The Sunday treat: Garry at Google

The Authors@Google program brings authors of all stripes to Google for informal talks centering on their recently published books. Through the program Google invites authors to their Mountain View headquarters as well as the New York, Santa Monica, Cambridge, Ann Arbor, and other offices, where Googlers are treated to readings of everything from serious literature and political analysis to pioneering science fiction and moving personal memoirs; past participants have ranged from novelist Salman Rushdie and economist Jeffrey Sachs to journalist Bob Woodward and U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. When possible, they share these remarkable conversations with the world outside the Googleplex through their YouTube channel.

This is the hour long AtGoogleTalks video in a quality that is a pleasure to watch. Below we point out the key passages, with time stamps so you can jump to the sections that interest you the most – if you do not have the time to watch the entire discussion. Which is what we warmly advocate...

Jonathan Rosenberg asks Garry whether he still believed that IBM had cheated, back in their match in 1997 – and specifically in the second game – and more specifically move 37.Be4. Garry stands by his position but admits it is an I-say-they-say situation. "The problem is that at the end of the match they dismantled Deep Blue and killed the only powerful witness." But he goes on [at eight minutes into the interview] to discuss the subject of man plus machine instead of man vs machine. People, he says, think it is impossible for a human to help Deep Blue – who could it have been, Anatoly Karpov? But they don’t understand that it is not a very strong grandmaster dictating moves. Even a weaker player can guide the computer at a few strategic moments and with that play a decisive role. The same applies to human chess. If two opponents are equally matched just occasional advice – even just a hint that a combination is available – can be decisive.

A very interesting segment starts at around nine minutes, when Garry illustrates the point with a situation he himself experienced back in 1996. This was of especial interest to us since many years ago we had described the occurrence in ChessBase Magazine. The article includes the game and analysis Garry is telling the Google audience about.

At eleven minutes into the interview Garry speaks about new revelations on the match brought to light by one of Deep Blue's seconds, Spanish GM Miguel Illescas.

New for us is the information that according to Illescas the IBM team knew the opening Kasparov was going to play in the final game – an opening, Garry says "I had never played before in my life, and never played after."

Around 16 minutes into the interview the subject turns to business management and how decision makers can learn from the experience of chess players – since every decision contains components of material, time and quality. Garry is an expert on this subject, having written a book entitled How Life Imitates Chess.

Around 18 minutes into the session the Googlers ask Kasparov for advice on how people who do not have the time to devote their lives to chess can improve their game. Garry's counter-question: "If you don't have time to devote your life to chess, why do you want to improve your game?"

At 19 minutes into the discussion Garry is asked about the interrupted match in 1984. He explains, quite poignantly, that in this match Karpov turned into one of his most important teachers, who showed him how one should never give up, that there is hope in any situation, and basically molded him into the chess player and person he is today.

At around 21 min 30 sec Kasparov is asked to describe the progress in his playing strength, the ups and downs of his career. He answers in detail and very candidly.

The role of gut feeling and intuition in chess? "It is the most valuable quality of a human being," Garry replies. We should train intuition, like we train muscles or memory, and practice it, even though "it involves taking risks in a risk-averse culture" (verbatim – and remember this is a Russian speaking!).

To become world champion you undoubtedly need a unique talent. Some players with unique talent did not, however, become world champion, because of character, some element of luck, the ability to work hard, but of course talent is the number one condition for you to become the best in the world.

With the advent of computers young players have access to huge amounts of chess knowledge. But a certain geometry of the board tends to replace strategic understanding. They learn a lot at a very early age – today twelve and thirteen-year-old kids know much more about chess than Bobby Fischer did in 1972, because they know how to use the mouse. But let us not forget that many of the things that these kids learn today were invented by Bobby Fischer – technical ideas, not just in the opening but in the middle game.

In Russia we are not trying to win elections, we are trying to have elections. I want my people to be able to speak when they don't like the course the country is taking – as happened here 24 hours ago [he is referring to the US midterm elections]. The wealth that is being created in Russia should not be used to buy soccer clubs in England or basketball clubs in the US, but invested in Russia. We have hundreds of billions of dollars being taken out of the country by Russian oligarchs, money that should be used to improve the conditions of the people.

I must be very cautious about the use of the terms instructor and student in my relations with Magnus Carlsen. I helped him to learn how to study the game of chess. That was one of the unique things I learnt from Botvinnik. What helped me to work with Magnus was that his chess style and natural talent is different from mine. It is more like Karpov's. He is a very quiet, positional player with a phenomenal ability to recognize positional elements. I am a very sharp and dynamic player, so he could learn how to do other things in chess, so there was extra value added to his chess education. I enjoyed it immensely and I am very happy to see that my work produced such impressive results.

Much of Google's technology works on the notion of the wisdom of the crowds, as displayed by the Web. In the recent game Magnus played against the world it was not about generalities, and you can't use big numbers to ensure the quality of the decision. When I played the microsoft match we did not have two minutes per move but two days. That was probably one of the best games ever played, because my opponents created a very strong algorithm, using computers to pick up the best moves. At a certain point the game was simply phenomenal, and I still don't know how they could make the terrible blunder at the very end – possibly complacency?

We do not have elections in Russia, we do not have justice in Russia, so I am quite pessimistic about the outcome of the Khodorkovsky trial, which is a shame for my country and a tragedy for Khodorkovsky and for Yukos, the most successful (and transparent!) oil company in Russia. The company has ended up in the hands of Vladimir Putin and his cronies – and I made this very grim prediction in 2004: as long as Putin stays in power Khodorkovsky stays in jail. The second trial makes even Kafka pale by comparison, it is a terrible display of the lack of rule of law in Russia and the cruelty of Putin's regime. I hope that in the end Khodorkovsky, one of the most brilliant executives in Russia, will leave prison alive

The Internet plays an important role in beefing up the opposition in Russia, which is not as aggressive as China in limiting access. About 42 million people are now connected to the Internet, but only about ten percent of that number are interested in politics, and only a third or half of those are interested in reading alternative sources of information. So we have about a million or a million and a half people following what the opposition is doing. But the number is growing.

What is holding us back is the fear to make mistakes. We need more courage. Today I don't believe Magellan or Columbus would be able to find venture capital. We have to take more risks. We have to recognize that risk and mistakes are necessary for those who want to make progress and avoid technological stagnation that comes with complacency and a risk-averse culture.

• Authors@Google: Garry Kasparov