the very beginning. It's just, it's, by the way, the 1997 match was not the first victory of machines over. - Over grandmasters. - Over grandmasters. No, actually it's, I played against first decent chess computers from late '80s.

So I played with the prototype of Deep Blue called Deep Thought in 1989, two rapid chess games in New York. I won handily 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. - Right, right, right, I remember.

- Yeah, so there were several programs. I, you know, I lost few games in Blitz. I lost one match against a computer, a chess engine, 1994, rapid chess. So I lost one game to Deep Blue in 1996 match, the match I won. Some people, you know, tend to forget about it, that I won the first match.

- Yes. - But it's, 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 always, you know, will always be steady and consistent compared to humans' instabilities and inconsistencies. And today we are at the point where, yes, nobody talks about, you know, humans playing against machines.

Now machines can offer handicap to top players. Still, you know, will be favorite. I think we're just learning that 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 in 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 Freed and Deep Junior. Both matches ended as a tie. Though these machines were not weaker, at least, actually probably stronger than Deep Blue. And by the way, today, chess app on your mobile phone is probably stronger than Deep Blue.

- Than Deep Blue, yeah. - I'm not speaking about chess engines that are so much superior. And by the way, when you analyze games we played against Deep Blue in 1997 on your chess engine, they'll 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, brilliant 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 both Gary and Deep 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 let me- - By the way, in Europe, because you move to the Far East, they will go, they had shown- - Games, games. - Again, some of the games, like board games.

- Yes. - Yeah, I 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 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, they might fall 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 growing in size.

It's about, again, it's about understanding the difference between closed system and open-ended system. - So you think that key difference, so the board games are closed in terms of the rule set, 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's a direction. So I think it's in human-machine relations, we have to consider our role. And many people feel uncomfortable that the territory that belongs to us is shrinking. I'm saying, so what? You know, this is eventually will belong to the last few decimal points, but it's like having, so a very powerful gun, and all you can do there is slightly, you know, alter direction of the bullet, maybe, you know, 0.1 degree of this angle.

But that means a mile away, 10 meters of 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 our 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, pictures in radiology, you may probably prefer an experienced nurse than, rather than having top professor, because she will not try to interfere with machines' understanding.

So 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 happened. It's like in chess, recognize, they do it better. See where we can make the difference. You mentioned AlphaZero. I mean, AlphaZero, 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 Claude Shannon characterized as a brute force.

It's a type A machine, whether it's Deep Blue, whether it's Watson, and all these, this is the modern technologies that are being trumpeted as AI, it's still brute force. It's the, all they do, it's they do optimization. It's this, they are, they keep improving the way to process human generated data.

Now, AlphaZero is the first step towards 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, it's a new gammon. It's the scientist called Cesaro. He's still working at IBM.

They had in early '90s. It's the program that played in all the AlphaZero types, so just trying to come up with own strategies. But because of success of Deep Blue, this project had been not abandoned, but just, it was put on hold. And now it just, it's, everybody talks about, it's the machines generated knowledge, so as revolutionary, and it is, but there's still many open-ended questions.

Yes, AlphaZero generates its own data. Many ideas that AlphaZero generated in chess were quite intriguing. So I looked at these games with, not just with interest, but with, it was quite exciting to learn how machine could actually juggle all the pieces and just play positions with a broken material balance, sacrificing material, always being ahead of other programs, one or two moves ahead by foreseeing the consequences, 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 that feels like intuition. - Exactly, but there's one problem. Now, the simple question, if AlphaZero faces superior point, 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 AlphaZero games, I visited their lab, spoke to Demis Kasabis and his team, and I know there's certain weaknesses there.

Now, if these weaknesses are exposed, then the question is, how many games will it take for AlphaZero to correct it? The answer is hundreds of thousands. Even if it keeps losing, it's just because the whole system is based. So it's now, imagine, so this is, you can have a human by just making a 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. - Beautifully 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, you know, just it's being asked all the time these days. And 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 avoid machines, you know, having bias, being 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 just follow it. It's just, 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, yes. So it's very important to understand is that you cannot expect machines to improve the ills of our society. And moreover, machines will simply, you know, just, you know, amplify. - Yes. - Yeah. - 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 place on 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-- - It's not an of course.

Why would they, 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, it goes without saying, is the outcome of this, I wouldn't call it competition, but comparison is very clear. But the problem is not about being, you know, 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 yes. - So it's, again, it's about psychological. 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 not a question. Of course we make more mistakes because we're human. Yes, machines also, and by the way, no machine will ever reach 100% perfection. That's another important fake story that is being fed to the public. If machine doesn't reach 100% performance is not safe. No, all you can ask any computer, whether it's, you know, 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, you know, it's not easy for us to accept because ah, if you have two humans, you know, colliding in their cars, okay, it's like, if one of these cars is autonomous vehicle, and by the way, even if it's human's fault, terrible. How could you allow a machine to run without a driver at the wheel?

- So, you know, let's linger that for a second, that double standard. The way you felt with your first loss against Deep Blue, were you treating the machine differently than you would have a human? So what do you think about that difference between the way we see machines and humans?

- No, it's the, at that time, you know, for me it was a match. And that's why I was angry because I believe that the match was not, you know, fairly organized. So it's definitely there were unfair advantages for IBM and I want to play another match, like a rubber match.

- So your anger or displeasure was aimed more like at the humans behind IBM versus the actual pure algorithm. - Absolutely, look, I knew at the 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. - Yeah, so that's, 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 whole, it's this, the publicity around the match. So I underestimated the effect, you know, just it's, and being called the, you know, the brain's last stand, you know, it's okay, no pressure. (both laughing) - 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 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're doomed. They're just, you know, they cannot be driving force for innovation.

So they, in a history timeline, I mean, they could cause certain, you know, distortion of the concept of progress. They, by the way, they may call themselves progressive, but we know that is the damage that they caused to humanity is 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 world. It's not that the free world is perfect. It's very important to recognize the fact that, I always like to mention, you know, one of my favorite books, "The Lord of the Rings," that there's no absolute good, but there is an absolute evil.

Good, you know, comes in many forms, but we all, you know, 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 sun. So this is, you're 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 absolute evil. We know it's, for me, it's now clear. I mean, nobody argues about Hitler being absolute evil, but I think it's very important to recognize Stalin was absolute 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 Nuremberg for communism. And that's why we could see, you know, still the successors of Stalin are feeling far more comfortable. And Putin is 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 can ask it. I just recently delivered a speech in Toronto at 80th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

It's something that I believe, you know, just, you know, 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 stage by annexing 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 War II was the 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 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? - That's the reason I live in New York.

So it 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, it's just, I know 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 mean, I could be very proactive by trying to change things I can influence, but here are a way of 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 Soviet dissidents, do what you must and so be it.

I could try to be cautious by not traveling to certain places where 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. 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, I mean, to be relatively safe and to do what she taught me to do, to make the difference. - Do you think you will ever return to Russia? Or let me ask a different way. - Oh, I'm sure. - When? - It will be sooner than many people think because I think Putin's regime is facing insurmountable difficulties.

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, he's 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. (laughing) - 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, two, 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. (laughing) And you are ruining everything by asking such a stupid question. (laughing) - It's been going downhill the entire way. - But it's insulting for my intellect. - Okay. - 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 colonels in my life to tell you that, you know, just the way Putin looks at Trump. This is the way, looks, and I don't have to hear what he says, what Trump says.

It 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 falling to 2020, of course they will do absolutely everything to help Trump to survive, because I think the damage that Trump's re-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 re-elected, he will 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 want to 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's 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 there's the, it seems to me that the campaign, political campaign on the Democratic side is fixed on certain important, but still secondary issues. Because when you have the foundation of the Republic in 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 American political life is at risk.

And you have Vladimir Putin just, it's having, fortunately, free hands by attacking America and other free countries. And by the way, we have so much evidence about Russia interference in Brexit, in elections in almost every European country. And thinking that they will be shy of attacking America in 2020, now with Trump in the office, yeah, I think it's, yeah, it definitely diminishes the intellectual quality of our conversation.

(laughing) - 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 to touch once again. - I know, I know. But it's the, look, I made many mistakes in my life. So I just, it's the, 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, 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 that we just have to just follow this, if you may call it wisdom, before it's gump, you know? It's the life is this, you know? It's a box of chocolate and you don't know what's inside, but you have to go one by one.

So it's the, 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, who helped me to build this life. We actually married in 2005. It was my third marriage, that's why I said I made mistakes in my life. And by the way, I'm close with two kids from my previous marriages. So that's the, I managed to sort of to balance my life.

And here, I live in New York, so we have our two kids born here in New York. It's new life and it's busy. Sometimes I wish I could limit my engagement in many other things that are still, 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, spasibo by shore. Thank you very much for talking today. - Thank you. Spasibo. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)