The Greatest Chess Player That Ever Lived | Garry Kasparov | Talks at Google
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2024
- Garry Kasparov was the highest-rated chess player in the world for over twenty years and is widely considered the greatest chess player that ever lived. On Thursday, 10th March, 2005 Kasparov announced his retirement from competitive chess. He remains the highest-rated player in the history of the game and the only true icon in a sport with over 100 million players. He was the first player to break through the "four minute mile" of chess, a rating over 2800. He remains the only player who topped the 2850 mark. His 2851 ELO rating is still an all-time record.
Today this master of strategy applies the insights and unique perspective from his extraordinary chess career to the issues of leadership, logical thinking, strategic thinking, and success on the speakers' circuit and to Russian politics.
Known as an extremely intuitive chess player, Kasparov emphasizes intuition's role in reaching one's full potential as an individual and achieving superior performance as the leader of a group or organization. His contests with the super-computer "Deep Blue" were worldwide headline news and he was at the forefront of innovation in chess for over twenty years. He was at the cutting-edge of research and the battles between humans and computers as far back as 1989.
Garry is a very smart man,u can tell just from his speaking and outlook of things.
his official iq is 190-200,
His official IQ tested around the age of 32 is 135. The 190 IQ is a different scale, not Stanford Benet.
I dunno mate, you really reckon the youngest chess champion ever might be a smart man?
He wouldn't have become a chess champion in today's Azarbaijan, where he grew up.
@@LongyZ13 bir şey 7675 bir 69i59j69i57j0i512j0i22i30l5.79856j0j9&client bir de 4 ders üzerinden 578 merhaba
Never seen an interview of Kasparov being this long, the rest are all 2 minute clip.
Ive always wanted to see him answer many questions. I really think you can learn a lot from this guy. Thank you so much for this!
What an honor to hear such a great man speak!
Garry Kasparov, a guy who has something to say!
Wonderful to see the way that Garry has matured into a very decent and impressive person.
One of the best interviews i have ever seen.
We need another Kasparov as world champion.
Magnus fits the bill nicely. Even broke Kasparov's rating record (and don't believe anyone who claims it is just inflation: there is actually very slight deflation in chess ratings, based on ananalysis of the accuracy of play in different eras).
Alireza Firouzja has huge potential. I can see him as a Kasparov 2.0.
I liked how he mentioned Fischer in there in comparison to himself because usually the dispute over the best player of all time is between these two players.
But fischer hated jews. So hes better than kasparov.
I thought this was gonna be boring as hell. I listened for the first minute or so, and decided to listen another minute. And then I couldn't stop and watched the whole thing. Kasparov is amazing.
Gary kasparv is killing it in this interview. Giving you point after points to prove his point of veiw that IBM cheated!!!
Great vid. I´ll keep his last words: "We are underperformed. We have to take risks!". Then we´ll move forward. Great words Gary!
i love to hear kasparov speak. he has a beautiful mind.
Rewatching these interviews from 2022 is a treat - this particular one happened before AlphaGo and AlphaZero, and listening to 2010 sentiments before the deep learning revolution happened puts those sentiments in a very different light.
One of the greatest people alive today.
Even if Deep Blue legitimately beat Kasparov.... you cant fault him or anyone for raising an eyebrow for them not showing the logs .... i go with Kasparov's Theory...
Man listening to Garry Kasparov talk NEVER gets old.
This guy, is, wow. amazing.
49:04 Can I have this guy's job? He doesn't belong at google.
Seems like a typical web developer to me. Probably fresh out of MIT too. He fits right in at google. Most likely he googled an article last night on determinism, and as so many other googloids like him, did not manage to comprehend the idea behind the stuff they google, or what it takes to solve chess, or probably a multitude of other things either. His question is wrong on so many levels, I can't even.
Sure, all you have to do is pass their interview process. They ask you a bunch of questions which are really just puzzles. If you can solve the puzzles and offer a sensible methodology for approaching those puzzles, you'll get another set of interviews at lunch to find out if you fit the culture.
This guy seems fairly typical of a young Googler--- bright enough to pass the puzzles. Curious and personable enough to pass the culture test. However, lacking in wisdom and experience due to youth. That is not a problem for Google because they can work with that fresh talent and shape the raw clay into whatever they need.
If you understand this about Google, you will understand much about why Google is the way it is. In 10 years, this fellow will probably outgrow Google and move on to establish himself at his own start-up or at his friends' start-ups outside of Google. Google itself does not retain the wisdom that is earned by having worked at Google because the brains that house that accumulated wisdom invariably leave when that accumulation of wisdom reaches a threshold where questions like the one posed here cause brain injury from the excessive eye-rolling each day. Furthermore, they have no processes to retain, harness, nor utilize that wisdom because such an action would require wisdom that they are losing in the first place. It cannot do what it cannot do. These are the limitations of the structures established by Google that are now its identity.
As Garry said, it is important to know yourself to be able to reach your potential. Google cannot really know itself and turn its wisdom in on itself if that wisdom finds its wisest move is to leave the company.
Very interesting about that 1997 rematch between Garry and Deep Blue. That move 37 in the second game, bishop to E4, was very suspicious. I'm no great chess player and certainly no computer expert, but it just didn't look like a move a computer would play. Not at that stage of programme development anyway. I don't know if the latest progammes like the Amazing Alpha-Zero or Stockfish would have. But we are talking about 23 years ago here. Impressive as Deep Blue was, I just can't see it playing that move. And the fact that IBM wouldn't show Garry the computer log just adds to the controversy.
My heart jumps for joy every time Gary tries to make the "oh" sound.
Udi's idea of doing a chess tv program to popularise the sport similiar to what happened with poker, showing what the player thinks as they make their moves was actually done in the UK on BBC and it was called The Master Game back in the 1980's a more modern version would definitely have appeal!
Another great Talks at Google. Several thoughts
1. The concept in negotiation is you make early sacrifices to improve your position. Then the other party is lead down a path have no real other alternative that to accept your offer.
2. Good to know that Kasparov is safe and doing well since he was at risk for many years.
3. Mistakes and failures can have long term consequences that can not be overcome. As Warren Buffett rule one is do not lose money and rule two is to follow rule one.
TY Google for sharing this intriguing conversation with Grandmaster Kasparov. His insights are unexpected startling intuitive and ultimately thought provoking.
Kasparov is a great man in many respects and that makes him so sympathetic.
great talk, great talk! you guys always post such wonderful interviews
Garry Kasparov is the greatest chess player of all time. Bobby Fischer was great in his time but GK was on a different planet.
Great video and very very very intelligent guy.
I keep fast forwarding this video, wanting to see Kasparov play on the big pieces on the floor.
Imagine being told that your name does not matter and that you will only be identified by who you are related to.
i noticed the description says garry is the only "true icon" in the game of chess. Bobby Fischer anyone??
Bobby led a fascinating yet perhaps ultimately tragic life; he was an incredibly complicated person who became lost, bitter and, frankly, ill. If one should respect a humanist then one should also accept the flawed nature of the human condition and realise that it is absolutely possible to admire Bobby for his immense achievements whilst excusing the ramblings of the shell of a man he later became. He is one of my heroes for sure.
So aggression is good; even though Kasparov doesn't understand the position as well as Karpov he still wins by fearless attack
The two styles are not compatible. I think what you are implying is that there is one best move only in any given position. That may be true- I don't know. But as Kasparov said humans are going to make inaccuracies or mistakes so regardless of style the player who makes less serious mistakes will win.
Fantastic Video - Garry is an idol for all ...
Kasparov loved the joke about the chandalier, lol. I think Kasparov is great on tv and to interview, by far the most charismatic professional chess player.
He should start an anti-Putin news network in America and make a program called The Kasparov Factor that's on every night. I think it would be awesome.
greetengs from Romania, a best players country !
he has become one of my few true heroes
Excellent interview. The only thing is at the beginning they wrote PRESETS. HEY GOOGLERS DID YOU MEAN: PRESENTS SEARCH!
Garry is very fluent!
Bobby Fischer, "I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves."...although he indirectly destroyed his opponents psychologically!
He beat Spassky using some psychological tricks though
i totally agree with kasporov, i watched the game and it seemed like the computer totally disregarded the sacrifice, and changed its strategy completely. so it WAS a computer mixed with a human type intelligence, but in the same effect, the computer has no EGO, which means a computer WOULD disregard the sacrifice leaning more twords a mate, just my opinion, great video. thanks.
Difficult to compare Kasparov with other players. To stay World Champion for 15 years was quite an achievement. We will never, or could know how he would have fared against the 1972 Fischer. Or against previous generations such as Capablanca or Alekhine. In the same way that we could speculate on how Rocky Marciano would have have fared against Muhammed Ali, or Lennox Lewis or Anthony Joshua.
What makes Garry Kasparov the greatest is for having exceptional skill in chess and high level of intellect....
@@rokanza2293 that is illogical bro... You are just referring to chess... I am talking about overall intellect... I don't care who's world champion you talking about... I am 100% sure that you don't know the true meaning of fucktard... Good luck genius man... Go home and plant camote....
Greeting to Kasparov from Macedonia
concerning poker and computers - i think von neuman did some interesting work on this back in the day.
and Magnus is definitely also something special in the Chess world today he hasn't lost a single game in a year including his recent tourneys at the tal memorial and biel festival
Great to see him predict neural networks in their various forms and training algorithms. I feel like AlphaZero was inspired by this interview.
More legal moves in a game of chess than atoms in the observable universe?? My mind has a tough time accepting that as fact. In fact, I'd almost bet my soul that there are (far) more atoms in a single glass of water than there are legal moves in a game of chess, never mind the oceans and everything else.
9:19 to 12:40, 15:40 to 15:50, 17:18 to 18:23,
19:36 to 20:41, 25:00 to 25:38, 30:48 to 31:55,
36:58 to 37:26, 37:42 to 38:23, 51:10 to 52:15,
59:11 to 59:26, 1:00:43 to 1:02:12
Of course Gary's coaching helped magnus to improve in the opening mainly, but his strongest point is his wonderful endgame technique which he has perfected and also his amazing ability to salvage a draw even when he gets terrible opening positions. Magnus really isn't an opening buff like Kasparov was but he is such a solid player it doesn't matter really. And also Kasparov has also coached Nakamura, another excellent player but as of the moment not near Magnus's strength. From this it is
The audience questions were all great. No surprise, given that the audience are all Googlers.
I think he's talking about types of observable atoms. If that's the case than I think he is right. Obviously a single glass of water contains millions of atoms of H20 but that's just one type. If this is what he is referring to than I think he's right. There are 20 possible moves in the first move by the second move there are over 400 possible positions and just keep adding from there.
Fischer: im the best because i spend the most time on chess
Kasparov ( who probably also spend more time than his opponents, at least im guessing) : im the best because of my talent
Fischer was also the most talented
Nope. As Kasparov stated, Fischer was able to beat the older generation. He was a revolutionary talent at that but he couldn't deal with the next generation with the pressure of being the defending World Champion and simply ran away. Kasparov beat 3 generations of chess masters and stayed on top. IMHO he's better than fischer. I doubt he'd have beaten Karpov.Such a rock solid game.
Anyways, Morphy, Capablanca, Fisher, Tal, Alekhine, Karpov and Kasparov were all vey important for the evolution of chess,
ofc Kaspaov has to say it, he can not accept that he is inferior to Fischer.
Fischer was the greatest, he has also beaten more generations, he was already the best when soviets stole the title from him.
Fischer was not the most talented. He was mentally ill and obsessed about chess. If it were not for his illness he wouldn't have made it as far. He was studying 10 hours a day, and every other player would get exhausted when analyzing games with Fischer because I quote "Fischer would just go on and on and on..." He was compeltely obsessed, Fischer was NOT a child prodigy and he only started showing fruits in teenage years. Fischer was mostly hard-work. And boy to this day no one, NO ONE has worked as hard as Fischer, simply because no one in their right mind, no one mentally sane would study chess so much without getting bored or burnt out or mentally drained. But Fischer ill as he was, he could handle it.
The incredible thing is that English isn't even Kasparov's native language, and yet he speaks more fluently than most even most American POLITICIANS.
24:03 to 25:40 is great insight into human nature
I like the set up with the real life chess board as the stage. Great Q&A with Gary and lots of insights. Most people will never admit to making mistakes the way Gary does and its very humbling. Perhaps, he has to do with game of chess having finite possibilities with a conclusive end where you can analyze each move real time unlike many real life decisions.
The guy to the left seemed very arrogant. Probably the reason he is hosting a talk show and probably never achieved anything in life worth talking about with a large audience.
Regarding the question around 17mins: _'What is the optimal time a person should allocate to making an intelligent decision?'_ I think it can be quantified based on brain activity. If certain circuits in the brain can be determined to be functioning optimally, then decision making can be improved and therefore time allocated to the decision making process can be reduced.
sir you are wrong. There is no answer on this question becouse sometimes people made wrong decisions by thinking hours about their way and some will think one second and they will make right decision. there is no answer relly on this question
marcin hsu
I'm more of the view that brain activity/brain states can be quantified through science, and that direct correlations can be found to exist between brain states of mental performance. See guys like Csikzentmalhalyi, Jamie Wheal, Steven Kotler, Abraham Maslow, Herbert Benson and some of the work on "flow states".
That has nothing to do with it. The answer lies in how much information we have. If you ask me what is 2+2 I don't have to think about it. If you ask me what is the answer to 10^120 I will probably never solve it so the best I can do is guess.
I know next to nothing about chess. Is the "positional vs dynamic" dichotomy that Garry referenced a few times, the same thing as "aggressive vs defensive"? It's hard to believe that Garry Kasparov doesn't understand a position as well as other players because he is only a "dynamic" player
rematch with deep blue v3
@BigBugBuzz
Captions say it's Moravec's paradox, wikipedia has an article on it.
@hume1234561 I like how he once said that the computer he played against was so formidable in its sheer ability to calculate moves that "volume becomes quality" (or something like that).
Cool!
I have three heros in this world: Gary Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, and Jayna Oso.
Tom, you look very much like John Steinbeck.
nice comb-over
@thekobe157 strategic positions are positions in which there are no available combinations, that is forced sequences of moves leading to an advantage, and therefore the players have several reasonable moves available and therefore have to play according to long term pragmatically considerations, such as create weakness, occupy outposts, control open files, etc. engines are very good in calculating tactical combinations but they are poor strategic players
Garry Kasparov: IQ 190
Actually Kasparov once claimed that he would not play Fischer.
clear that we cannot attribute Magnus' amazing rating of 1841 to Kasparov just like Nakamura's rating of 2780+ cannot be attributed to Kasparov but their own strenghts that got them there
What Garry Kasparov means that Karpov is more on strategic and he is more on dynamic in the time 31:58?.
Yes, he said as much.
(around 42:00 minutes) Magnus Carlsen just stated that computers not were an important part of his chess training when he grew up. (Latest biography)
Great video, terrible subtitles. Fortunately Kasparov isn't hard to understand at all.
I found the man seated in the middle incredibly annoying. Throughout the interview, he just sat there, near-motionless, with this perpetual smug look on his face.
19:41
On my fb page, about an hour ago, ... I might be in love with google.
Kasparov is full of wit, warmth and some sparkling insights. The smarmy arrogance of his 2 interviewers made my skin crawl. Fortunately, they have little to say in this video.
84-85. That's nearly 30 years ago.
Mathematical thought is the greatest, it's everywhere from black holes to chess. The Mathematical model for Chess may be as complex as a black hole OR say of a wormhole. But looks like in coming years we may not enter through a wormhole, but we may get a software which plays perfect chess !. And even if we get it, the game of chess will not be dead, because humans can never play like a machine!!.
sure, also he was very scarred of dwarfs thats why he retired
No you dont understand, he definitely IS going to pass Gary's rating sometime very soon. He is only like one win away from being the highest rated player ever after his performance at Biel 2012. And yes he already does have several beautifully won positions or saved positions (his endgame technique!!). Also he has saved many games he was in terrible positions which shows his wonderful technique and being able to find saving resources
I was talking about the current state of government there. Check out the GDP growth rates. Free enterprise is necessary and they have learned that. The ability to lobby and no governance over the press are the factors that promote institutionalized corruption and mismanagement in the US.
"Risk & mistakes are inevitable for those who want to make progress." Kasparov 1:03:00
38:26 - Question from Sulinder.
he coached magnus..
What paradox does Kasparov speak of at 0:26:30?
Moravecs Paradoxon (lets hope after 11 years your account is still active :D)
There is no guarrentee that will happen. Perhaps someone someday will achieve a better resume than Kasparov, but it doesn't look like anyone will soon. Aronian is getting closer and closer to unseating Carlsen, so I think Carlsen's streak will end soon.
@eugdog106 Solving chess will have no practical effect on playing the game because the solution will require memorizing over 5,000 moves. Both players also need to play perfectly.
why audiences setting in the dark??
A Good video
47.15 Sirius black!!
Can't play like Gary? How do you mean?? Gary himself has even coached Magnus so certainly some of his opening ideas reflect this coaching. And yes they do Indeed have different styles of play as Kasparov himself has stated Magnus is more positional. So elaborate on what you mean by he "can't" play like Gary. As for Kasparov being a great talent, yes I never denied his I was simply pointing out that Gary's rating record will not hold for even a year more after this upcoming olympiad.
@guyNbluejeans i agree. i can't see it myself.
Moraves paradox what's that
Shannon number = where the max moves in chess comes from
totally
AlphaZero would add a new dimension to this discussion.
Gary Kasparov doesn't even seem to know Internet Poker exists. You can't see people's faces at all and yet nobody can create a decent profitable bot despite massive financial incentives that don't exist in chess.
Carlsen will surpass kasparov's rating inevitably
Not at all. Magnus had already proven himself a great talent long before Kasparov started to coach him. He had already beaten Karpov as a child and drew against Kasparov looong before Gary was coaching him. I mean sure Kasparov helped magnus, just as Botvinik helped Kasparov mind you, but that is not to say that all of Magnus' success belongs to Gary
Stop bringing Bobby Fischer into this video. Garry and Fischer are born in different era. They're the best chess players in their era just like Paul Morphy,Capablanca and other Russian players
00:00 @Google 'Presets' Garry Kasparov...
Facial recognition and based on that data the computer could run a "bluff" function based on that facial recognition.
+russell schaeffler thought the same thing, also you could study past players bluffs and match suttle movments etc
+Ben Firkins that way you can fake bluffs, and you beat the system. then the system upgrades, and you go back to regular bluffs