#315 – Magnus Carlsen: Greatest Chess Player of All Time

The following is a conversation with Magnus Carlsen, the number one ranked chess player in the world and widely considered to be one of, if not the greatest chess player of all time. The camera Magnus died 20 min into the conversation. Most folks still just listen to the audio through a podcast player anyway. But if you're watching this on YouTube or Spotify, we did our best to still make it interesting by adding relevant image overlays. I mess things up sometimes, like in this case, but I'm always working hard to improve.

I hope you understand. Thank you for your patience and support along the way. I love you all. And now a quick two. 2nd mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We got Shopify for e commerce. I think that's a new sponsor, but they've been there for a while anyway. I've always loved Shopify. I'm gonna talk to the Shopify CEO soon, I hope, I think anyway. Athletic Greens for performance, Fundrise for investing, BetterHelp for mental health and Inside Tracker for longevity.

Choose wisely, my friends, and now on to the full ad reads. As always, no ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff, maybe you will as well. This show is brought to you by Shopify, like I distracted you previously with. A platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere, anything, whatever, with a great looking online store that brings your ideas to life and tools to manage day to day operation.

A lot of people ask me to add some merch, like a T shirt or a mug. What else can you do? A merch of? It'd be cool to do some super complicated merch, like like a mini robot of some kind, like the butter robot, or maybe a piece of software that you can run. I think that's called a virus. Did I just try to sell you a virus? Um, it's a good kind of virus, I swear, for a limited time, nine, ninety, nine.

No, you know, as a fan of different podcasts and different shows, I like, I like merch. It's a good way to get, um, to wear something where you support the people and you're, you're, like, proud. And it also helps you find the other humans that support the same kind of thing. I don't know, it's pretty cool, as long as the shirt is not too flashy. If it's like, subtle, clean, yeah, it's definitely something I'll, um, do in the future, just just for fun.

Get a free trial and full access to Shopify's entire suite of features when you sign up at Shopify. com. Slash Lex. That's all lowercase. This show is also brought to you by Athletic Greens, and it's, uh, AG1 drink, which is an all in one drink to support better health and peak performance. I drink, I just drank one, actually, and that was the 2nd time I drank today. So it's the 1st thing I drink every day to break my fast, and then I oftentimes drink it again to get even more nutrition.

When I do any kind of crazy exercise or fasting or all that kind of stuff, so I do a keto diet. I, I'm currently doing, uh, carnivore. I don't think of it as a diet, it's just the thing I'm doing. It's not, uh, something I'm I'm doing religiously. It's just the thing that makes me feel good. I'm very much a proponent of listening to my body, of of studying my uh body, being like a scientist and running a study of n of one.

So just trying to understand what makes you feel good and what doesn't make you feel good, and doing more of the stuff that makes you feel good. And so, uh, carnivore is definitely something that makes me feel good, but it is a little bit restricting in terms of social life, in terms of a little bit of variety. But I'm somebody who likes the boring stuff, so I love it. I'm, I'm really happy, but of course, a little flavor is always fun, some some flavorful food with friends anyway.

No matter what I'm doing, it's good to have, like a grounding in great nutrition, which is what Athletic Greens does for me. They'll give you a one month supply if you show up when you sign up at Athletic Greens. com. Slash Lex. This episode is also sponsored by Fundrise, spelled F U N D R I. S E. It's a platform that allows you to invest in private real estate. There's all kinds of madness going on right now in the markets.

I am barely paying attention. I don't really know what's going on in terms of crypto, in terms of, uh, the stock market. I really try to not pay close attention to the dynamics of the market. Because it really can pull you in in the way that a sort of, um, any kind of fun gambling game can pull you in. So I try to think of what the wise long term investment is. That doesn't require me to check things every single day, that can I can avoid the whole addictive aspect of investing, and for that, I think still, diversification is a really powerful tool.

So you should really invest in all kinds of things. And Fundrise makes it really easy to invest in private real estate. Over 100 and, uh, 50 zero investors use it. Check out Fundrise. It takes just a few minutes to get started at Fundrise. Com. Slash Lex. This episode is brought to you by BetterHelp, spelled H E L P help. They figure out what you need and match you with a licensed professional therapist in under 48 h.

I'm a huge fan of talk therapy. I just recently had a bunch of conversations about psychiatry, about talk therapy, about Carl Jung, about Sigmund Freud. And of course, they were clinical psychologists or psychiatrists, in part they'd had patients, some patients they had for many years, and they've used that personal interaction to develop theories of the human mind. And um, I think that personal interaction, just like in a podcast, is such a powerful tool to delve to pull apart.

The different things that make up this beautiful, complex mess that is the mind. Looking into the memory, the recent memory, the deep memory, the trauma that you haven't really dealt with, the things that really bother you. I think talking through it, just trying to articulate the thing that bothers you. Still, I think the act of articulation to another human being that is a good listener, it somehow untangles that mess. I'm a big believer in that, and so, uh, betterhelp is a thing that makes that easy.

But in any aspect of life, you should do that kind of thing, even if it's just with a close friend. Have a deep conversation with or without a microphone, it helps. Check them out at betterhelp. Com Lex and save on your 1st month. This show is also brought to you by Inside Tracker, a service I use to track biological data. They have a bunch of plans, most of which include blood tests. They give you a bunch of kinds of data.

So then you take these machine learning algorithms that incorporate the blood data, DNA data, fitness tracker data, all that stuff. To give you a picture of what's going on inside inside your body, not some kind of generic average population data about what's supposed to be going on in your body. And then somehow from that inferring general kinds of patterns of lifestyle changes, you should be engaging in. No, this is from your own body, data driven to tell you what the heck you should do now.

This is obviously the future to me. It kind of bothers me that medicine is not based on long term data that comes from your own body. It's kind of absurd. It puts way too much responsibility on the doctor to figure out what the heck's going on inside you. Now, of course, they've gotten pretty damn good at that kind of thing, but why not make it much, much more powerful? So I'm a big supporter of inside tracker for pushing forward that kind of idea of being data driven in recommending lifestyle changes, health changes, all that kind of stuff.

Get special savings for a limited time when you go to inside tracker. Com. Lex. This is the Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Magnus Carlsen. You're considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest chess players of all time, but you're also one of the best fantasy football AKA soccer competitors in the world. Plus, recently picking up poker and, uh, competing at a world class level.

So before chess, let's talk football and greatness. Uh, you're a Real Madrid fan, so let me ask you the ridiculous big question Who do you think is the greatest football AKA soccer player of all time? Can you make the case for Messi? Can you make the case for Cristiano Ronaldo, Pele, Maradona? Does somebody anybody jump to mind?

I think it's pretty hard to make a case for anybody else than than Messi for his, uh, for his all around game. And, uh, frankly, like my Real Madrid fandom, sort of, uh, predates the Ronaldo era era, uh, the s, the 2nd Ronaldo, not, not, not the 1st one. So I always liked Ronaldo, but I always kind of thought that Messi was, uh, was, uh, better. Uh. And um, I went to quite a number of uh Madrid games and they've always been super helpful, full to me down there.

The only thing is that, like, they asked me, they were gonna do an interview and they were gonna ask me who my favorite player was. And um, I said somebody else. I s, I think I said Isco at that point, and I was like, Okay, take two, now you say Ronaldo. So for them, it was, um, it was very important, but it wasn't, wasn't that huge to, um, uh, to me.

so Messi over Maradona.

Yeah, but it's, I think it just like with chess, it's hard to compare eras. Um, obviously, the improvements in football have been like in in technique and such have been even greater than they have been in in in chess. But it's, um, it's always, um, it's always a weird, weird discussion, uh, to to have.

But just as a fan, what do you think is beautiful about the game? What defines greatness? Is it, you know, with Messi? One, he's really good at finishing, two, very good at assist, like three. There's just magic. It's just beautiful to see the play. So it's not just about the finishing, there's some, it's like Maradona's hand of God. There's some creativity on the pitch is. Is that important, or is it very important to get the World Cups and the big championships and that kind of stuff?

I think the World Cup is pretty, pretty overrated, seeing as, um, as it's, uh, such a small sample size. So, uh, uh, it sort of annoys me. Always. When you know titles are always, um, always appreciated so much, um, even though, uh, that particular title can be can be a lot of, uh, lot of, um, luck, or at least some, at least some luck. Um, uh. So I do appreciate, um, statistics a bit, and all the statistics say that Messi's the best, uh, finisher of all time, which I think helps a lot.

Um, and then there's the intangibles as well.

The flip side of that is the small sample size is what really creates the magic. It's so rare, it's just like the Olympics. You you. B. Basically, train your whole life for this, you live your whole life for this, and it's a rare moment. One mistake and it's all over. That's for some reason, a lot of people either break under that pressure or rise up under that pressure. You don't, you don't admire the magic of that.

No, I, I do. I just think that, like rising and through pressure and breaking under R under the pressure is often a really oversimplified like, uh, take on on what's, um, on what's happening.

we're, yeah, we do romanticize the game. Well, let me ask you another ridiculous question. Another you're also a fan of basketball, let me ask the goat question. The uh, I, you know, I'm biased because, uh, I went to high school in Chicago, uh, you know, Chicago Bulls during the the Michael Jordan era. Uh, let me ask the the Jordan versus LeBron James question. Let's let's continue on this thread of greatness. Which one do you pick? Or somebody else so Magic?

Johnson

I'll give you a completely different answer. Um, depending on my mood and depending who on whom I talk to, I pick one of one of the two, and then I try to argue for it's the quantum that.

mechanical thing. Well, ca, can you? what again? what? what would? uh, if you were to argue for either one? Statistically, I think LeBron James is going to surpass Jordan. Yeah, no doubt And so again, there's um debate between

unquantifiable greatness. No, that, I mean, that's the whole, that's the whole debate.

Yes, so it's well, it's quantifiable versus unquantifiable, what's more important, and you're depending on mood all over the place. But where do you lean in general? With these f, with these folks, with with with soccer, with anything in life, towards the unquantifiable more

no, definitely towards the quantifiable.

so when you're unsure, lean towards the numbers. But see, like, it's later generations. There's something that's what people say about Maradona is, you know, he took a arguably somewhat mediocre team to to a World Cup. So there's that also uplifting nature of the player to be able to rise up. A whole. It is a team sport,

so are you gonna like, are you g? Are you gonna punish? Um, Messi for taking a mediocre Argentine squad to to the to the final in 2014 and punish him? Because they lost to a great team very narrowly after they missed he

the internet does.

he set, he set up like a great chance for Higuain in the 1st half, which he, um, which he fluffed. And then, yeah, eventually they lost the game.

Yeah, they, they, they do. Criticize Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi for being on really strong squads in terms of the club teams and saying, Yeah, okay, it's easy when you have, like Ronaldinho or whoever, uh, on your team.

it would be very interesting, just, um, if the league could make a decision. Yeah, just random, random Yeah, allocation, yeah,

um, and and just every single game, just keep re allocating, or maybe once a season, um, or every season, you get random

no, but. But let let's allocation. say every, every player. Um, if let's say they sign a five year contract for a team, like one of them, you're gonna get randomly allocated to to, let's say, a bottom half team.

I I bet you there's gonna be so much corruption around that, it'll be

No, I mean, obviously it random. wouldn't, wouldn't ever happen or or or work, you but I think it's, it's

never know.

interesting to think about.

So on chess, let's, uh, zoom out. If you break down your approach to chess when you're at your best, uh, what? W What do you think? Um, what do you think contributes to that approach? Is it memory recall of specific lines and positions? Is it intuition? How much of it is intuition, how much of it is pure calculation, how much of it is messing with the strategy of the opponent? So the game theory aspect, in terms of what contributes to the highest level of play, that, um, that you do.

I think the answer differs a little bit now from what it did eight years ago. Uh, for instance, like, I've, I feel like I've had like two peaks in in my career in 2014. Uh, well, 2013, 2014, and also twen in 2019, and in those years I w I was very different. Um, in terms of, um, of my strength, strengths, uh, specifically in 2019. I benefited a lot from opening preparation, uh, while in 2013 2014, I mostly tried to avoid my uh opponent's uh preparation.

Rather than that being a um, being a strength. So, uh, eh, I'm. I'm mentioning that also because it's something something you didn't, um, didn't mention. I think like my intuitive understanding of chess has over those years always been a little bit better than the others, even though it has evolved as well. Um, certainly, there are. There are things that I understand now that I didn't understand back then, but that's not only f for me, that's for, um, for others as well.

Um, I was younger back then, so I played with more energy, which meant that I could play better in long drawn out uh games. Um, which was also a necessity for me, cause I didn't, I couldn't, couldn't beat people in the in the openings. Um, but it in terms of calculation, that's always been a weird issue for me. Like, I've always been really, really, um, bad at solving exercises in chess, like that's been like a blind spot for me.

1st of all, I found it hard to concentrate on them. Um, and to look, uh, to look deep enough.

So this is like a puzzle, a position mate in X.

I mean, one thing is mate, but find the best move, that's Fine, generally the exercise, like find the best move, find the best line.

you, you just don't connect with it,

Usually, like, you have to to look, look deep. And then when I get these lines during the game, I very often find the the the right solution. Even though, um, even though I'm, it's not still, um, uh, the best part of my game. Um, to to calculate very, very deeply.

but it doesn't feel like calculation. You're saying in terms of No, it n it kind of

does sometimes, but for me, it's more like I'm at the board, trying to find, trying to find the solution. And I understand. Like the training at home is like trying a little bit to to replicate that. Like you give somebody half an hour, um, in a position like in this instance, you might have thought for half an hour if you played a game. But I just, I just cannot do it. Uh, one thing I know that I am good at, though, uh, is, um, calculating short lines, uh, cause I calculate them them well.

I'm good at seeing, um, little details, and I'm also much better than than most at, uh, evaluating, uh, which I think is something that sets me, uh, sets me, uh, apart from from others.

so evaluating specific position. If I, if I make this move and the position changes in this way, is this the re a step in the right direction? Like, in a big picture way,

Yeah, like you calculate a few moves ahead and then you evaluate. Because a lot of, lot of time, a lot of the times, you cannot. Um, the branch just becomes so big that you cannot calculate everything. So you

like a fog.

have to, yeah, so you have to. You have to make evaluations based on, you know, based mostly, mostly on on knowledge and and intuition. And somehow I seem to do that, uh, pretty well.

When you say you're good at short lines, what's that? what's what's short?

That's usually like lines of, um, two to four moves each.

Okay, so that that's directly applicable to even faster games like blitz, chess and so on.

Yeah, um, blitz is, uh, a lot about calc calculating forced lines, so those you can see pretty clearly. That the players who struggle at blitz, who are great at classical, are those who rely on deep calculating ability. Cause you simply ha don't have time for for that in blitz, you have to calculate quickly and rely a lot on intuition.

Can you try to? I know it's really difficult. Can you try to talk through what's actually being visualized in your head? Is there? Is there a visual component?

Yeah, no, I just visualize the board, I mean, the board is in, it's in, it's in my head. Two dimensional My interpretation is that it's it is two, uh, two dimensional.

like, what color is, is, is it brown tinted? is it black? is it? uh? Like, what's the theme? Is it a big board, small board? Are the, uh, what do the pawns look like? Or is it more in the space of concepts like, uh, is, Yeah, there, is, is

there, there are, there aren't a lot of colors, it's it's mostly, uh,

so, s, what is it? Queens I'm, I'm trying, gambit on the ceiling? I'm trying now Whatever to, uh, to like,

to imagine it.

what about when you do the branching, when you have multiple boards and so on? What? How does that look? Are you

No, but it's only one at a time, so like

one position at a time?

one position at a time. So then I go back and uh, and that's what when when people play, or at least that's what I do when I play blindfold chess against several people. Then it's just always one board at a time and the rest are stored away somewhere.

But how do you store them away? So, like, you went down one branch and you're like, all right, that's I got that. I understand that, that's, there's some good there, there's some bad there. Now let me go down another branch. Like, how do you store away the information? You just put it on a shelf? Kinda,

I, I try and store it away. Sometimes I have to sort of repeat it because I forget, um, and it does happen frequently in games that, um, you're thinking for, especially if you're thinking for long, let's say a half an hour or even more than that. That you play a move and then your opponent plays a move, then you play a move and they play a move again. And you realize, Oh, I actually calculated that, I just forgot about it.

Um, so that's obviously what happens when you store the information and you cannot retrieve it.

wh, when you think about a move for 20 30 min, like, how do you break that down? What can you describe? What? Like, what's the algorithm here that takes 30 min to run?

30 min is, uh, at least for me, it's usually a waste. Um, 30 min usually means that I don't know what to do and I'm trying.

You're just running into the wall over and over.

I'm trying to find something that isn't there. I think, um, ten to 15 min. Things in complicated positions can be really, really, uh, helpful. Then you can spend your time pretty, um, efficiently. Um, just it just means that the branches are getting getting wide. There's a there's a lot to, um, to run through, um, both in terms of calculation and lots you have to evaluate as well. And then, based on based on that ten to 15 min think, you, you have a pretty good idea, uh, what to, what to do.

I mean, it's. It's very rare that I would think for half an hour and I would have a eureka moment during the game. Like, if I haven't seen it in ten minutes, I'm probably not gonna see it at all.

You're going to different branches and like, after 15 min, it's like,

no, but it mainly to the middle game, because when you get to the end game, it's usually brute force calculation that makes you spend so much time. So middle game is normally it's, it's. It's a complicated mix of brute force calculation and and uh, and um, like creativity and and evaluation. So endgame, it's, it's, it's more, it's, it's easier in that sense.

well, you're good at every aspect of chess, but you also your endgame is legendary. It baffles experts. So, uh, can can you linger on that? Then? Try to explain what the heck is going on there. Like, if you look at game six of the previous world Championship, uh, the longest game ever played in chess, what it was. Um, I think, uh, his Queen versus your rook, knight and two pawns. There's so many options there. It's such an interesting little little dance and it's kind of non obvious that it wouldn't be a draw.

So how do you escape the it not being a draw and you win that match?

no, I knew, um, that for most of the time, it was a theoretical draw. Since, um, chess with seven or less pieces on the board is solved, so you can, like people who are watching online, they can just check it, they can check, and they can check a so called table base. And they it just gonna spit out win for white, win for black or a draw. So, and and also I, I knew that, uh, I knew that, didn't know that position specifically, but I knew that it had to be a draw.

So for me, it was about staying alert, 1st of all, trying to look for the best way to put my pieces. Uh, but but yeah, those end games are a bit, they are a bit unusual, they don't happen too often. So what I'm usually good at is I'm using my my strengths that I I also use in in middle games. Is that I, um, evaluate well and I calculate short variations quite. Uh,

even for the endgame, short variations matter.

yeah, s, it does matter in some simpler end games, yeah, but also like there are these theoretical end games with very few pieces like rook knights, uh, and two pawns versus queens. But a lot of end games are simply defined by the queens being exchanged and there are a lot of other pieces left. And then it's usually not brute force, it's usually more of, um, understanding and evaluation, and then then I can use my my strengths.

Um, very well.

why are you so damn good at the endgame? Isn't there a lot of moves from when the endgame starts to when the endgame finishes? And you have a few pieces and you have to figure out? It's like a sequence of little games that happens, right, like little pattern, like, how? How does being able to evaluate a single position lead you to evaluate a long sequence of positions that eventually lead to a checkmate?

Well, I I think if you evaluate well at the start, you know what plans to go for, and then usually the play from there is is often pretty simple. Let's say you understand how to arrange your pieces and often also how to arrange your pawns early in the endgame, then that makes all all the all the difference. And after that, it's like what we call technique. Of very often, uh, that it's technique, basically just mean means that, um, the moves are simple, and uh, these are moves that, you know, a lot of players could could make, not only, not only the very strongest ones.

These are moves that are kind of understood and and known

So with evaluation, you're just constantly improving a little bit and that just lead to suffocating the position and then eventually to the win. As long as you're doing the evaluation well, one step at a time.

to some extent. Also, yeah, as I said, like, if you evaluated better and thus accumulated some some small advantages, then you can. You can often make your your your life pretty easy, uh, towards the end of the endgame.

So you said in, uh, 2019, sort of the 2nd phase of why you're so damn good, you, uh, you did a lot of opening preparation. What's the goal for you of, uh, the opening game of chess? Is it to throw the opponent off from any prepared lines? Is there something you could put into words about why you're so damn good at the openings?

Again, these things have changed a lot over time. Uh, back in Kasparov's days, for instance, um, he, uh, very often got huge advantages from the opening as as white.

Can you explain why?

There were several reasons for for that. 1st of all, he he worked harder, he was more creative in finding ideas, he was able to look places others didn't. Uh, also, he had a very strong team of people who had specific strengths in in openings that he could use.

So they would come up with ideas and he would, he would integrate those ideas into, like,

Yeah, and he would also very often come up with them them himself. Also, uh, at the start, he had, um, some of the 1st computer engines, uh to, uh to work, um, for him. To. To find his ideas, to look deeper, to verify his ideas, he was better at using them than a lot of others. Now I f feel like the playing field is a lot more level. There are both computer engines, neural networks and hybrid engines available to practically anybody, so it's it's much harder to find ideas now.

That, um, that actually like, give you an advantage with the white, the the the white pieces. I mean, people don't expect to find those ideas anymore. Now it's all about finding ideas that are missed by the UH engines. Either they're missed entirely, or they're missed at low depth. Uh, and using them to, you know, gain some advantage in the sense that you have more, more knowledge. And, uh, you know, it's also good to know that usually you.

These are not complete bluffs, these are like semi bluffs. So that you know that even if your opponent makes all the right moves, you can still make a draw. And also, at the start of 2019, neural networks had just started to be a thing in in in chess. And, uh, I'm not entirely sure. But there there were at least some players in, even in the top events, you who you could see, did not use them or did not use them in the right way.

And then you could gain a huge advantage. Because a lot of positions they were being evaluated differently by the neural networks than traditional chess engines, because they simply think about, uh, chess in a very, very, um, different way. So short answer is, these days it's all about surprising your your opponent and taking it into position where you have more, more knowledge.

So, is there some sense in which it's okay to make suboptimal quote unquote moves? No, but you have Just

to, I mean, you, you have to, because the best moves have been analyzed to to death. Mostly,

so, that's a kind of when you say somebody bluffs, that's a kind of sacrifice. You're, you're sacrificing the optimal move, the optimal position, so that you can take the opponent. I mean, that's a game theoretic s sense. You take the opponent to something they didn't prepare well.

yeah, uh. But you could also look at it another way, that regardless, like if you turn on whatever engine you turn on, like if you try to analyze either from the starting position or the starting position of some popular opening. Like, if you, um, analyze long enough, it's always gonna end up in a draw. So in in that sense, you may not be going for like the objective. The tries that are objectively the most difficult to draw against.

But, you know, you are trying to look at least at at the less obvious. Um, paths.

How much do you use engines? do you use Lila Stockfish? Uh, in your preparations?

My team does. Personally, I try not to use them too much on on my own. Uh, because I know that when I play, you ca obviously cannot have help from from engines. And often I feel like often having imperfect or knowledge about a position, uh, or some engine knowledge can be a lot worse than than having no knowledge. Uh, so I try to look at engines as little as possible.

So, yeah, so your team uses them for research, for generation of ideas, but you are, uh, relying primarily on your human resources.

yeah, for sure.

You can evaluate well, you don't lean.

Yeah, no, I can evaluate it as a human, I can know what they find unpleasant and and and so on. And, uh, it's very often the case for me to some extent, but a lot for for others. That you arrive in a position and your opponent plays a move that you didn't expect, and you know, if you didn't expect it, you know that it's probably not a great move, since it hasn't been expected by by the engine.

But if it's not, if it's not obvious why it's not a good move, it's usually very, very hard to figure it out. And so then looking at the engines doesn't necessarily help, because at that point, like, you're facing a human, you have to sort of think as a human.

I was chatting with Demis, the CEO of DeepMind, a couple days ago and he asked me to ask you about what you 1st felt when you saw the the play of AlphaZero. Like, interesting ideas, any creativity? Um, did you feel fear that the machine is taking over? did you? were you inspired? and and you, what? What was going on in your mind and heart?

Funny thing about Demis is he, he doesn't play chess at all. Uh, like, uh, like an AI, uh, he, um, plays in a very, very human way. No, uh. I was hugely inspired when I I saw the games at 1st, um, and I, in terms of man versus machine, I mean, that battle was was kind of lost for humans. Even before I entered top level chess, um, so that's never been an issue. Uh, for me, I never, never liked playing against computers much anyway, so so that's completely fine.

But it was amazing to see, uh, how they quote unquote thought about chess in in such a different way and in a way that you could mistake for creativity.

mistake for create strong words. Uh, is it wild to you? How many sacrifices it's willing to make that, like sacrifice pieces and then wait for prolonged periods of time before doing anything with that? Is that? Is that weird to you? That that's part of chess? No, it's. It's one Awesome,

of the things that's hardest to replicate as a human as well, or at least for my playing playing style. That usually, when I I sacrifice, I feel like I'm, you know, I don't do it unless I feel like I'm getting something like tangible. Uh, in in return, and um,

like a few moves down the line, a few you can see,

moves down the line. You can see that you can either retrieve the material or you can put your opponent's king under pressure. Or have some very like, very concrete, uh, positional advantage. That sort of, um, compensates, uh, for it, uh, for instance in chess. So bishops and knights are fairly equivalent. Um, we both give them three points, but bishops are a little bit better. And especially a bishop pair is a lot better than than a bishop and a knight.

So, or especially two knights, depends on the position. But like, on average, they are so like, uh, sacrificing a pawn in order to get get a bishop pair, that's one of the most common sacrifices in chess.

oh, you're okay, making that sacrifice.

Yeah, I mean, it depends on the situation, but generally that's fine. And there are a lot of openings that are based on that that you sacrifice a pawn for the bishop pair. And then eventually it's some sort of positional equality. Um, so that's fine, but um, the way AlphaZero would would sacrifice a knight, or sometimes two pawns, three pawns. And you could see that it's looking for some sort of positional domination, but it's it's hard to understand, and it's, um, it was really fascinating to see.

Um, yeah, in 2019, I was sacrificing a lot of, a lot of pawns especially, and it was, uh, it was a great joy. Unfortunately, it's not so easy to continue to do that. People people have found more solid opening lines since that don't allow me to to do that as often. I'm still trying both to get those positions and still trying to to learn the a art of of sacrificing pieces.

So, uh, Demis also made a comment that was interesting to my noob chess brain, which is one of the reasons that chess is fun is because of the quote creative tension between the bishop and the knight. So you're talking about this interesting, um, difference between the two pieces that there's some kinda. How would you convert that? I mean, that's like a poetic statement about chess. I think he said that. Why has chess been played for such a long time?

why is it so fun to play at every level? That if you can reduce it to one thing, is is it's the bishop and the and the knight. Some kinda weird dynamics that they create in chess. Is there any truth to that?

It sounds very good. I haven't tried a lot of other games, but I tried to play a little bit of Shogi, and for my noob Shogi brain, um, comparing it to chess. What annoyed me about that game is how much the pieces suck. Basically, you have one rook and you have one bishop that move like in chess, and the rest of the pieces are really not very powerful. So I think that's one of the attractions of chess, like how powerful, especially the Queen is, which I kind of think makes it makes a lot of fun.

So you, you think power is more fun than like variety,

No, there is variety in chess as well, though,

but not much more so than like, like golf, go or not at. no, something no, no, that's for so like knight. I mean, th. They all move in different ways, they're all like weird. Th. There's just all these weird patterns and positions that can emerge. The difference in the pieces create all kinds of interesting dynamics. I guess is what I'm trying to say.

yeah. And I guess it is quite fascinating that all those years ago they created the knight and the bishop without probably realizing that they would be almost equally equally strong with such different qualities.

Yeah, it's crazy that this, you know, the the like. When you design computer games, it's it's like an art form, it's science and an art to to balance it. You know, you talk about Starcraft and all those games like. So that you can have competitive play at the highest level, with all those different units. And in in the case of chess, it's different pieces. And they somehow designed a game that was super competitive. But there's probably some kind of natural selection that the chess would just wouldn't last if it it was designed poorly.

Yeah, and I think the the the rules have changed over time a little little bit, but I, I would be, I mean, speaking of games and all that. I'm also interested to play other other games like Chess 960 or Fischer Random, as they call it, like that you have 960 maps instead of one.

Yeah, so for people who don't know, uh, Fischer random chess, chess 960 is,

Yeah, that basically just means that the pawns are in the same way and the major pieces are, uh, distributed randomly on the on the last rank. Only that there have to be obviously bishops of opposite color and the king has to be in between the rooks so that you can castle both ways.

oh, you can still castle in in You can still chess 960.

castle, but that makes it interesting, so you still have it still castles in the same way. So let's say the king is like, here,

Yeah, yeah, what happens in that case?

yeah, the let's say the king is in the corner, um, so to to castle this side, you have you have to clear a whole lot of pieces. Uh, Well, what would castling but the king,

look like, though?

no, the king would go here and the rook would go there. Um, and that's happened in my games as well, like I forgot about castling, uh, and I've been like attacking a king over here. And then all of a sudden it escapes to the other side. I think, um, I think Fischer chess is I is good, that it it's. The maps will generally be worse than regular chess, like I think the starting position is as close to ideal for creating a competitive game as possible.

But they will still be like, interesting and diverse enough that you can play very, um, very interesting games.

so when you say maps, there's 960 different options. And like, what fraction of that creates interesting games at the highest level? I mean, th. This is something that a lot of people are curious about. Because, uh, when you challenge a great chess player like yourself to, um, to look at a random starting position, that feels like it pushes you to play pure chess versus memorizing lines Oh yeah, for and all that kind of stuff.

sure, for sure, but that's, that's the whole idea, that's what you want. And, uh,

how hard is it to play? I mean, can you talk about what, what it feels like to you to play with a random starting position? Is there some like intuition you've been building up?

it's very, very different. And I mean, understandably, engines have an even greater advantage in 960 than they have in in classical chess. No, it's, it's super interesting, uh, and that's why. Also, I really wish that we, uh, played more classical chess, like long games, four to seven hours, and in, um, Fischer random chess, chess 960. Because then you really need, you really need that time, even on the 1st moves. What? What usually happens is that you get 15 min before the game, you, you're getting told the position 15 min minutes before the game.

And then you, uh, you can think about it a l a little bit, even, you know, check on your computer, but that's all the time you have. But then you really need to figure it out. And like, some of the positions obviously are a lot more interesting in than the others. In some of them, it appears that, like, if you don't play symmetrically at the start, then you're probably gonna be in a pretty bad, bad position

what do you mean with the pawns? or

with the pawns.

what? Yeah, well, why? why? how does so so that's that make sense?

the thing about, that's the thing about chess, though. So let's say white opens with e4, which is, which has always been the most played move. There are many ways to meet that, but the the most solid ways of playing has always been the symmetrical response. Uh, with e5. And then there's the the Ruy Lopez, there's the there's the Petrov opening, and and and so on. And if you just ban symmetry on the 1st move in chess, you would get more interesting games, uh, or you, you'd get more decisive, um, decisive games.

So that's the good thing about chess is that we've played it so long that we've actually devised non symmetrical openings that are also fairly equal. And, uh, But symmetry is but, but

a good default.

but yeah, symmetry is a good default. And and it's a problem that by playing symmetrical, armed with good preparation in in regular chess, is just a little bit too easy to. Uh, it's a little bit too, too drawish. And um, I guess if you analyzed, if you analyzed a lot in in chess 960, then, um, the um, a lot of the positions would end up be being, um, pretty drawish as well. Um, but Well, cause, it,

cause, cause. The random starting point's so shitty, you're forced to you're well, uh,

actually forced to s play symmetrically, like you cannot actually try and play in a more sort of interesting, uh, interesting manner.

uh. Is there any other kind of variations that are interesting to you? Oh yeah, there Uh,

are, there are several, uh, so no. Castling chess has been, uh ha, has been promoted by former W world champion Vladimir Kramnik. There have been a few tournaments with that, not any that I've participated in, though. Um, I kind of like it. Also, my coach uses like non castling engines quite a bit to analyze re regular positions to just to get a different different perspective. Um,

so, so, castling is like a defensive thing, so if you remove castling, it forces you to be more offensive. Is that why? Or

it just, yeah, for for for sure. Um,

it seems like a tiny I I think it little difference?

it. Um, no. Castling probably forces you to be a little bit more defensive at the start, or I would guess so, because you cannot suddenly escape with, um, with with the kings. It. It's gonna make the game a bit slower at the start, but, uh, I feel like eventually it's gonna, uh, it's gonna make the more games more. Um, uh, well, less drawish for for sure. Uh, then you have some weirder variants, like, um, where the pawns can move both, uh, diagonally and um, and forward, uh.

And also you have self capture chess, which is quite interesting, so the pawns can, or, um,

Like, Su could commit suicide, or

yeah, people can.

why would that be a use, a good move?

No. S. Sometimes one of your pieces occupy a square. I mean, uh, let me just set up a position. Let's put put it like, put it like this, uh, for instance, like here. I mean, there are a lot of ways to checkmate for white like this, for instance, or there are several ways. Um, but like this would be, uh, would be, uh,

oh, cool, uh. For people who are just listening, Yeah, basically, you're bringing a a knight close to the the the whole, the the, the king, the queen and so on, and you replace the knight with a queen. Yeah, that's interesting. So you could have like a a front of of, uh, pieces, and then you just replace them with the with the 2nd row of pieces. uh, that, That's cool.

I mean, that could be interesting, I think. Also, maybe sometimes in it's just clearance, basically, it adds an extra element of uh, of of clearance. So I I think there there are many, um, many, uh, different variants. I don't think any of them are better than the one that has been played for, uh, at least a thousand years. But um, it's certainly interesting to um to see.

So one of your goals is to reach the FIDE Elo chess rating of 2900. Maybe you can comment on how is this rating calculated and what does it take to get there? Is it possible for a human being to get there?

Basically, you play with a factor of um ten, uh, which means that if I were to play against, um, an opponent who's rated the same as me. I would be expected to score 50, obviously, and that means that I would win five points with a win, uh, lose five points with a draw, and then equal if I, if I draw. If your opponent is 200 points lower rated, you're expected to score 75 and and and so on.

And you establish that rating by playing a lot of people. And then it slowly converges towards an estimate of how likely you are to win or lose against different yeah, and people.

uh, my rating is obviously carried through thousands of of games. Um, right now my rating is 2,861, which is decent. Like, I think that pretty much corresponds to to the level I have at at the moment. Uh, which means in order to reach 2,900, I would have to either get better at chess, which I think is fairly hard to to do, at least considerably better. So what I would need to do is try and optimize even more in terms of

The matchups, the game plan,

preparations, everything. But not, not, not necessarily like selecting tournaments and so on, but like just optimizing in terms of of preparation. Like making sure I'm, I'm, I never have any bad days. And

you, so you basically can't lose.

yeah, I basically can't fuck up ever. Uh, if I wanna, if if I wanna reach that goal, and so I I think reaching 2900 is pretty unlikely. Um, the reason I've set the goal is to have something to to play for, to have, like to have a motivation to actually try and and be at my best when I play. Because otherwise I'm playing to some extent, mostly for for fun these days. Uh, in that, I love to play, I love to try and win, but I don't have like a lot to, uh, I don't have a lot, lot to prove or anything, uh.

But that gives me at least the motivation to try and try and be at my best all all the time, which I think is something to um to to aim for. So at the moment, I'm quite enjoying that process of um, uh, of trying to, um, yeah, trying to optimize.

What would you say motivates you in this now? And in the years leading up to now, the love of winning or the fear of losing?

So for the world Championship, it's been fear of losing, for sure. Other tournaments, love of winning, uh, is a great, great factor. And that's why I also get more joy from from winning most tournaments than I I do for winning the world Championship. Because then it's mostly been a a relief. I also think I enjoy winning more now than I did before, because I feel like I'm a little bit more relaxed now. And um, I also know that it's, you know, it's not gonna last forever.

So every, every little win I, I appreciate, um, appreciate a lot more now. And and yeah, in terms of fear of fear of losing, like, that's a huge reason why I'm not gonna play the world Championship. Because, uh, I, it really didn't, didn't give me, give me a lot of joy, it it really was all about avoiding losing.

Why is it, though, that the world Championship really makes you feel this way? The anxiety? So, and when you say losing, do you mean not just the match, but like every single position, like, uh, like No, it's just the the fear of a blunder?

No, I mean, the blunder is okay. Like when I sit down at the board, then it's it's mostly been fine, because then I, then I'm focused on, then I'm focused on the game, and then I know I know that I can play the game. It's the time like in between, like knowing that, you know, I feel like losing is not an option. Because it's the world Championship, and because in a world Championship there are two players, there's a there's a winner and a loser.

If I don't win a random tournament that I play, then, you know, I'm usually. It depends on the tournament. I might be disappointed, for sure, might even be pretty pissed, but ultimately, you know, you go on to the next one. With the world Championship, you don't go on to the next one. It's like, it's years, and it also has been like, it's been a core part of my identity for a while now that I am world champion.

And so there's not an option of of losing that.

yeah, yeah, there's, uh, you're gonna have to, at least for a couple of years, carry the the weight of having lost. You're the former world champion now if you lose versus the current world champion. There are certain sports that create that anxiety and others that don't. For example, I think UFC, like mixed martial arts, are a little better with losing. It's understood like everybody loses, uh, but Not everybody, there's though. not everybody, not everybody, not everybody.

Yes, could be. Banned to the chat, uh. But in boxing, there is like that extra pressure of, like, maintaining the championship. I mean, maybe you could say the same thing about the the UFC as well. So for you personally, for a person who loves chess, the 1st time you won the world Championship, that was, that was the big, that was the thing that was fun. And then everything after is like, stressful,

yeah, uh, e. Essentially, there was certainly stress, uh, involved the 1st time as well, um, but it was nothing compared to, uh, compared to the others. So the only world championship after that that I really enjoyed was the one in 2018 against the American Fabiano Caruana. And what that made that different is that I'd been kind of slumping for a bit and he'd been on the rise, so our ratings were very, very similar. They were so close that if at any point during the during the match I'd lost the game, um, he would've been ranked as number one in the world.

Like, our ratings were so close that for each draw, they didn't move. And

and the game itself was close, yeah, the like you had to games in themselves play

were very close. Uh, I, I had a a winning position in in the 1st game that I couldn't really get anywhere for a lot of games. Then he, he had a couple of games where he could potentially have won. Um, then in the last game I was a little bit better. And eventually they they were all, they were all drawn. But I felt like all the way that this is an interesting match against an an opponent who is at this position, uh, at this point equal to me.

And so losing that would not have been this disaster. Because in all, in all the other matches, I would know that I would have lost against somebody who I know I'm much better than. And that would be would be a lot harder for me to to take.

well. That's fascinating and beautiful that the stress isn't from losing this. Because you have fun, you enjoy playing against somebody who's as good as you, maybe better than you, that's exciting to you. Uh, it's, it's, it's losing at this high stakes thing that only happens rarely to a person who's not as good as you. yeah, and that's Yeah,

why it's also been incredibly frustrating in other matches. Like when I know, when we play, draw after draw, and I can, just I. I know that I'm better. I can sense during the game that I understand it better than them, but I cannot, you know, I cannot get over the hump.

so you are the best chess player in the world, and you not playing the world Championship really makes the World Championship not seem important. Or, I mean, there's an argument to be made for that. Um, is there anything you would like to see FIDE change about the World Championship that would make it more fun for you? And better for the game of chess, period, for everybody involved?

So I think twelve games, or now 14 games that there is for the World Championship is a fairly, fairly low sample size. If you want to determine who the best player is, or at least the best player in that particular matchup, you need more more games. And I I think to some extent, if you're gonna have a world champion and call them the best players, you best player, you gotta make sure that. The format increases the chance of finding, finding the best player.

So I think having more games, and if you're gonna have a lot more games, then you need to. Then you need to decrease the time control a bit, which I, in turn, I think is also, uh, a good thing. Because in very long time controls with deep preparation, you can sort of mask a lot of your deficiencies. As as as a chess player, um, with, uh, because you have a lot of time to to think and to defend, and also, yeah, you have deep preparation.

Um, s. So I think those would be for me to play, um, those would be the the main, the main, um, the main things. More, more games and and less time,

So you wanna see more games and, uh, rules that emphasize pure chess?

yeah, but already less time emphasize emphasizes pure pure chess. Because, um, defensive techniques are are much harder to execute with with little time.

What do you think? Is there a sweet spot in terms of are we talking about blitz? is it? how many I think blitz minutes?

is a bit too fast. Um, to their credit, this was suggested by by FIDE as well. For a start, you have two games per day and let's say you have 45 minutes, uh, a game, plus 15 or or 30 seconds per move. That means that each session will probably be about or a little less than 2 h. That would be would be a start. Also, what's what we're playing in the tournament that I'm playing here in in in Miami, which is, um, four games a day, uh, with, uh, 15 min plus 10 s per move.

Those were would be, um, more interesting than than the one there is now. And I, I. I understand that there are a lot of traditions, people don't wanna change the world Championship, that's that's all fine. I just think that, um, the world Championship should do a better job of trying to reflect who who's the best overall chess player.

s, so would you? Would you say, like I? If it's faster games, you'd probably be able to get a sample size of like over 20 games, 20, 30, 40. Do you think there's a number that's good over a long period of time?

Well, I would prefer as many as possible. It's like 100, Um, yeah, but let's say you play twelve days, two games a day, you know, that's 24. I feel like that's already quite a bit better. You play like one black game, one white game each day. Uh,

endurance wise, that's okay.

yeah, I think that's fine, like you will have three days as well, so I don't think that will be will be a problem. Um, and also you have to prepare two sets of openings for each day, which makes it more difficult for the teams. Preparing, which I think is also good.

let me ask you a fun question if, uh, Hikaru Nakamura, uh, was one of the two people, uh, what? I guess I apologize 1st.

he could have, he could have finished 2nd, so he lost the last round of the candidates.

yeah, and you, uh, put, maybe you can explain to me. Internet speed copium is something you tweeted, but if he, if he got 2nd, w would you? uh, al, would you? would you? J? Just despite him, still still play the world Championship? That's internet question, and when the internet asks, I must abide, the dude abides.

yeah, uh, sure, thank you, internet. So after the last match, uh, I did an interview, uh, r right after, where I talked about the fact that I was unlikely to play the next one. Uh, I'd spoken privately to both family, friends and, of course, also my chess team that this was likely going to be the last, the last match. Um, what happened was that right before the World Championship match, there was this young player, uh, Alireza Firouzja.

He had a dramatic rise, he rose to 2nd in the world rankings. He was 18 then, nine, he's 19 now. He qualified for the candidates and he felt like there was like at least a half realistic possibility that he could be the challenger for the next world championship. Uh, and that sort of lit a fire under me. Um,

Do you like that idea?

yeah, I, I like that. I like that a lot. I love the idea of of playing him in the next world world Championship. And originally, I just I was sure that I wanted to announce right after the tournament, uh, the match, that this was it. I'm done, I'm not playing the next one, but this lit a fire under me. So that made me think, you know, this actually motivates me. And I just wanted to get it out there for several reasons to create more hype about the candidates, to, like, sort of motivate myself a little bit, may maybe motivate him also.

Obviously, I wanted to give people an people a heads up for the candidates. That you might be playing for more than more than 1st place, like normally the candidates is is 1st place or bust. It's like the World Championship, um, and and then so Nakamura was one of ma many people who just didn't believe me, which is fair, cause I've talked before about not not necessarily wanting to to defend again. But I never, like, talked as concretely or as serious as this time.

So he simply didn't believe me and he was very vocal about that, and he said, nobody believed me. None, none of the, none of the players, which may or may or may not have been true. And then, yeah, he lost, he lost the last game and he didn't, didn't qualify. But to answer the question, No, I'd already at that point decided that I wouldn't, wouldn't play. I would have liked it less if he had, if he had not lost the last round,

But the decision was made.

but the decision was already, um, was already made.

D Does it? uh, does it break your heart a little bit that you're walking away from it? In all the ways that you mentioned that? It's just not f fun? There's a a bunch of ways that it doesn't seem to bring out the best kind of chess. It doesn't bring out the best out of you. And the particular opponents involved. Does it just break your heart a little bit? Like you're walking away from something, or maybe the entire chess community is walking away from a kind of a a historic event that was so important in the 20th century, at least.

So I won the championship in 2013, I said no to the candidates in 2011, I didn't particularly like the format, I also wasn't. I was just not in the mood. I didn't want the pressure that was connected with the world Championship. And I was perfectly content at the time to play the tournaments that I did play. Um, also to to be ranked number one in the world. I was comfortable with the fact that I knew that I was, I was the best and I didn't need a title to to show others.

Um, and what happened later is I suddenly decided to play. Um, in 2013, I liked, they changed the format, I, I liked it better. Um, I just decided, you know, it could be interesting, let's try and get this. Um, there. WA. There really wasn't more than more than that to it. It wasn't like fulfill, fulfilling life, long dream or anything. I just thought, you know, let's let's play. Um,

so it's just a cool tournament, a good

yeah, it's, it's a cool,

challenge. That's what it boils cool tournament, down to,

it's a good challenge, you know, why not? It's it's something that's could m be a motivation. It motivated me to get in the in the best shape of my life. That had been till then, so it, it was a good thing. Uh, and 2013 match brought me a lot of lot of joy as well. So I'm very, very happy that I, that I did that. But I never had any thoughts that I'm gonna like, keep the title for for a long time.

Immediately after the match in 2013, I I mean, also before the match. I'd spoken against the fact that the champion is seeded into the final, which I thought was unfair. After the match, I made a proposal that we have a different system where the champion doesn't have these privileges. And people's reaction, both players and, uh, chess community, was general, uh, generally like, Okay, we're good, we don't, we don't want that. You keep your privileges. And I was like, Okay, whatever,

so you wanna fight for it every time.

yeah, I, I want that.

Uh, have to ask, just in case you have an opinion, uh, if you can, maybe from a fantasy chess perspective, uh, analyze, uh, Ding versus Nepo, who wins the current? The two people that would play if you're not playing?

Generally, I would consider that Ding has a slightly better overall chess strength. Um,

What are the strength and we weaknesses of each? If you can, kinda summarize it,

um, so Nepo, he's even better at calculating short lines than I am, um, but he can sometimes lack a little bit of little bit of depth. Uh, like he's in short lines, he's an absolute calculation monster. He's extremely, uh, he's extremely quick, but he can sometimes lack a bit of depth. Also recently, um, he's improved his openings quite a bit, so now he, um, he has a lot of lot of good ideas and he's very, very solid.

Um, Ding is not quite as well prepared, but he has an excellent understanding of dynamics and imbalances in in chess. I would, uh, I would say,

what do you mean by imbalances?

um, imbalances like bishop bishops against knights and material

Yeah, and you can take imbalances. advantage of those.

Yes, I would say he's very, very good at that. And understanding the, you know, the dynamic factors, as we call them, like material versus time, uh, especially.

I think Nepo got the better of him in the candidates. So what's your sense? Why Ding has an edge in the in the championship?

I feel like individual past results hasn't necessarily been a great indicator of world championship results. Uh, I feel like overch overall, chess strength is more more important. I I mean, uh, to be fair, I only think like Ding has a very small edge, like difference is not big at all. But our individual head to head record was probably the main reason that a lot of people thought Nepo had a good chance against me as well. It was like four to one in his favor before the match, but that was just another example of why.

That may not necessarily mean anything. Also, in our case, it was a very, very low sample size. I I think about the size of of the M, of of the match in total, 14 games, and that generally doesn't, doesn't mean much.

How close were those games, would you say, in your mind for the previous championship? Uh, so th that game six, where it was a turning point where you won. Um, was there any doubt in your mind that, you know? Like, if you do a much larger sample size, that you'll get the better of Nepo?

No, no, larger, larger sample size is always good for me. So world Championship is, it's a. It's a great parallel to to football because it's a low scoring game. And if the better player or the better team scores, they win most of the time.

Oh, that's generally for for big, for championships, or in general,

Yeah, for for championships, like they generally generally win. Uh, because the other t slightly weaker team, they're good enough to defend, to make it very, very difficult for the others. But when they actually have to create the chances, then they have no chance. And then it very often ends with a blowout, as it did in our our match. If I hadn't won game six, it probably would've been very, very close. He might have edged it, there's obviously a bigger chance that I I would've edged it.

But this is just what happens a lot in in chess, but also in in in football, that matches are close and then they somebody scores, somebody scores, and then and then things things change.

that's fascinating.

And this gives people the illusion that the matchup was very close, which, while actually, it just means that the nature of the game makes the matches close very often. But it's always much more likely that one of the teams is gonna, or one of the players is gonna break away than the others. And in other matches as well. Even though a lot of people before the match in 2016, uh, against, uh, um, against Karjakin, uh. There were people who thought before the match that I was massively overrated as as as a favorite.

And that essentially the match was pretty, pretty close, like whatever, uh, 60 40, or some people even said like 55, 45. And what I felt was that the match went very, very wrong for me and I still won. Uh, and some people saw that as an indication that the pre match probabilities were probably a bit closer than people thought. Well, I would look at it in that in the way that everything went wrong and I, I still, I still won.

Which probably means that I was pretty big favorite to begin with. I, I Yeah,

do have a question too about that match. But 1st, so Sergey Karjakin was originally a qualifier for the Candid Candidate tournament, but was disqualified for breaching the FIDE code of ethics. After publicly expressing approval for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. When you look at the Cold War and some of the US. versus Russian games of the past, does politics, the the some of this geopolitics, politics, ever creep its way into the game? Do you feel the pressure, the immensity of that, as it does sometimes for the Olympics?

You know, these big nations playing each other, competing against each other, almost like fighting out in a in a friendly way. The battles, the tensions that they have in the space of geopolitics.

I think it still does. So. The president of the World Chess Federation, who was just re elected, is is is a Russian. Like, I like him personally, uh, for sure, um, but he is quite connected to the Kremlin, like, and it's quite clear that the Kremlin considers it at least a semi important goal to bring the chess crown home to to Russia. So it's still, it's still definitely a a factor, and I mean, I can answer for in the Karjakin case, like, I don't have a strong opinion on on whether he should have been banned or not.

Obviously, I don't agree with anything that he he says, but in principle, I think that you should ban either no Russians or all Russians. I'm generally not particularly against either, but I don't love banning wrong opinions, even if they are, um, as, uh, reprehensible as, uh, as his have been.

Yeah, there's something about the world chess championships or the Olympics where it feels like banning is counterproductive to the alleviating some of the conflicts.

We don't know, this is the thing, though we really don't know about the the long term conflicts. And a lot of people try to do the right, the right thing in this sense, which I don't really blame at all. It's just that it's just that we don't know. And I guess sometimes it's there are other ways you wanna try and try and help as well.

see, like within the competition, within some of those battles of US. versus Russia or so on of the past. There's also between the individuals. Um, maybe you'll disagree with this, but from a spectator perspective, there's still a camaraderie. Like, at the end of the day, there's a thing that unites you, which which is this like appreciation of the fight over the chessboard. It's, um, even if you hate each other in the moment,

for for sure, I I think for every, every match that's been. You would briefly discuss the game with your opponent after after the game, no matter how much you hated each other. And I I think that's lovely, uh, and Kasparov, I mean, he was quoted like when somebody in his team asked him, like, why, why are you talking to to Karpov after the game? Like he, you hate that guy? He's like, Yeah, sure, but he's the only one who understands me.

yeah, the only one who Yeah, so understands.

that's, uh, no, I think that's really lovely and I, I would love to see that in other, in other areas, was as well. That you can, regardless of what happens, you can have, you can have a good chat about the game, you can. You can just talk about the ideas with people who who understand what you, what you understand.

So if you're not playing the world championships, there's a lot of people who are saying that perhaps the world championships don't matter anymore. Do you think, um, there's some truth to that?

I said that back a long time ago as well, that for me, I don't know if it never happened, so I don't know what would have happened. But I was thinking, like, the moment that I realized that I'm not the best player in the world, like I. I felt like morally I have to renounce the World Championship title, you know, because it doesn't mean anything as long as you're not the best player.

so the ratings really tell a a bigger, a clearer st story.

I think so, at least, at least over time. Like, I'm a lot more proud of my streak of being rated number one in the world, which is now since, I think, the summer of 2011. Uh, I'm a lot more proud of of that than than the world Championships.

How much anxiety or even fear do you have before making a difficult decision on the chessboard? So when it's a high stakes game, how nervous do you get? How much anxiety do you have? In all that calculations, you're sitting there for 1015 minutes, cause you're in a fog. There's always the possibility of a blunder, of a mistake. Are you anxious about it? Are you afraid of it?

Really depends. Um, I have been, I have been at times. I think the most nervous I ever been was game ten of, uh, the World Championship in 2018. I tho that was just a thrilling game. I was black, um, I basically a abandoned the Queen side at some point to attack him on the King side, and I knew that my attack, if it doesn't work, I'm I'm gonna lose. But I, I had so much adrenaline, so that was, that was fine.

I thought I was gonna win. Then at some point I realized that it's not so clear, and then my time was ticking and I was just getting so nervous. I, I, I still remember what happened. Like, we played this time trouble phase where he had very little time, but I had even less. And I just remember, I cannot remember mu much of it, just that when it was over, I was just so relieved. Because then it was clear the position was probably gonna peter out in, um, in a draw.

Otherwise, I'm often nervous before games, but when I get there, it's all business. And especially when I'm playing well, I'm never afraid of of losing when I, when I play, because I trust, yeah, I trust my instincts, I trust my, um, my skills.

How much psychological intimidation is there from you to the other person, from the other person to you?

I think people would play a lot better if they played against an anonymous me. I would love to,

Or people are scared of you? In general,

I, I. I would love to s to have a tournament online where, let's say, you play ten of the best players in the world. And you don't. For each round, you don't know who you're playing.

would be, that's an interesting question, you know? Like, there's these like videos where people eat McDonald's or Burger King or Diet, Coke versus Diet Pepsi. Would people be able to tell they're playing you? Uh, like, from the style of play, do you think, or from the strength of play?

if there was a decent sample size, sure, um,

And what about you? Would you be able to tell, uh, others, in t in in like top ten,

just one game, very unlikely.

what? What sample size would you need to tell accurately? I feel like it's a science

I, yeah, I I think 20 games would help a lot.

per person.

Yeah, but, uh, I know that they've already developed AI bots that are pretty good at recognizing somebody's style, which is, um, which is quite fascinating. Uh,

And it'd be fascinating if those bots were able to summarize the style. Somehow. Maybe great attacking chess, like some of the same characteristics you've been describing, like great at short line calculations, all that kind of stuff, yeah, I or just talk mean, we really shit.

no, but really, all the best chess players, there are basically just two camps, people who are good at long, longer lines or or shorter lines. It's the hare and the tortoise, basically. And sometimes, you know, I feel like I'm the closest you can get to a a hybrid of those. Uh,

Cause you got both the you, you, you're good in every position, so the middle game and the end game.

yeah, and also I can, I. I can think to some extent, both rapidly and deeply, which a lot of people, they cannot do both. Um, but I mean to to answer your question from before, I think, yeah. I sometimes can get a little bit intimidated by my opponent. But I. It's mostly if there's something unknown, if m, it's mostly if s it, if it's something that I don't understand fully. And I, I do think, especially when I'm playing well, people, they just play more timidly against me than they do against each other, sometimes without even realizing it.

And I certainly use that to my my advantage. If I sense that my opponent is apprehensive, if I sense that they are not gonna necessarily take all their chances, it just means that I can take more risk. And um, I always try and try and find that, uh, To balance.

shake them up a little bit. What? What's been the toughest loss of your career that you remember? Would that be the um, the world championship match

oh yeah, for sure. against? Can Um, you take take game game eight in 2016,

and who was it against?

uh, against Karjakin in in New York. Um,

Can you take it through the story of that game? Where were you? Um, before that game, in terms of game one through seven?

yeah, so game one and two, not much happened. uh, games three and four, I was winning in both of them. And um, normally, I should definitely have converted both. I couldn't, partly due to good defense on on his part, but mostly because I just I messed up, uh, and then after that, games five, six and seven, not much happened. I. W. I was getting impatient that at at that point, um, so for game eight, I was probably ready to take a little bit more risks than I I had before.

Which I guess was insane because I knew that he couldn't beat me unless I beat myself. Um, like, he wasn't strong enough to outplay me. And that was Yes,

leading to impatience somehow, and impatience no, because was,

I knew that I was better, I knew that I was better, I knew that I just needed to win one game and then the match is over. That's what happened in in 2021 as well. Like when I won the 1st game against Nepo, I knew that the match was over. Unless I like, fuck up royally, then he's not gonna be able to beat me. So what happened was that I played a kind of an innocuous opening as white, just trying to get a game, trying to get him out of book as soon as possible.

Then

okay, can you elaborate? innocuous? Get him out of the book. W Uh.

no, Ba, basically, I. I set up pretty defensively as white. I. I wasn't really crossing into his half at the start at all, I was just I played more like a system, more than like a concrete opening. It was like, I'm gonna set up my pieces this way, you can set them up, however you want, and then later, where sort of the armies are gonna meet. I'm, I'm not gonna try and bother you at the start.

And that means you can have with as many pieces as possible, kind of pure chess in the middle game Yeah, that's without any of the the lines, the the the standard lines in the opening. Okay,

And so there was at some point a couple of exchanges, then some maneuvering, flip a little bit better. Then he was sort of equalizing, and then I started to take too many risks and I was still sort of fine. Um, but then at some point I realized that I'd gone a bit too far and I had to be really careful. Then I just froze, I just completely froze. Uh, mentally, like, what, yeah, mentally, I

what, what happened? ca. Do you can you?

I realized that. I mean, all the thoughts of I might lose this, what have I done? Why did I take so many risks? I knew that I could have drawn at any moment. Just be patient, don't give him these opportunities.

What triggered that like phase transition in your mind? No, it was Was it one thing just no, or was it many it was just, uh, risks piling up?

a position on the board, like realizing like there was one particular move he played that I missed. And then like, then I. I realized that this could pot potentially not go go my way. So then I made another couple of mistakes. And he, to his credit, like once he realized he had the chance, he was like, he knew that this was his one chance, he had to take it, and so he did. And yeah, that's, that's the the worst I've ever felt after, um, after a chess game.

I realized that I'm probably gonna lose my title against somebody who's not even close to my level, and I've done it because of my own stupidity. Most of all. Uh, and that was really, really, um, at at the time, like I was all in my own head, that was that was hard to deal with, and I felt like I didn't really recover too much for the next game. So what I did? There was a free day after the 8th game, so I did something that I never did at any other world championship.

Like I after game eight, I just I got drunk with my team. And That's not a standard um, no, procedure. no, that's that's the only time that's happened in, um, in the world Championship, during the match. So yeah, I just try to forget, uh, but still before game nine, game nine, I was a little bit more relaxed, but I was still a bit nervous. Then game nine, I almost lost as well, and then only game ten, game ten, I was still.

I wasn't in a great mood, I was really, really tense. Um, the opening was good, uh, I had some advantage, I was getting optimistic, then I made one mistake. He could have forced a draw and then the old n, all the negativity came back, like I was thinking during the game, like, how am I gonna play for a win with black in the next game? Like, what, what, what am I doing? And then, you know, eventually it ended, it ended well, it didn't find the right line.

I ground him down, actually, I played at some point pretty well in the endgame. And um, after that game, like there was such a weight lifted. lift lifted, no, the I I. After that, there was like no thought of losing the match whatsoever. I knew that, okay, I'd basically gotten away with, um, not with murder, but getting gotten away with something.

What can you say about the after game eight? Where are the places you've gone in your mind? Do you go to s some dark places? We're talking about, like depression? Do you think about quitting at that point?

No, I mean, I I think about quitting, uh, every time I lose a classical game, or a at least I used to like, especially if it's in a stupid way. Like, I'm thinking, like, okay, if I'm gonna gonna play like this, if I'm gonna do things that I know are wrong, then, you know, I might as well quit. No, that's happened, that's happened a bunch of bunch of times, and I've definitely gotten a bit more carefree about losing these days, which is not necessarily a good thing.

Like, my hatred of losing led to me not losing a lot, and it also lit a fire under me. That I think my performance after losses in in classical chess over the last ten years is like over two, 900. Like, I really play well after a loss, even though it's really, really unpleasant. So apparently, like, I don't think the way that I dealt with them is particularly healthy, but it's it's it's worked.

worked so far. But then you've discovered now a love for winning to where, ultimately, longevity wise, creates more fun.

Yeah, for sure.

Yeah, what's the perfect day in the life of Magnus Carlsen on a day of a big chess match? It doesn't have to be world championship, but if, if it's, if it's a chess match, you care about. What? Uh, what time do you wake up? what do you eat? Well, That's

it depends on when the game is, but let's say the game is at three. Um, I'll probably wake up, uh, pretty late, at about eleven. Then I'll go for, go for a walk, uh, might listen to some podcasts. Maybe I'll spend a little bit of time looking at some, you know, some NBA game from the last night or whatever.

to not chess related stuff.

No No, uh, then I'll, I'll get back, I'll have big lunch, like usually, like a big omelet with a bunch of salad and stuff, then go to the game. Win, like a very nice, clean game,

Hm, the perfect day.

just go back after relax. Like the the things that make me the the happiest at tournaments is just having a good routine and, uh, feeling feeling well. Um, I don't like it when too much is happening around me. So the tournament that I came from now was, um, the Chess Olympiad, which is a team event, so we were team Norway. We did horribly. Uh, I like, I did okay, but the team in general did did horribly.

Uh, who won and it, that? Italy? Who uh, no,

are we talking?

no, Italy beat us, but Uzbekistan won in the end. They, uh, were this amazing team of young players. It was really, it was really impressive. But the thing is like, we had a good c camaraderie in the team. We had our meals together, we played a bit of football, went swimming, and I couldn't understand why things went wrong and I still don't understand. But the thing is, for me, it was all very nice. But now I'm so happy to be on my own at a tournament, just to have my own routines, not see too many people, otherwise just have, like, a very small team of people that I see.

you are a kind of celebrity now. So you know, people within the chess tournament and outside would recognize you, want to socialize, want to tell you about how much you mean to them, how much you inspire them, all that kind of stuff. Does that get in the way for you? When you're like, trying to really focus on on the match? Are you able to, uh, block that? Like, are you able to enjoy that, those little interactions and still keep your focus?

Yeah, uh, most of the time, that's, uh, that's fine, uh, as long as it's not too much. But I have to admit, when I'm at home in Norway, like, I rarely go out with, like, without, um, big headphones and something

No, oh, like a disguise, on my no, not oh, just a, not to block a disguise, out the world. Yeah,

just to block out the world. Cause otherwise, um,

don't make eye contact, just

yeah, n no.

listen to Jack.

So the thing is, people in general are nice, I mean, people, they wish me well, uh, and they don't like bother me. Also, when I have the headphones on, I don't notice as much people like turning around and and all of that. So I can be more of in my own world. Uh, so I like that.

yeah, uh. What about after the the in this perfect day after the game? Do you try to analyze what happened, do you try to think through systematically, or do you just kinda loosely think about, like, what No, I just loosely went?

think about it. I, I've never been very structured in in that sense. Um, I know that it was always recommended that you analyze your your own games, but I, I generally felt that I mostly had a good idea about that. Like nowadays, I will like, loosely see what the engine says at at a certain point, if I'm curious about that, otherwise, I usually move on to the next.

What about diet? You said omelet and salad and so on. I heard, uh, in your conversation with the uh, with the other Magnus, Magnus number two, about your. Do you had like this bet about meat? You? One of you are gonna go vegan if you lose, I forget which, Vegetarian but v, though, but Oh, vegetarian, sorry, and uh, you both have an admiration for me. Is there? Um, is there some aspect about optimal performance that you look for in food?

Like maybe eating only like once or twice a day, or a particular kind of food, like meat heavy diet? Is there anything like that, or you just try to have fun with the food

I think, um, whenever I'm at tournaments like, it's very natural to eat, at least for me, to eat only twice a day. So usually I do that when I'm at home as well.

before? So you, you do eat before the tournament, though you don't, you don't play fasted.

no, no, no, um. But I try not to eat too heavy before the game, or in general, to avoid sugary stuff, to have a pretty stable, uh, blood sugar level. Cause that's the easiest way to make mistake that your your energy levels just suddenly, suddenly drop. And they don't necessarily mean need to be too high, as long as they're pretty stable. Yeah,

Have you ever tried playing fasted? Like, you know, like, uh, intermittent fasting, so playing without having eaten? I mean, the reason I ask, you know, uh, I've. Especially when you do a low carb diet, when I have done a personally a low carb diet. I'm able to fast for a long time, like once a day, maybe, uh, twice a day. But I just. The mind is most focused on, like, really difficult thinking tasks when it's fasted.

It's an interesting, a lot of people kinda talk about that, yeah, but that you're able to kinda like, zoom in. And if you're doing a low carb diet, you don't have this. Ener, the energy's stable.

no, that is true, maybe that would be interesting to try. So what's happened for me is I've played a few tournaments where I've had food poisoning. And then that generally means that you're both sleep deprived and you have no energy. And what I've found is that it makes me to some. It makes me very calm, of course, because I don't have the energy, and it makes me super creative. Like S being sleep deprived, I think in general, makes you creative.

Just the 1st thing that goes away is the ability to do the simple things, that that's, that's what of it affects you the most. Like, you cannot I see, be precise, so, um, that's the only thing I'm worried about. Like, if if I'm fasted, that I w won't be, won't be, um, precise when I play

but you might be more creative. It's an interesting trade fasted. off. Yeah, potentially, What about you have been known to, on a a rare occasion, play drunk? Is there a mathematical formula for? Sort of on the X axis, how many drinks you had, and on the Y axis, your performance? Creativity? Is there like an optimal for like, uh, one of the? Would you suggest for the FIDE World Championship that people would be required to drink? Would that change things in interesting ways?

yeah, not at all. Um, maybe for rapid, but for for blitz, I think if you're playing blitz, you're mostly playing on on short calculation and intuition. And I think those are probably enhanced if you've had a little bit of little bit to drink.

H Can you, uh, explain the, uh, the physiology of why that's, why it's enhanced? Or the

You're just you're thinking less, you're more confident. oh, yeah, it's I think com, it's I think it's just confidence. confidence. I think also like a lot of people feel like they're better at speaking languages, for instance, if they've drunk a little bit. It's just like removing these barriers. I think that it's it's a little bit of the same in in chess. I in 2012 I played the World Blitz Championship and then I, I was doing horribly for for a long time.

I also had food poisoning there. I couldn't play at all for for three days. So there, before the last break, I was like, in the middle of the pack, like, in, I don't know, 20th place or something. And so I decided, like, as a last last gasp, I'm gonna go to the mini bar and just have a few drinks. And um, what happened is that I came back and I was suddenly relaxed, uh, and I was playing fast and I was playing confident, and I thought I was playing so well.

I wasn't playing nearly as well as I thought, but it still helped me. Like, I won my remaining eight games and if there had been one more round, I probably would've won the whole thing. But finally I was, I was 2nd, so generally I wouldn't recommend that, but maybe as a last resort. Sometimes, like, if you feel that you have the ability, like, obviously none of this is remotely relevant if you don't feel like you have the ability to begin with.

But if you like, if you feel like you have the ability. There are just factors that make it impossible for you to, um, to show it, like numbing your mind a bit can probably be a good thing.

yeah. What's interesting es, especially during training, you have all kinds of sports that I've interacted with, a lot of athletes in grappling sports. It's different when you train under extreme exhaustion, for example, you start becoming, you start to discover interesting things, you start being more creative. A lot of people, um, in, at least in, uh, Brazilian jiu jitsu, they'll, they'll smoke weed, you know, it does. It creates this kind of anxiety and relaxation that, kind of, uh, enables that creative aspect.

It's interesting for training. Of course, you can't rely in any one of those things too much, but it. It's cool to throw in like a few drinks every once in a while. To, uh, yeah, one, 1st of all, to relax and have fun, and two, to kind of try things differently, to unlock a different part of your brain.

yeah, for sure.

Uh, what about supplements? Do you? uh, you're a coffee guy? You? S

no, um, I quite like the taste of coffee. Uh, I've, but it. But the thing is, I've never had a job, so I've never needed to wake up early. So my thought is basically that if I'm tired, I'm tired, that's fine, then I'll, you know, then I'll,

sticking it out.

I'll. I'll work it out. So I don't wanna ever, um, m, make my brain get used to, get used to coffee. Like, if you see me drinking coffee, that's that probably means that I'm massively, massively hungover. And I don't. I just want wanna try. Ev anything to to make my brain work.

yeah, that's interesting. But for a lot of people, like you said, taste of coffee, for a lot of people, coffee is part of a a certain kind of ritual Yeah, for sure, that they enjoy, you know? So, uh, no, I, I, hopefully you can have rituals

I, I. I know that I without the would enjoy it a lot, yeah, just though there there's you don't wanna rely no question about

on it. that. No, Yeah, uh,

and I also like the taste, so there's no problem there.

what about exercise? So how does that? What? Like, what? K What? You know, a lot of people talk about the extreme, um, stress that chess puts in your body physically and mentally. How do you prepare for that to be physically and mentally? Is it just through playing chess, or do you do cardio and y and y, that kind of stuff?

This has gone a bit up and down. Like, as I said, in 2013 I was in, I was in great shape. Like, I mean, generally, I was exercising, doing sports every day, either playing football or um, tennis, or even other other sports. Otherwise, if I couldn't do that, I would try and take my my bike for for a ride. I had a few training camps and I played tennis against one of my my seconds. Like, he's not a super fit guy, but he's always been very good at tennis and I never, like, played in any organized way.

Um, and that was like, that was the that was the perfect exercise because I was running around enough to make the games pretty competitive. Uh, and it means meant that he had to run a bit less as well. But he was just, he said, like he w, he was shocked that if we played like for 2 h, I wouldn't flinch at all.

interesting. So, like a combination of fun and, uh, the differential between skill result in good N Yeah, yeah, cardio.

but it is, it's just that, um, so in those days I was, I was pretty, uh, I was pretty fit. In that sense, I've always liked doing sports, but at times, you know, I I think in winter, especially, like I never had like a schedule. So at times I'll let myself go a little bit. Uh, and I've always kind of done it more for for fun than like for a concrete benefit. But now I'm at least after the uh, pandemic, I was not in great shape.

So now I'm trying to to get back, get better, get better habits, and uh, and so on. But um, I feel like I've always been the poster boy for making being fit a big thing in chess. And I always felt that it was. It's not really deserved because I never liked doing weights much at all. Um, I run a bit at times, but I never liked it too much.

You just love playing sports,

I just love playing sports. So that I think people confuse that because I'm, I'm not like massively athletic, but I, but I do. I. I am decent at, uh, at at sports, and that's that's sort of helped build that, that perception. Even though others who are top level chess players, um, they're more fit, like Caruana, for instance, he's really, really, um, his body is really, really strong. It's just that he doesn't.

he like, goes to the gym and and Yeah, if does like, does

if he doesn't play sports, that's, that's the that's the difference.

and the thing about sports is also is just, uh, it's an escape. It ma. It helps you forget for for a brief moment about, like, the the obsessions, the pursuits of of the main thing, which is chess. Yeah, for for, Yeah,

uh, for sure, and I think it's. It also helps your main pursuit to feel that you're, um, even if not mastering, but like, doing well in something, um, in something else. Like, I found that if I just juggle a ball, that makes me feel better before a game. so a a s Like a juggle skilled activity, of juggle of football. Yeah,

yeah, skill, skilled activity that you can improve on over time. It fo it like, flexes the same kind of muscle, but on a thing that you're much worse at, uh, it. It focuses you, relaxes you. That's really interesting. What? Uh, what's the perfect day in the life of Magnus Carlsen when he's training? So, like, what's a good training regimen in terms of, you know, daily kind of training? Do you have to put in across many, uh, days, months and years?

Uh, to just keep yourself sharp in terms of chess?

I would say, when I'm at home, I do very, very little deliberate practice. I've never been that guy at all, like I've. I could never force myself to just sit down and work.

So deliberate practice, just so maybe you can educate me. For some grandmasters, what would that look like? Just doing puzzles kind of thing, or the

doing, doing puzzles and opening analysis, that would be the main things, studying games just studying games. Yeah, a little bit, but I feel like that's something that I do, but it's not deliberate. It's like reading an article or reading a book, like I love chess books, I'll read just anything and I'll find something interesting.

So chess books that are, uh, like on openings and stuff like that, or chess books that go over different games. Yeah, um, books Both

on. So there are three main categories. There are books on openings, and there are books on strategy, and there are books on chess history. And I find all of them very, very interesting.

like, what fraction of the day would you say you have a chess board floating somewhere in your head, meaning like you're thinking about it?

Probably be a better question to ask how many hours a day? I don't have a chess board floating in front of me.

I mean, it could be just floating there and nothing is happening. But like, when

I, I. you're like, I often do it parallel to some other activity, though.

and what, what does that look like? Like? Are you daydreaming? Like, different? Is it actual positions you're just fucking around with, like fumbling with different pieces in your head?

Often, I've looked at a at a random game on on my phone, for instance, or in in a book. And then my brain just keeps going at the same position, analyzing it, and often it goes all the way, you know, to the end game.

And those are actual games, or you conjure up like fake games,

No, they were often based on real games. Uh, and then I'm s. I'm thinking like, Oh, but it wouldn't be more interesting if the pieces were a little bit different. And then often I play it out from there.

so you don't have a like, y, you don't sit behind a computer or a chessboard and you lay out the pieces. And then you're,

I'm not at all a poster boy for deliberate practice. I could never, I could never work that way. My 1st coach, he gave me some exercises to do at home sometimes, but he realized at some point, uh, that wasn't gonna work because I wouldn't do it really, I or enjoy it. So what he would do instead is that at the school where I had the trainings with him, there was this massive chess library. So he was just like, Yeah, pick, pick out books, you can have anything, you can have anything you want.

uh, just pick out books you like, and then you give it back the next time. So that's

so you just kind of read

that's what I did instead. Yeah, I just absolutely raided the UM. Does And then my next tournament, I will try out one of the openings from that book, if it was an opening book and so on. So

it feel like a struggle, like challenging, like to to be thinking those positions, or is it fun and relaxing?

no, it's completely fine, I don't.

Like, if it's a difficult position to figure out, you know, like to calculate,

And then I go on to something else, like, if I can't figure it out, then, you know, I go on.

change it so that it's easier to figure out. There was a point in your life where Kasparov was interested in being your coach or TRA, at least training with you. Why? why did you choose not to go with him? That's a pretty bold move. Was there a good reason for this?

No, um, the 1st like homework exercise he gave me was to analyze, like he picked out, I think, three, four of my worst losses, and he wanted me to to analyze them and give him my thoughts. And it wasn't that they were painful losses or anything that that was a problem. I just didn't really enjoy that. Also, I felt that this whole structured approach and everything I, I just felt like from the start, it was a was a hassle.

So I loved the idea of being able to pick his brain, but everything else I just, you know, couldn't see myself, couldn't see myself enjoying. And at the end of the day, I did then and always have played for fun. That's always been like but the main reason. it's great So

that you had the confidence to sort of basically turn down the approach of one of the greatest chess players of all time, at that time, probably the greatest chess player of all time. I, I don't think Like,

I thought of it that way, I just thought, this is not for me, I wanna

not for me.

try another way. I don't think I was particularly thinking that this is my one opportunity or anything. It was just, yeah, I don't enjoy this, let's try something else.

When you were 13, you faced Kasparov, uh, and he wasn't able to beat you. Can you go through that match? What did that feel like? How important was that? Was that? How epic was that,

We played three games, uh, I lost two and I drew one.

right? The but one draw, No, the one yes, yes, draw, um, and but didn't you say that you kind of had a better position in that?

yeah, I remember that day very well. There was a blitz game, this was a rapid tournament, and there was a blitz tournament the day before, which determined the the pairings for the rapid.

Hm, hm. And for people who don't know, super short games are called bullet, kind of short games are called blitz, semi short games are called rapid and classic chess, I guess, is like, very, super long.

yeah, uh, yeah, basically, bullet just never played over the board, so in terms over the board, chess, blitz is the shortest. Rapid is like a hybrid between classical and Blitz. You need to have s the skills for both, and then classical is. It's like the blitz tournament, which didn't go so well. Uh, like, I got a couple of wins, but I was beaten badly in a lot of games, including by Gary. And so there was the pairing that I had to play him, which is pretty exciting.

So I remember I was so tired after the blitz tournament, like I slept for 12 h or something. Then I woke up like, Okay, I'll turn on my computer, I'll search ChessBase for Kasparov and we'll go from there. So before that, I hadn't spent like a lot of time specifically studying his games. It was super intimidating because a lot of these openings I knew. I was like, Oh, he was the 1st one to play that. Oh, that was his idea.

I actually didn't know that, so I was a bit intimidated before we played. Then, of course, the 1st game, uh, he, um, arrived a bit late because they changed the time from the 1st day to the other, which was a bit strange. And but everybody else had noticed it but him. Um, then he tried to surprise me in the opening. I I think, like psychologically, the situation was not so easy for him. Like, clearly, it would be embarrassing for him if he didn't win both games against me.

Then, like, I was spending way too much time on my moves because I was playing Kasparov. I was double checking everything too much, like normally I would would be playing pretty fast in those days. And then at some point, I calculated better than him. He missed a crucial detail and had a much better position. I couldn't convert it, though. I knew what line I had to go for, uh, in order to have a chance to win.

But I thought, like, I'll play a bit more carefully, maybe I can win. Still, I couldn't, and uh, then I lost the 2nd game pretty badly, which it wasn't majorly upsetting. But I felt that I had two black games against Kasparov, both in the Blitz and the rapid, and I lost both of them without any fight whatsoever. I wasn't happy about that at all. That was like less than I I thought I could be able to to do so.

F To me, yeah, I was proud of that, but it was a gimmick. I was like a very strong I am, but had GM strength. I was like, it can happen that a player of that strength makes a a draw against Gary once in a while. but okay, for Uh, but pure fun, though, but I mean, I mean, I understand that I'm, I'm 13, but like, still, I felt a bit more gimmicky than everything. I mean, I guess it's.

It's a good thing that made me noticed, uh, but apart from that it wasn't, you know,

And for people who don't know, I am, as International Master, and, uh, GM, as Grandmaster. And you were just on the, I guess, on the verge of becoming a a young, youngest grandmaster ever.

I was the 2nd youngest ever. I think I'm like the 7th youngest now. I mean, these kids these days,

kids these days. Yeah, yeah, no, but I, uh, okay

but I was the youngest grandmaster at at the time, uh,

at the time, right?

in in the world. Yeah,

Yeah, so there is a, you know, you say it's gimmicky, but there's a romantic notion is the, especially as things have turned out, right. Like, no, for sure, and have you talked to Gary? A since then about that?

no, not really. Uh, I don't. I think he's embarrassed about

He's still bitter. He's like,

it. No, I don't think he's he's bitter, but I I think the game in itself was was a bit embarrassing for him. Uh, so

like, even he can't see past, like, is like,

I think he's completely fine with that. I think, like, in retrospect, it's a good story. He appreciates, he appreciates that. I don't think that's the problem, but it never made sense for me to broach the subject with him.

Yeah, I, I just, I. It's funny, just having interacted with Gary, now, having talked to you. There is a a little thing. You still hate losing, no matter how beautiful like that moment is. Cause it's like it in in a way, it's a passing of the baton from like one great champion to another, right? But like you, you still just don't like the fact that you didn't play a good game. From a Gar, Gary's perspective, like, he's still just annoyed.

Probably that he could have played better.

and we did so. W. We did work together in 2009 quite a lot, and that corporation ended, um, early 2010. But we did play a lot of training games in 2009, which was interesting because he was still very, very strong and at that time it was fairly equal. Like he was, uh, playing me quite a bit, but I was, I was fighting well, so it was, it was pretty, um, pretty even then. Um, so, I, I mean, I appreciate those games a lot more than some random game from when I was 13.

And I maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about, but I've always found it. At least based on that game, you couldn't tell that I was gonna take his, uh, that I was gonna take his spot. Like, I made a horrible blunder and lost to an Uzbek kid in the The World Rapid Championship in in twenty, uh, eighteen. And I mean, granted, he was part of the team that now won gold in the Chess Olympiad, but he wasn't the crucial part.

He barely played any games. Like it wasn't like I would think that he would become world champion because he beat me. I'm always skeptical of those who said that they knew that I was gonna be world champion after, uh, after that game, or at all at that time. I mean, it was easy to see that I would become a very, very strong player. Uh, everybody could see that. But to be the best in the world, or one of the best ever, it's true, it, it, that's hard to say,

it's, it's. It is hard to say, but I do remember seeing Messi when he was 16 and 17. Um,

but hasn't that happened with other players, though?

yeah, but I I pers. I just had a personal experience. He did look different than there's like magic there. You maybe you can't tell he would be, uh, one of the greatest ever, but there's, there's still magic. But you're right. Most of the time we're trying to project, we see a young kid being an older person, and you s start to think, okay, this could be the next great person. Then we forget when they don't become that.

yeah, exactly, that's, Yeah, I think, what happens, but when it does uh, may may become,

I, or maybe some people are just so good at seeing these patterns that they can actually see.

aren't you supposed to do that kind of thing with fantasy football? Like, see the long shot and bet on them, and then they turn out to be good, that's No, you, that's the whole point,

you make a lot of lot of long shot bets, and then some of them come good.

and then people call you a genius for making the bet. Well, let me ask you the goat question again. From fantasy perspective, can you make the case for the greatest chess player of all time? For each yourself, Magnus Carlsen, for Gary Kasparov, I don't know who else, Bobby Fischer, Mikhail Tal, anyone else? Um, for, uh, Hikaru Nakamura, just kidding.

yeah, uh, I I think I'll. I can make a case for, um, myself, for for Gary and for Fischer, so I'll start with Fischer. Uh, for him, it's very, very simple. He was ahead of his time, but that's like, intangible. You can say that about a lot of people. But he had a peak from 1970 to 72, when he was so much better than the others, he won 20 games in a row. Also, the way that he played was so powerful and with so few mistakes that he just had no opposition there.

So he had just a peak that's been better than anybody like

The gap between 1st and the gaps between him 2nd was and others have, uh, highest.

was greater than it's ever been in history at any other time. Uh, and that would be the argument for for him, for Gary. He's played in a very competitive era and he's beaten several generations. He was the best, well, he was the consensus best player, I would say, for almost 20 years, which nobody else has has done in, at least in recent time. And

so the longevity.

um, that the longevity, for sure. Also, at his peak, he, um, was not quite the level of, um, of Fischer in terms of the gap. But it was similar to, or, I think, even a little bit better than than mine. As for me, I'm, of course, unbeaten as as a world champion in in five tries. I've been world number one for eleven years straight, in an even more competitive era than Gary. I have the highest chess rating of all time, I have the longest streak ever without losing a game.

I think, for me, the main argument would be about the era where there's. The engines have leveled the playing field so much that it's it's harder to dominate. And still, I haven't always been a clear number one, but I've always I've been number one for eleven years. And for a lot of the time, the gap has been pretty big. So I think there are decent arguments for for all of them. Um, I've said before, and I haven't changed my mind, that Gary generally edges it because of the longevity in in the competitive era.

But um, there are arguments,

But people also s talk about you in terms of the style of play. So it's not just about dominance or the height, or the it's like, just the the creative genius of it. The

yeah, but I'm not interested in that, uh, in terms of, well, uh, greatest of all time, uh, I'm not interested in in in questions of style.

so you so for Messi, you don't give credit for the style, uh, for the stylistic I like, moves,

I like, Um, no, I like watching it. I just

but you're not gonna give points for the so Messi no, I mean, gets best ever the the because of the finishing.

ah, it's, it's the um, the f. No. It's not because of the finishing, it's because of his overall impact on the game is higher than anybody else's. Okay, all He contributes, yeah, he c just contributes more to winning than anybody else does.

what's? Um, so you? You're somebody who was advocated for and has done quite a bit of study of classic games. What would you say is, um, I mean, maybe the number one, or maybe top three games of chess ever played.

It doesn't interest me at all.

You don't think of him as a great No, I don't think chess.

of it. I I mean, I try to, I find the games interesting, I try to learn from them, but like, trying to to rank them has never interested me.

What, what? What games pop out to you as like, super interesting? Then is there is there things like where idea, like old school games, where there was like, interesting ideas that, uh, that you go back, or like you? You find surprising and pretty cool that, that, that those ideas were developed back then. Is there something that jumps to mind?

yeah. There are several games of Jan Kasparov, like before he became world champion. If you're gonna ask for, like, my favorite player or favorite style, that's probably Jan Kasparov Jan Kasparov.

Can you describe stylistically, or in any other way, what, what Jan Kasparov was like? That you're that you like

Uh, it was just an overflow energy in his play. so aggressive attacking Yeah, extre, extremely chess. aggressive, dynamic chess. It probably appeals to me a lot because these are the things that I cannot do as well. Uh, that it just feels very special to me. But yeah, in terms of games, I never, never thought about that too much.

Is there, uh, memories, big or small, weird, surprising, uh, just any kind of beautiful anecdote, um, from your chess career? Like stuff that pops out that people might not know about, just stuff. When you look back, it just makes you smile.

No, so I'll tell you about the um, most satisfying tournament victory of my career. Um, so that was the Norwegian Championship under eleven in 2000. Before that tournament, I was super anxious because I started like, kind of late at chess. I, I played my 1st tournament when I was eight and a half, and a lot of my competitors had already played for for a couple of years or even three, four years at that point. And the 1st time I so I played the Under Eleven Championship in 99.

I was like a little over the middle of the pack. I. I'd never played against any of them before, so I didn't know what to expect at all. And then over the next year, I was like edging a little bit closer in each tournament, I felt like I was getting a little bit better. And when we had the Championship, I knew that I was ready, that I was now at the same level of the best players.

I was so anxious to to show it, I remember I was just the feeling of excitement and nervousness before the tournament was incredible. The tournament was weird because I started out, I gave away a draw to a weaker player whom I shouldn't have drawn to. And then I drew against the other guy, who was clearly like the best or 2nd best. And uh, and at that point I thought it was over, cause I thought he wouldn't, he wouldn't give away points to others, and then the very next day he lost to somebody.

So then the rest of the tournament, it was just like I was always like playing my game and watching his. And we both won the rest of our games. But it meant that I was half a point ahead. Like the feeling when I realized that I was gonna win, um, that was just so amazing. It was like the 1st time that I was the best at my age. And at that point, you were hooked, yeah, at that point I realized, you know this, I could actually be very good at this.

so you, you, you kind of saw. Where did you think your ceiling would be? Did you see that? did, did you see that? One day you could be the number one No, I ranked person?

didn't. I didn't think that was possible at all. Um, but When'd you 1st, I thought that could be the best in Norway

the best in Norway?

at that point. When did you Be be because, 1st, like, I started relatively late right? So yeah, I and also like, I knew that I studied a lot more than the others, I knew that I had a passion that they didn't have. They saw chess as something like it was, you know, it was a hobby, it was like an activity, it was like, um, it was like going to to football practice or any other sports. Like you go, you practice like once or twice a week, and then you play a tournament at the weekend.

That's that's what you did. For me, it wasn't like that. Like, I would go with my books and my board every day after school, uh, and I wouldn't. I would just constantly be trying to learn new things. I had like 2 h of internet time on the computer each week, and I would always spend them on on chess. Like, Um, I think before I was 13 or 14, I'd never opened a browser for any other reason than to play chess.

Would you describe that as love or as obsession, or something in between? It's everything. Yeah, everything, uh, Well,

but it, it. So, I mean, it wasn't hard for me to tell at that point that I had something that the other other kids didn't. Because I was never the the one to grasp something very, very quickly. But once I started, I always got hooked and then I never stopped learning.

what would you say? You've talked about the middle game as a as a place where you can play pure chess. What do you think is beautiful to you about chess? Like the thing when you were eleven,

What is beautiful to me is when your opponent can predict every single one of your moves and they still lose.

how does that happen?

No, like, it means that at some point early, your planning, your evaluation has been better. So that you play just very simply, very clearly, it looks like you did nothing special and your opponent lost without a chance.

So you're, how do you think about that? By the way, are you basically narrowing down this gigantic tree of options to where your opponent has less and less and less options to win, to escape? And then they're trapped. That's it. e essentially, Is there some aspect to the patterns themselves, to the positions, to the elegance of, like, the the dynamics of the game that you just find beautiful? That that that doesn't that where you forget about the opponent?

uh, general. I try and create harmony on the board, like what I would usually find harmonious is that the pieces work together, that they protect each other. Uh, and that there are no pieces that are suboptimally placed, or, uh, if they are suboptimally placed, they can be improved pretty easily. Like, I hate when I have one piece that I know is badly placed and I cannot improve it.

When, when? Yeah, when you're thinking about the the harmony of the pieces, when you're looking at the position, you're evaluating it. Are you looking at at the whole board, or is it like a bunch of groupings of pieces overlapping I would, and like, dancing together? Kind of thing?

I would say, it's more of the latter. That would be more, uh, precise, that you look, I mean, I look mostly closer to the middle. But then I would focus on one. Like, there are usually like one grouping of pieces on one side and then some more closer to the the other side. So I would, um, I would think of it a little bit that way.

So, and everything is kind of gravitating to the middle

If it's going well, then yes, and in harmony. Yeah, yeah, in in in harmony. Or like, if you can control the middle, you can more easily attack on both sides. That applies to pretty much any game, it's as simple as that. And like, attacking on one side without control of the middle would feel very non harmonious. For for me, like I, I talked about the 10th game in in the world Championship, like that's the time I was the most nervous.

And it was because it was the kind of attack that I hate. Where you just have to, you're abandoning one side and you the attack has to work. There was one side and part of the middle as well, which I didn't control at all. And that that's like the opposite of harmony for me.

what advice would you give to chess players of different levels? how to improve in chess? Very beginner, complete beginner, I mean, at every level, is there is there something you can It's very, say?

very hard for me to say, because, I mean, the easiest way is like, love chess, be obsessed,

Well, that's a really important statement.

but that doesn't work for everybody. So I Sometimes feel like,

it can feel like a grind, so you're saying, if it, the less it can feel like a grind, the better, the better, Yeah, for sure, at least for you.

that's for sure, but I'm also very, very skeptical about giving advice. Because I think, again, my way only works if you have some combination of talent and obsession. So I'm not sure that I'd generally recommend it, like what I've done doesn't go with what most coaches suggest for their kids. I've been lucky that I've had coaches from from early on that have been very, very hands off and just allowed me to do my thing. Basically,

Well, there's a lot to be said about, uh, cultivating the obsession, like, really, really letting that flourish. To where you spend a lot of hours, like with the chessboard in your head, and it doesn't feel like a struggle.

no, so, like, just letting me do my thing. Like, if you give me a bunch of work, it will probably feel like a chore, and if you don't give me, I will spend all of that time on my own. Without thinking that it's it's work, or without the thought that I'm doing this to improve my chess.

Well, in terms of learning stuff like books, there's, uh, one thing that's relatively novel from your perspective. People are starting now is there's YouTube, there's a lot of good YouTubers, you're a part time YouTuber, you have, you have stuff on YouTube, I guess

Yeah, yeah, but I I mean, it's if you've seen my YouTube, it's mostly like it's very, it's it's, uh, it's not. carefree. Generally not high effort content.

Yeah, uh, but do you like any particular YouTubers? Um, I, I could just recommend like stuff I've seen, so Agadmator, the Gotham Chess, Both is Live. Um, I really like, Uh, Saint Louis Chess Club, uh, Daniel Naroditsky and, uh, John Bartholomew, those are good channels. But is there something you can recommend?

no, all of them are good, you know? The best recommendation I could give is, Uh, Agadmator, um, purely

How much did he pay you to say that?

no. So the thing about that is that I haven't really, I have, so I can tell you. I've never watched any of his videos from from start to finish. I'm not like, I'm, I'm not the target audience, obviously, but I think the only chess YouTube video that my dad has ever watched from start to finish is Agadmator. And he said, like, I watched one of his videos, I wanted to know what it, what it was all about, because I think Agadmator is like the same strength as my father, or maybe just a little bit weaker, like 1900 or something.

My father is probably about two, 000, and my father's played chess his whole life. Uh, he loves, he absolutely loves the game. It was like, that's the only time he's actually sat through one of those videos. And he said, like, Yeah, I get it, I enjoy it. So that's the best recommendation I I could, I could give. That's the only channel that my father actually enjoys.

this is hilarious. I talked, I talked to him before this to ask him if he has any questions for you. And, uh, he said, No, just just do your thing, you know, No, he's, uh.

he's so careful, he wouldn't, uh, do that.

He did mention jokingly about, uh, Evans Gambit, I think, is that a thing? Evans Gambit? It's some weird thing he made up. It might be an inside joke. I don't, I don't know, but he asked me to. Well, anyway,

I don. Yeah, I didn't even get the um, it's some thing yeah, I didn't.

he made up.

Uh, may I didn't even realize that he plays the Evans gambit, like he plays a lot of gambits. That are,

Wait, Evans Gambit is a thing.

yeah, yeah, that's the thing. Like, that's an old opening from the 1800s. Uh, Captain Evans, uh, apparently in invented it.

why would he mention that particular one? Yeah, I There's something don't, e, I don't hilarious about that one, know, I don't know cause he did it with

like I. I. E. I don't think I've ever faced the Evans Gambit in a in a game. I feel like both I,

of you are trolling and trolling me right now.

but I mean, he's so he's played a lot of other gambits. Maybe this is the one he wanted to to mention, so this, maybe this is called the Evans Gambit as well, but I just know it as like the two, two, G4 gambit. Maybe this is the one like this one, he has, this one, he has played a bunch, uh, and he and he, he, he's been telling me a lot about his games in this line.

It's like, Oh, it's not so bad, and I'm like, Yeah, but your opponent down, uh, but I can. I can sort of see it, I can sort of, um, I can sort of understand it. And he's like, he's proud of the fact that nobody, like, told him to play this line or anything. He came up with it himself. well, And there's this, uh, I'll tell you another story about my father. So there there's this line that I call, that I call the Henry Carlson line.

hm, hm. what's Um, the so at some point, you know, he never knew a lot of openings in in chess, but I taught him, I taught him a couple of openings. As black, uh, it's the, uh, it's the Sveshnikov Sicilian that I've played a lot myself also. Um, during the Um, the World Championship in 2018, I won a bunch of games in 2019 as well, so that's one opening. And I also taught him as black to play the Ragozin defense, um, and then so the Ragozin defense goes like, goes like this.

Um, it's characterized by, um, by this bishop move, um, and so, uh. He would play those openings pretty, pr pretty exclusively, and as black in the tournaments that he did play, and also the Sveshnikov Sicilian is like, that's the only two of my sisters play. I've played a bunch of chess chess tour tournaments as well, and that's the only opening they know as well. So my my family's repertoire is very narrow. So so this is the s, this is the system.

Black goes here and then we all from white takes the pawn and black takes the pawn. Um, so at some point, I was watching one of my my father's online blitz game, blitz game, and as white he played this, this, uh, so this is called the Caro Kann defense. He took the pawn, um, uh, was taken back, then he went with the knight, um, his opponent went here, and then he played the bishop here. So I, I'd never seen this opening before, and I was like, Wow, um, how on earth did he come up with that?

And he said, No, I just played the Ragosin with the different colors. Because if the knight was here, it would be the same position. I was like, I never, I was like, how, how am I like one of the best 20 players in the world? I've and I've never thought about that. So I actually started playing, I started playing this line, uh, as white, with pretty decent result and it results, and it actually became kind of popular.

And everybody, uh, who asked about the line, it's like, I would always tell them, Yeah, that's the Henry Carlson variation. I wouldn't necessarily explain why it was called that, I would just always call it that. So I really hope at this point, at some point, this line will be, uh, will find its its rightful name.

in, uh, yeah, it fi finds its way into the history books. Can you? Uh, what, what? What did you learn about life from your dad? what? what role has your dad played in your life?

he's taught me a lot of things, uh, but most of all, as long as you win at chess, then everything else is fine. Um, I think my, especially my father, but my parents in general, they they always wanted me to get a good E education and, um, find a job and so on. Um, even though my father loves chess and he wanted me to to play chess, I don't think he had any plans for me to be professional.

Uh, I think things changed at some point, like I was less and less interested in school. And for a long time, we were kind of going back and forth fighting about that. Um, especially my father, but also my mother a little bit. It was at times a little bit difficult.

they wanted you to go to school so Yeah, they, you could get a job

they, they sort of wanted and me to do more school, to to have more options. And then I I think at some point, uh, they just gave up. But I think that sort of coincided when I was actually starting to make real money off tournaments. And after that, you know, everything's been sort of easy. And like terms of the family, like, they've never put any pressure on me, or they've never put any demands on me. Um, they're just, yeah, mine has to focus on chess, that's that, that's, um, that's it.

Like, I I think they taught me in general to be curious about the world and to get a decent general education, not necessarily from from school. But like, just knowing, um, about the world around you and knowing history and being, you know, just being interested in society. Uh, I think in that sense, they've done well.

and he's been with you throughout your chess career. I mean, there's something to be said about just family support and love that you have. That like, you know, this world is a lonely place. It's good to have people around you that are like, Um, that got your back kinda, you know?

yeah, uh, it's a cliche, but I think to some extent, all the people you surround yourself with, they can help you a lot. It's only family that only has their own interests at heart. And so for that reason, like, my father's like the only one that's been like, constantly in the team, that and that he's always been around. And it's it's for that reason that I know he has my back, no matter what.

Now there's a cliche question here, but let let's try to actually get to some deep truth, perhaps. But people who don't know much about chess seem to like to use chess as a metaphor for everything in life. But there is some aspect to the decision making, to the kind of reasoning involved in chess, that's transferable to other things. Can you, can you speak to that in your, in your own life, and in general, the kind of reasoning involved with chess?

How much of that does transfer to life out there It. It just helps off the board

you make decisions. I mean, of all, uh,

of all kinds?

yeah, that would be my main takeaway that you learn to make informed guesses in a limited amount of time.

I mean, does it frustrate you? When you know they have, you have, uh, geopolitical thinkers and leaders, you know, Henry Kissinger will often talk about geopolitics as a game of chess or 3D chess. Is that a too oversimplified of a projection, or? Or do you think that the kind of deliberations you have on the world stage is is similar to the kind of decision making you have on the chessboard?

Well, I never, I'm never trying to get reelected when I play a game of chess.

There's no special interest. You have to get happy, Yeah, that kinda, it's simpler,

no, that kinda helps. Uh, no, I can. I can understand that. Obviously, for every action, there's a reaction and you have to to calculate far ahead. It probably would be a big, good thing if more big players on the international scene thought a a little bit more. Like, like a chess player, in that sense, like trying to make good decision based on, um, based on limited amount of data, rather than thinking about other, um, other factors.

But it's so tough, uh, but it does annoy me when when people make moves that they know are wrong for different reasons.

and they should know if they did some calculation, they should know they're wrong. Yeah, the exactly Yeah,

that they should know that are wrong. And so much politics is like, it's, um, you're. You're often asked to do something when you're, when it would be much better to do nothing. Uh, like, no, but that happens in chess all the time. Like you have, you have a choice. Like, I often tell people that in certain situations you should not try and win, you should just let your opponent lose. And that happens in politics all the time.

Uh, that, yeah, just let your opponents continue whatever they're doing, and then you'll win. Don't try to do something just to do something. Often, they say in chess that having a bad plan is better than having no plan. It's absolute nonsense.

I forget what general said it, but, uh, it was like, Uh, don't interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake. I think the the

also, um, Petrosian, um, the the former world champion, said, Um, when your opponent wants to play Dutch defense, don't stop them. I mean, chess players will know that it's the same thing.

uh, actually, this reminds me, um, is there something you found really impressive about Queen's Gambit? The TV show? You know, that's one of the things that really captivated the public imagination about chess. People that don't play chess were became very curious about the game, about the beauty of the game, the drama of the game, all that kind of stuff. Is there, in terms of accuracy, in terms of the actual games played, that you found impressive?

1st of all, they did the chess, they did the chess well, they did it accurately, and also they found actual games and positions that I never, never seen before. Which really captivated me. Like, I would, I would not follow the um, the story at times, I was just trying to, Wow, where the hell did I find that game? And just trying to solve the positions.

So Beth Harmon, the, uh, the the main character, were you impressed by the play? She was doing in in the like? Was there a particular style that they developed consistently?

No, but she was just at the end, she was just totally universal, like at the start, she was probably a bit too, too aggressive, but no, she was absolutely universal,

UnI Wait, what's what? were the what adjective are you using?

universal in the sense that she could play in in any, any style.

Oh, interesting, and and was dominant in that way. So wow, they. So there was a development in style too throughout the show. Yeah, for sure, It's really interesting. They did, they did that.

yeah, and uh, it actually happened with me a bit as well. Like I started out really aggressive, then I became probably too technical at some point, uh, taking a little bit too few risks and not playing dynamic enough. And then I started to get a little bit better at dynamics. So that now I'm, I would say, definitely the most universal player in terms of, um, in terms of style.

Are there any skills in chess that are transferable to poker? So as you're playing around with poker a little bit now, how fundamentally different of a game is it?

What I find the most transferable probably is not like letting past decisions dictate future thinking.

Yeah, but in terms of the patterns, in the betting strategies and all that kind of stuff, uh, what about bluffing? do you? cause you?

I bluff way too much.

It does seem you enjoy bluffing. And, uh, Daniel Negreanu was saying Yeah, he that you're quite had a good at it.

uh, but it, yeah, it has very little material to go by. Sample size is small, Yeah, no, I mean, I enjoy bluffing for, um, the more, the gambling aspects, the the thrill of

so not the technical aspect of the bluffing, like you would on the chessboard.

not bluffing in the same sense. But there there is some element, um, but I do enjoy it on on on the chessboard. Like, if I, um, know that, like, oh, I successfully scared away my opponent from making the best move, that's of course satisfying.

In in that same way, it might be satisfying in poker, right? That you represent something, you scare away your opponent in the same kind of way.

like, yeah, and also like, you tell a story, you try and tell a story, and then they believe it.

Yeah, tell, tell a story with your betting, with your, um, all the d different other cues. Do you like the money aspect, the the betting strategies? So it's like, it's like, it's almost like another layer on top of it, right? Like it's, it's the uncertainty in the cards, but the betting, there there's so much freedom to the betting.

I'm not very good at that, so I cannot say that I understand it. Uh, completely, you know, when, uh, uh, when it comes to different sizing and and all and all that, I just haven't studied it enough.

How much of luck is part of poker, would you say, from what, what you've seen versus skill?

I mean, it's so different in the sense that you can be one of the best players in the world and lose two, three years in a row without that being being like a massive outlier.

Okay, the w the. The thing that more than one person told me that you're very good at is trash talking.

I don't think I am a lot of people who make those observations about me. I think they just expect very, very little, so they expect from the best chess player in the world that just anything that's non robotic is interesting. Also, when it comes to trash talking, like, I have the biggest advantage in the world, that I'm the best at what I'm doing, so trash talking becomes very, very, very easy. Because I can back it up.

yeah, yeah. But a lot of people that are extremely good at stuff don't trash talk and they're not good at it.

I don't think I'm very good at it. It's it's just that I can back it up, which makes it seem that I'm I'm better. And also

You're even doing it now.

of my, also being non robotic or not completely robotic,

Yeah, yeah, um, you're not trash talking, you're just stating facts, that's right. Y. Have you ever? Have you ever considered that, uh, there would be trash talking? And, uh, over the chess board? In some of the big tournaments, like adding that kind of component, or even talking, you know, would that? Would that completely distract from the game of chess?

No, I th think it could be, um, funny. And when people play offline games, when they play blitz games, like people trash talk all the time, it's a normal part of the game.

So you, uh, you emphasize fun a lot. Uh, do you think we're living inside of a simulation that is trying to maximize fun?

But that's only happened for the last, you know, 100 years or so. No, that's Well, like the

fun has always been in increasing. I think,

yeah, okay, it's always been increasing, but I feel like it's been increasing exponentially. yeah, the the The, I mean, the it's or at least the importance of fun. But I I guess it depends on the society as well, like in the West we've had such, uh, Christian influence, and I mean, Christianity hasn't exactly embraced the concept of fun over over time. So

well, actually, to push back. I think forbidding certain things kinda makes them more fun. So so sometimes I think you need to say you're not allowed to do this. And then then a lot of people start doing it, and then they have fun doing that. Cause they c. It's like, uh, um, it's doing a thing in the face of the resistance of the thing, so when, whenever there's resistance, that does somehow make it more fun.

oppressive regimes has always kind been a been kind of good for comedy. No, like no, but I I heard. Supposedly like in the Soviet Union, I don't know about fun, but supposedly comedy, like, at least underground, it's it's rife.

yeah, there's a well, no, it. It permeates the entire culture. There's a dark humor that, uh, sort of the cruelty, the absurdity of life, really, really brings out the humor amongst the populace. Plus vodka on top of that. But this idea that th this, for example, Elon Musk has that, um, the most entertaining outcome is the most likely that it seems like the most absurd, silly, funny thing seems to be the thing.

so, it. It happens more often than, um, than it should, And it sometimes that's what you're saying.

becomes viral in our modern connected world. And so the fun stuff, the memes spread, and then we start to optimize for the for the fun meme. That seems to be a fundamental property of of the reality we live in. And so emerges the M, the fun maximizer in all walks of life, like in chess, in in, in poker, in everything. I think, You're, you're skeptical,

no, I'm not skeptical. Uh, I'm just I'm just taking it all in. Um, but I find I find it interesting and not at all impossible.

do you ever get lonely?

Oh yeah, for sure. Um, like, a chess player's life is by definition pretty lonely. Um, because you have nobody else to blame but yourself when you lose, or you don't achieve the results that you want to achieve.

It's it's difficult for you to find comfort elsewhere. It's it's in your own mind, it's you versus yourself, really.

yeah, really, but it's, uh, you know, it's, um, it's part of the profession. But I think any like sport or activity where it's where it's just you and your own mind is just by definition lonely.

Are you worried that it destroys you?

Oh, not at all. As long as I'm aware of it, then it's fine. And, uh, I don't think the inherent loneliness of my profession really, uh, affects the rest of my life in in a major way.

What, uh, role does love play in the human condition? I in your lonely life of calculation,

Yeah, you know, I'm like everybody else, uh, trying, uh, you know,

trying to find love?

no, not necessarily like trying to find love. So sometimes I am, sometimes I'm, I'm not, I'm just trying to find my way. And my love for for the game, obviously, it comes and goes a little bit, but there's like, there's always at least some level of love, so that doesn't doesn't go away. But I think in other parts of life, I think it's just about doing things that make you happy, that give you joy, that that also makes you more receptive to to love in general.

So that that has been my approach to to love now for quite a while. That I'm just trying to live my best life. And then, uh, the love will, um, will come, uh, when it, when it comes. And in in terms of romantic love, it has come and gone in my life. It's not there now, uh, but I'm not worried about that. I'm more worried about, you know, not worried, but more like trying to just be a good version of, um, of myself.

I cannot always be the best version of myself, but at least try to be good.

yeah, and keep your heart open. What is this? Uh, uh, Daniel Johnston song True love will find you in the end, but

No, it may or may not,

it, but.

I d.

But. But it will only find you if, uh, oh, fuck, how does it go? If you're looking so like, you have to be open to it, it may or may not. Yeah, yeah, and no matter what, you're gonna lose it in the end, cause it all ends, the whole thing ends. yeah, yeah, so Gotta say,

that's I. I don't think stressing over that, like, obviously it's so human that you can't help it to some degree, but I feel like stressing over love. That's the blueprint for whether whether you're looking or you're not looking, or you're in a relationship or marriage, or anything like. Stressing over it is like the blue blueprint for being unhappy.

Uh, just to clarify confusion, I have, um, just a quick question How does the knight move?

Huh? So the knight moves in an L, um, and uh, unlike in Shogi, it can move both forwards and backwards. It is quite a nimble piece, it can jump over everything, but it's less happy in open position where it has to move from from side to side quickly. I am generally more of a bishop's guy myself for the old debate, I just prefer quality over the intangibles, but, uh, I can appreciate a good knight once in a while.

Well, last simple question What's the meaning of life? Magnus Carlsen

There is obviously no meaning to life.

Is that obvious?

I think we're here by accident, there's no meaning, it ends at some point, but it's still a great thing. So, yeah, you um,

can still have fun even if there's no meaning.

yeah, you can still have fun, you can try and pursue your your goals, whatever they may be. But I'm pretty sure there's no special meaning, and trying to to find it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. For me, like, L life is both meaningless and meaningful for just being here, trying to to make. Not necessarily the most of it, but the things that make you make you happy, both short term and also long term.

yeah. It seems to be full of cool stuff to enjoy.

It certainly does.

If, and, uh, one of those is having a conversation with you, uh, Magnus. It's a huge honor to talk to you. Thank you so much for spending this time with me. I can't wait to see what you do in this world and thank you for creating so much elegance and beauty on the chessboard and beyond. So thanks for talking today, brother.

Thank you so much, thanks for, uh, having me, uh, and uh. I wanted to say this at the start, but I never get really got the chance. I was always a bit apprehensive about doing this podcast because you are a very smart guy and your audience is very smart. And I always had a bit of imposter syndrome. So I'll tell her this now after the podcast, so please do do judge me, but I I hope you have enjoyed it.

I loved it. You're a brilliant man and it's it's. I love the fact you have imposter syndrome because a lot of us do, and so that that's beautiful to see. Even at the very top, you still feel like an imposter. Uh, thank you brother, thanks for talking today. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Magnus Carlsen. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Bobby Fisher.

Chess is a war over the board, the object is to crush the opponent's mind. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.