#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 or Magnus died 20 minutes 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 few second mentionary 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, I thought of Greens for performance, fund rise for investing, better help for mental health, and inside track of for longevity. Choose wise and my friends. And now onto 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 anywhere, 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 in merch? Maybe cool to do some super complicated merch, like a mini robot or some kind. Like the bottle robot. Or maybe a piece of software that you can run.

I think that's called the virus. Did I just try to stop you of virus? It's a good kind of virus. I swear. For limited time, 99. No, you know, as a fan of different podcasts and different shows, I like merch. It's a good way to get to where something where you support the people and you're like proud. 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 do in the future. Just 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 lower case. This show is also brought to you by Athletic Greens. And it's a AG1 drink, which is an all in one drink to support better health and peak performance. I drink. I just drink one actually. And that was the second time I drank today.

So it's the first 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'm currently doing a carnivore. I don't think of it as a diet. It's just the thing I'm doing. It's not something 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 studying my body.

Be like a scientist and running a study of NF1. 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. So carnivore is definitely something that makes me feel good. But it is a little bit of restricting in terms of social life, in terms of a little bit of variety. But I am somebody who likes the boring stuff. So I love it. I'm really happy. But of course the little flavor is always fun.

Some flavorful food with friends. Anyway, no matter what I'm doing is good to have like a grounding in great nutrition, which is what I thought it greens dust for me. They'll give you a one month supply of fish oil when you sign up at a flattigreens.com slash legs. This episode is also sponsored by Fundraize spelled FU and DRISE. 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 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 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 I can avoid the whole addictive aspect of investing.

For that, I think still diversification is a really powerful tool. So you should really invest in all kinds of things. And Fundraize makes it really easy to invest in private real estate. Over 150,000 investors use it. Check out Fundraize. It takes just a few minutes to get started at fundrise.com slash legs. 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 hours.

I'm a huge fan of talk therapy. I just recently had a bunch of conversations about psychiatry, about talk therapy, about calling young, about similar Freud. And of course, they were clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, and part-they had patients, some patients that had from in years. And they've used that personal interaction to develop theories of the human mind.

And 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, there's a good listener, it somehow untangles that mess. I'm a big believer in that. And so, better help 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 slashlex and save on your first 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, mostly 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 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. No, 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, 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. It gets special savings for a limited time and you go to inside tracker.com slash Lex. This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.

And now, dear friends, here's Magnus Carlson. 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 competing at a world class level. So before chess, let's talk football and greatness. 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 anybody jump to mind? I think it's pretty hard to make a case for anybody else than Messi for his all-around game. And frankly, like my Real Madrid fandom sort of predates the Ronaldo era, the second Ronaldo, not the first one. So I always liked Ronaldo, but I always kind of thought that Messi was better.

And I went to quite a number of 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 going to do an interview and they were going to ask me who my favorite player was. And I said somebody else, I think I said, he's good at that point. And I was like, okay, take two now, he's a Ronaldo. So for them, it was very important, but it wasn't that huge to me. So Messi over Maradona.

Yeah, but it's, I think just like with just, it's hard to compare errors. Obviously, the improvements in football have been like in technique and such, have been even greater than they have been in just, but it's always a weird discussion 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 assists. 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 that important or is it very important to get the World Cup's and the big championships and that kind of stuff? I think the World Cup is pretty, pretty overrated seeing us as it's such a small sample size.

So it sort of annoys me always when, you know, titles are always, always appreciated so much, even though that particular title can be, can be a lot of, a lot of luck or at least, at least some luck. So I do appreciate statistics a bit and all the statistics say that Messi is the best finisher of all time, which I think helps a lot. 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, it's just like the Olympics.

You basically train your whole life for this. 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 admire the magic of that. No, I do. I just think that like rising and through pressure and breaking under the pressure is often really oversimplified like, take on what's happening. Yeah, we do romanticize the game. Yeah. Well, let me ask you another ridiculous question.

You're also a fan of basketball. Yes. Let me ask the goat question. I'm biased because I went to high school in Chicago. Chicago Bulls during the Michael Jordan era. Let me ask the Jordan versus LeBron James question. Let's continue on this threat of greatness, which one do you pick or somebody else? Magic. I'll give you a completely different answer. Depending on my mood and depending on whom I talk to, I pick one of the two and then I try to argue for that. It's the quantum mechanical thing.

What would, if you were to argue for either one, statistically, I think LeBron James is going to surpass Jordan. Yeah, no doubt. So again, there's a debate between unquantifiable greatness. No, that's the whole debate. Yes. Well, it's quantifiable versus unquantifiable. What's more important. And you're depending on mood. Yeah. I love the place. Yeah. But what do you lean in general with these folks with soccer, with anything in life towards the unquantifiable more?

No, definitely towards the quantifiable. So when you're unsure, lean towards the numbers. Yeah. But see, like, it's the later generations. There's something that's what people say about Maradona is, you know, he took arguably somewhat mediocre team to a World Cup. So there's that also uplifting nature of the player to be able to rise up. It is a team sport.

So are you going to punish Messi for taking a mediocre Argentine squad to the final in 2014 and punish him because they lost to a great team very narrowly after they missed? He set up a great chance for Euguin in the first half, which he fluffed and then, yeah, eventually they lost the game. Yeah, 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 on your team.

It would be very interesting just if the league could make a decision. Yeah, just random, random allocation. And just every single game just keep really lucky, maybe once a season or every season you get to random. Yeah, but let's say every player, if let's say they sign a five-year contract for a team, like one of them you're going to get randomly allocated to, to let's say a bottom half team. I bet you there's going to be so much corruption around that.

No, I mean, obviously it wouldn't ever happen or work, but I think it's. You never know. I think the thing about. So on chess, let's zoom out. If you break down your approach to chess, when you're at your best, what do you think contributes to that approach? Is it memory recall 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?

Of the game theory aspect in terms of what contributes to the highest level of play that you do? I think the answer differs a little bit now from what it did eight years ago. For instance, I feel like I've had two peaks in my career in 2014, while 2013, 2014, and also in 2019. And in those years, I was very different in terms of my strength. Specifically in 2019, I benefited a lot from opening preparation.

While in 2013, 2014, I mostly tried to avoid my opponent's preparation rather than that being a strength. So I'm mentioning that also because it's something it didn't mention. I think 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. Certainly there are things that I understand now that I didn't understand back then, but that's not only for me, that's for others as well.

I was younger back then, so I played with more energy, which meant that I could play better in long drawn out games, which was also a necessity for me, because I couldn't beat people in the openings. But in terms of calculation, that's always been a weird issue for me. I've always been really, really bad at solving exercises in chess. That's been a blind spot for me. First of all, I found it hard to concentrate on them and to look deep enough.

So this is a puzzle, a position made in X. And one thing is made, but find the best move, that's generally the exercise. Find the best move, find the best line. You just don't connect with it. Usually you have to look deep, and then when I get these lines during the game, I often find the right solution, even though it's not still the best part of my life. I find it hard to calculate very deeply. It doesn't feel like calculation you're saying in terms of...

No, it does sometimes, but for me, it's more like I'm at the board trying to find the solution and I understand the training at home is trying a little bit to replicate that. You give somebody half an hour in a position in this instance you might have thought for half an hour if you play the game. I just cannot do it. One thing I know that I am good at though is calculating short lines because I calculate them well.

I'm good at seeing little details and I'm also much better than most at evaluating, which I think is something that sets me apart from others. Also evaluating specific position, if I make this move and the position changes in this way, is this step in the right direction in a big picture way?

Yeah, you calculate a few moves ahead and then you evaluate because a lot of times, the branch just becomes so big that you calculate everything so you have to make evaluations based mostly on knowledge and intuition and somehow I seem to do that pretty well. When you say you're good at short lines, what's short? That's usually lines of two to four moves each. Okay, so that's directly applicable to even faster games like Blitz, chess and so on. Blitz is a lot about calculating force lines.

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 because you simply don't have time 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 a visual component? Yeah, no, I just visualized the board. I mean, the board is in my head. Two dimensional.

My interpretation is that it is two dimensional. Like what colors, is it brown, tinted, is it black, is it like what's the theme? Is it a big board, small board? Are the, what do the pawns look like? Or is it more in the space of concepts? Like, yeah, there aren't a lot of colors. It's mostly brown. So what is it, Queen's gamut? I'm trying to find my own two. To imagine that. What about when you do the branching, when you have multiple boards and so on, how does that look?

No, but it's only one at a time. So a lot of position at a time. One position at a time, so then I go back. And that's what, when people play, or at least that's what I do. And 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, you're like, all right, that's, I got that. I understand that 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 on a shelf kind of, I try and store it away. Sometimes I have to sort of repeat it because I forget. And it does happen frequently in games that you're thinking for, especially if you're thinking for long, let's say half an hour, or even more than that, that you play a move and then you're upon a place, a move that you play a move and they play a move again and you're alive.

Oh, I actually calculated that. I just forgot about it. So that's obviously what happens when you store the information and you cannot retrieve it. You've got to move for 20, 30 minutes. How do you break that down? Can you describe what, what's the algorithm here that takes 30 minutes to run? 30 minutes is, at least for me, it's usually a waste. 30 minutes, usually means that I don't know what to do. And I'm trying, just running into the wall over.

Yeah, I'm trying to find something that isn't there. I think 10 to 15 minutes thinks in complicated positions can be really, really helpful. Then you can spend your time pretty efficiently. Just means that the branches are getting wide. There's a lot to run through both in terms of calculation and lots of you have to evaluate it as well and then based on that 10 to 15 minutes, think you have a pretty good idea of what to do.

I mean, it's very rare that I would think for half an hour and I would have a eureka moment during the game. If I haven't seen it in 10 minutes, I'm probably not going to see it at all. You're going to different branches. And like after 15 minutes, it's like, 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 a complicated mix of brute force calculation and like creativity and evaluation. So end game, it's easier in that sense. Well, you're good at every aspect of chess, but also your end game is legendary. It baffles experts. So can you linger on that then? Try to explain what the heck is going on there. If you look at game six of the previous World Championship, the longest game ever played in chess, it was I think his queen versus your rook knight in two pawns.

So many options there. It's such an interesting little little dance and it's kind of not 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 that for most of the time, it was a theoretical draw since 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 a so called table base and they it just going to spit out when for white when for black or draw. So and also I knew that 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. First of all, trying to look for the best way to put my pieces, but yeah, those end games are a bit there are bits unusual. They don't happen too often.

So what I'm usually good at is I'm using my strengths that I also use in middle games is that I evaluate well and I calculate short variations quite even for the end game, short variations matter. Because it does matter in some simpler end games.

Yeah, but also like there are these theoretical end games with very few pieces like Rook Knight and two Pons 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 understanding and evaluation than I can use my strengths very well. Why are you so damn good at the end game?

Isn't there a lot of moves from when the end game starts to when the end game finishes and you have a few pieces to figure out it's like a sequence of little games that happens right? Like little pattern. How does it being able to evaluate a single position lead you to evaluate a long sequence of positions that eventually lead to a checkmate? Well, I think if you evaluate well at the start, you know what plans to go for and then usually the play from there is often pretty simple.

Let's say you understand how to arrange your pieces and often also how to arrange your Pons early in the end game, then that makes all the difference and after that is like what we call technique often, that it's technique basically just means that the moves are simple and these are moves that a lot of players could make not only the very strongest ones, these are moves that I kind of understood and known.

So with the evaluation, you're just constantly improving a little bit and that just leads 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, I said like if you evaluate it better and thus accumulated some small advantages then you can often make your life pretty easy towards the end of the end game.

So you said in 2019, sort of the second phase of why you're so damn good, you did a lot of opening preparation. What's the goal for you of the opening game of chess is 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. Back in Kasparo's days, for instance, he very often got huge advantages from the opening as white. Can you explain why?

There were several reasons for that. First of all, he worked harder. He was more creative and finding ideas. He was able to look places others didn't. Also he had a very strong team of people who had specific strengths in openings that he could use. So they would come up with ideas and he would integrate those ideas into… Yeah, and he would also very often come up with them himself.

Also at the start, he had some of the first computer engines to work for him to find his ideas, to look deeper, to verify his ideas. He was better at using them than a lot of others. Now I feel like the playing field is a lot more level. There are both computer engines, neural networks and hybrid engines available to practically anybody. It's much harder to find ideas now that actually give you an advantage with the white pieces. People don't expect to find those ideas anymore.

Now it's all about finding ideas that are missed by the engines, either they're missed entirely or they're missed at low depth and using them to gain some advantage in the sense that you have more knowledge. It's also good to know that usually these are not complete bluffs. These are semi bluffs so that even if your opponent makes all the right moves, you can still make a draw. Also at the start of 2019, neural networks had just started to be a thing in chess.

I'm not entirely sure, but there were at least some players, even in the top events, who you could see did not use them or did not use them in the right way. 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 chess in a very different way.

Short answer is these days it's all about surprising your opponent and taking it into position where you have more knowledge. Is there some sense in which it's okay to make suboptimal quote unquote moves? No, but you have to. You have to because the best moves have been analyzed to death mostly. That's a kind of, when you say semi bluffs, that's a kind of sacrifice. You're sacrificing the optimal move, the optimal position so that you can take the opponent. That's a game theoretics.

You take the opponent or something they didn't prepare well. Yeah, 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 analyze long enough, it's always going to end up in a draw.

So 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 are trying to look at least at the less obvious pass. How much do you use engines? Do you use Lila, Stockfish, any preparations? My team does. Personally, I try not to use them too much on my own because I know that when I play, you can obviously have help from engines.

I feel like often having imperfect or knowledge about a position or some engine knowledge can be a lot worse than having no knowledge. 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 relying primarily on your human resources. Yeah, for sure. You can evaluate well, you don't need. Yeah, I can evaluate as a human, I can know what they find unpleasant and so on.

And it's very often the case for me to some extent, but a lot for others that you arrive in a position and your opponent plays a move that you didn't expect. And if you didn't expect it, you know that it's probably not a great move since it has been expected by the engine. But 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 the Demis Hassabah CEO of DeepMind a couple days ago and he asked me to ask you about what you first felt when you saw the play of Alpha Zero. Like interesting ideas, any creativity, did you feel fear that the machine is taking over, did you, were you inspired? And what was going on in your mind and heart?

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

But it was amazing to see how they quote unquote thought about chess in such a different way and in a way that you could mistake for creativity. Mistake for strong words is a wild to you. How many sacrifices it's willing to make that like sacrifice pieces and then wait for a prolonged period of time before doing anything with that is that is that weird to you that that's part of chess?

No, it's one 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 sacrifice I feel like I'm, you know, I don't do it unless I feel like I'm getting something like tangible in in return and like a few moves down the line. You can see that you can either retrieve the material or you can put your opponents king under pressure or have some very like very concrete positional advantage this sort of compensates for it.

For instance, in chess so bishops and knights are fairly equivalent. 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 an average they are. So like sacrificing a pawn in order to get get a bishop pair, that's one of the most common sacrifices in general. 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 upon for the bishop pair and then eventually it's some sort of positional equality. So that's fine, but the way of a zero 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 hard to understand and it was really fascinating to see.

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

So Demis also made a comment that was interesting to my new chest 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 difference between two pieces that there are some kind of 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 it the bishop and the knight, some kind of 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 new Shogi brain, comparing it to chess, what annoyed me about that game is how much the piece of 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 is interesting. I kind of think makes it, makes a lot of fun. 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, no, no, no, no, no, that's for, so like night, I mean, they all move in different ways. They're all like weird.

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 that's what I'm trying to say. Yeah. And I guess it is quite fascinating that all those years ago they created the Knights and the Bishop without probably realizing that they would be almost equally strong with such different qualities.

That's crazy that this, you know, like when you design computer games, it's like an art form, it's science and an art 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 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 just wouldn't last if it was designed poorly. Yeah. And I think the rules have changed over time a little, little bit. I would be speaking of games and all that I'm also interested to play other games like chess 960 or Fisher random as they call it like that you have 960 maps instead of one. Yeah. So for people who don't know, Fisher random chess 960s.

Yeah. That basically just means that the pawns are in the same way and the major pieces are distributed randomly 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 and you can still 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, what happens in that case?

Yeah, let's say the king is in the corner. So to castle this side, you have to clear a whole lot of pieces. Well, the king. The king looks like though. No, the king would go here and the rook would go there. Oh, okay. And that's happened in my games as well. Like I forgot about castling and I've been like attacking a king over here and then all of a sudden it escapes to the other side. I think I think Fisher Chess is good that 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, very interesting games. So when you say maps, it's 960 different options and like what fraction of that creates interesting games at the highest level.

This is something that a lot of people are curious about because when you challenge a great chess player like yourself to look at a random starting position, that feels like it pushes you to play pure chess versus memorizing why. Yeah, for sure. Or for sure, but that's the whole idea. That's what you want. And how hard is it to play? He talked about what it feels like to you to play with a random starting position. Is there some 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 classical chess. No, it's super interesting. And that's why also I really wish that we played more classical chess like the long games, four to seven hours and in fish random chess, chess 960 because then you really need, you really need that time, even on the first moves. What usually happens is that you get 15 minutes before the game, you're getting told the position 15 minutes before the game.

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

Yeah. So that's the thing about that's the thing about chess, though. So let's say white opens with the E4, which is, which has always been the most played move. There are many ways to meet that, but the most solid ways of playing has always been the symmetrical response with E5 and then there's the relopist, there's the petrofooping and so on. And if you just banned symmetry on the first move in chess, you would get more interesting games. Oh, interesting.

Or you'd get more decisive, 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 symmetry is a good default. But yeah, symmetry is a good default and it's a problem that by playing symmetrical armed with good preparation in regular chess, it's just a little bit too easy to draw. It's a little bit too dry.

I guess if you analyzed a lot in just 1960, then a lot of the position would end up being pretty drawish as well. But because the random starting point is so shitty, you're forced to actually force to play symmetrically. Like you cannot actually try and play in a more sort of interesting manner. Is there any other kind of variations that are interesting to you? Oh, yeah, there are several. So no castling chess has been promoted by former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik.

There have been a few tournaments with that, not any that I participated in though. I kind of like it. Also my coach uses like non-castling engines quite a bit to analyze regular positions just to get a different perspective. So castling is like a defensive thing. So if you remove castling, it forced you to be more offensive, is that why? Yeah, it just, yeah, for sure. I think it's a little different.

No casting probably forces you to be a little bit more defensive at the start, or I would guess so, because you cannot suddenly escape with the kings that it's going to make the game a bit slower at the start. But I feel like eventually it's going to make the more games more, well, less drawish for sure. Then you have some reiterative variants like where the ponds can move both diagonally and forward. And also you have self-capture chess, which is quite interesting.

So the ponds can, or excuse me. Could commit suicide or what? Yeah, people came. Why would that be a good move? No, sometimes one of your pieces occupied a square. I mean, let me just set up a position. Would it like this? For instance, here, I mean, there are a lot of ways to checkmate for why it's like this, for instance, or there are several ways. But like this would be, would be, oh, cool.

For people who are just listening, yeah, basically you're bringing a night close to the whole, the king, the queen, and so on. And you replace the night with a queen. Yeah, that's interesting. So you have like a front of pieces and then you just replace them with the second piece. Yeah, that's cool. I mean, that could be interesting. I think also maybe sometimes it's just clearance, basically. It adds an extra element of clearance. So I think there are many, many different variants.

I don't think any of them are better than the one that has been played for at least a thousand years, but it's certainly interesting to see. So one of your goals is to reach the Fidea Elo chest rating of 2900. Maybe you can comment on how 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 10, which means that if I were to play against 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, lose five points with a draw and then equal if I draw. If your opponent is 200 points, lower rated, you're expected to score 75% and so on. And you established that rating by playing a lot of people and then it slowly converged you towards an estimate of how likely you are to win or lose against different people. And my rating is obviously carried through thousands of games.

Right now my rating is 2861, which is decent. I think that pretty much corresponds to the level I have at the moment, which means in order to reach 2900. I would have to either get better at chess, which I think is fairly hard 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 play.

Preparations, everything, but not necessarily like selecting tournaments and so on, but just optimizing in terms of preparation, like making sure I never have any bad days and usually you basically can't lose. Yeah, I basically can't fuck up ever if I want to reach that goal. And so I think reaching 2900 is pretty unlikely.

The reason I've set the goal is to have something to play for it, to have like, to have a motivation to actually try and be at my best when I play because otherwise I'm playing to some extent mostly for fun. The stays in that I love to play, I love to try and win, but I don't have a lot to prove or anything. But that gives me at least the motivation to try and try and be at my best all the time, which I think is something to aim for.

So at the moment, I'm quite enjoying that process of trying to, yeah, try 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 a fair of losing for sure. Other tournaments, love of winning is a great, great factor. And that's why I also get more joy from winning most tournaments than I do for winning in the world championship because then it's mostly been 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 I also know that it's not gonna last forever. So every little when I appreciate, appreciate a lot more now. And in terms of fear for losing, that's a huge reason why I'm not going to play the world championship because it really didn't give me a lot of joy. It really was all about avoiding losing. Why is it that the world championship really makes you feel this way, the anxiety?

So when you say losing, do you mean not just a match, but like every single position, like, no, it's just the fear of a blunder. No, I mean, the blunder is okay. Like when I sit down at the board, then it's mostly been fine because then I'm focused on, then I'm focused on the game. And then I know that I can play the game. It's a 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 winner and a loser. If I don't win a random tournament that I play, then, you know, I'm usually, it depends on a 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 losing that. Yeah. Yeah, there's a, you're going to have to at least for a couple of years carry the, the weight of having lost your, 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 you have to see like mixed martial arts are a little better with losing. It's understood like everybody loses. But there's not everybody though. Not everybody.

Not everybody. Not everybody. Yes. Maybe you went to the chat, 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 UFC as well. So for you personally, for a person who loves chess, the first time you won a world championship, that was the big, that was the thing that was fun. Yeah. And then everything after is like stressful. Yeah. Now, essentially, there was certainly stress involved the first time as well.

But it was nothing compared to compared to the others. So the only world championship after that that I really enjoyed was someone in 2018 against the American Fabiano Caruana. And what that made that different is that I've 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 match, I'd lost the game. He would have been ranked as number one in the world.

Like our ratings were so close that for each draw, they didn't move. And the game itself was close. Yeah, the games themselves were very close. I had a winning position in the first game that I couldn't really get anywhere for a lot of games. He had a couple of games where he could potentially have won. Then in the last game, I was a little bit better. And eventually, they were all drawn.

But I felt like all the way that this is an interesting match against an opponent who is at this position at this point equal to me. And so losing that would not have been this disaster. Because 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 a lot harder for me to take. Well, that's fascinating and beautiful that the stress isn't from losing because you have fun.

You enjoy playing against somebody who's as good as you, maybe better than you. That's exciting to you. Yeah. 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 why I've also been incredibly frustrating in other matches. When I know, when we play a draw after draw, and I can just, 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. Is there anything you would like to see if you change about the world championship that will make it more fun for you and better for the game of chess period for everybody involved? So I think 12 games or now 14 games that there is for the world championship is the 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 games. And I think to some extent, if you're going to have a world champion and call them the best players, you best player, you got to make sure that the format increases the chance of finding the best player.

So I think having more games and if you're going to have a lot more games than you need to, then you need to decrease the time control a bit, which in turn, I think is also a good thing because in very long time controls with deep preparation, you can sort of mask a lot of your deficiencies as a chess player because you have a lot of time to think and to defend and also, yeah, you have deep preparation. So I think those would be for me to play.

Those would be the main things, more games and less time. So you want to see more games and rules that emphasize pure chess. Yeah, but already less time emphasizes pure chess because defensive techniques are much harder to execute with a little time. What do you think is there a sweet spot in terms of, are we talking about blitz? Is it how many minutes? I think blitz is a bit too fast. To their credit, this was suggested by Fiat as well.

For a start to have two games per day and let's say you have 45 minutes, a game plus 15 or 30 seconds per move, that means that each session will probably be about, or a little less than two hours. Yeah. That would be a start. Also what we're playing in the tournament that I'm playing here in Miami, which is four games a day with 15 minutes plus 10 seconds per move. Those would be more interesting than the one there is now. And I understand that there are a lot of traditions.

People don't want to change the world championship. That's all fine. I just think that the world championship should do a better job of trying to reflect who's the best overall chess player. So would you say, if it's faster games, you'd probably be able to get a sample size of over 20 games, 20, 30, 40. You think there's a number that's good over a long period of time? Well, I would prefer as many as possible, like 100. Yeah, but let's say you play 12 days to games a day.

That's 24. I feel like that's already quite a bit better. You play one black game, one white game each day. You're as wise as that's okay. Yeah, I think that's fine. You will have three days as well. So I don't think that will be a problem. And also you have to prepare two sets of openings for each day, which makes it more difficult for the teams preparing. Yeah. That's also good. Let me ask you a fun question. If Hikaru Nakamura was one of the two people, I guess, I apologize for him.

Yeah, he could have finished second. Yeah. So he lost the last round of the candidates? Yeah. Maybe he can explain to me internet speed, copium is something he tweeted. But if he got second, would you just despite him still play the world championship? That's internet question. And when the internet asks, I must abide the due to the by. Yeah. Sure. Thank you, internet. So after the last match, I did an interview right after where I talked about the fact that I was unlikely to play the next one.

I'd spoken privately to both family, friends, and of course also my chess team that this was likely going to be the last match. What happened was that right before the world championship match, there was this young player, Alreza Feroza, he had a dramatic rise. He rose to second in the world rankings. He was 18 then, he's 19 now, he qualified for the candidates. And it felt like there was like at least a half realistic possibility that he could be the challenger for the next world championship.

And that sort of lit a fire under me. Do you like that? Yeah, I like that. I like that a lot. I love the idea of playing him in the next world championship. And originally, I was sure that I wanted to announce right after the tournament, 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, this actually motivates me.

And I just wanted to get it out there for several reasons to create more hype about the candidates to sort of motivate myself a little bit, maybe motivate him. Also obviously I wanted to give people a heads up for the candidates that you might be playing for more than first place, like normally the candidates is first place or bust. It's like the world championship.

And then so Nakamura was one of many people who just didn't believe me, which is fair because I've talked before about not necessarily wanting to defend again. But I never like talked as a creator, was 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. No, no, no, no, no, no, players who may or may have 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 already, was already made. Does it, 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 fun. There's 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 in a particular opponent's 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 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 protect really like the format. I also wasn't, I was just not in a 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. Also to be ranked number one in the world, I was comfortable with the fact that I knew that I was the best and I didn't need a title to show others. What happened later is I suddenly decided to play. In 2013, I liked their change to format. I liked it better. I just decided it could be interesting. Let's try and get this.

There really wasn't more than that to it. It wasn't like fulfilling life-loan dream or anything. Let's play. Just a cool tournament. Yeah, it's a good challenge. Yeah, it's a good tournament. It's a good challenge. You know, why not? It's something that could be a motivation. It motivated me to get in the best shape of my life that had been to them. So it was a good thing. And 2013 match brought me a lot of joy as well. So I'm very, very happy that I did that.

But I never had any thoughts that I'm going to keep the title for a long time. Immediately after the match in 2013, I mean, also before the match, I'd spoken against the fact that the champion is seated 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 chess community, was generally like, okay, we're good. We don't want that.

You keep your privilege. And I was like, okay, whatever. So you want to fight for it every time? Yeah. I want that. Have to ask just in case you have an opinion, if you can maybe from a fantasy chess perspective, analyze Ding versus Nepo who wins the current, the two people that would play if you're not playing. Generally, I would consider Ding house slightly better overall chess strength. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each, if you can kind of summarize it?

So Nepo is even better at calculating short lines than I am, but he can sometimes like a little bit of depth. Like his, in short lines, is an absolute calculation monster. He's extremely, he's extremely quick, but he can sometimes like a bit of depth. Also recently, he's improved his openings quite a bit. So now he has a lot of, a lot of good ideas and he's very, very solid. Ding is not quite as well prepared, but he has an excellent understanding of dynamics and imbalances in chess.

I would say, what do you mean by imbalances? Imbalances like bishop's against knights and material imbalances. He can take 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, 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 well championship results. I feel like overall chess strength is more, more important. I mean, 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 think about the size of them, of the match in total 14 games and that generally doesn't mean much. How close were those games, would you say, in your mind for the previous championship?

So that game 6, where it was a turning point where you won, was there any doubt in your mind that, you know, like if you do a much larger sample size, you'll get the better of Nepo? No, no, larger sample sizes are always good for me. So well championship, it's a great parallel 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. That's generally for big for championships or in general? Yeah, for championships.

Like they generally, generally win because the other 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 match. If I hadn't won game 6, it probably would have been very, very close. He might have edge did. There's always the bigger chance that I would have edge did.

But this is just what happens a lot in chess, but also in football that matches are close. And then they... Somebody scores. Somebody scores and then things change. That's fantastic. It gives people the illusion that the matchup was very close. Yeah. Well, 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 going to... Or one of the players is going to break away than the others.

And in other matches as well, even though a lot of people, before the match in 2016 against Karriakin, there were people who thought before the match that I was massively overrated as a favorite. And that essentially the match was pretty close, like whatever, 60, 40 or some people even say it like 55, 45. And what I felt was that the match went very, very wrong for me and I still won.

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 still won, which probably means that I was pretty big favorite to begin with.

I do have a question too about that match, but first, so Sergei Karriakin was originally a qualifier for the candidate tournament, but was disqualified for breaching the Fidekot of Ethics after publicly expressing approval for the 2022 Russian invasion in Ukraine. When you look at the Cold War and some of the US versus Russian games of the past, does politics, some of this geopolitics ever creep its way into the game?

Do you feel the pressure, the immensity of that, as it does sometimes with the Olympics, these big nations playing each other, competing against each other, almost like fighting out 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 Chester Federation, who was just re-elected, is a Russian, like I like him personally, for sure, but he is quite connected to the Kremlin, and it's quite clear that the Kremlin considers it at least the semi-important goal to bring the chess crown home to Russia. So it's still definitely a factor, and I mean, I can answer for in the Karyakian case, like I don't have a strong opinion on whether he should have been banned or not.

Obviously, I don't agree with anything that 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 as reprehensible as has been. Yeah, there's something about the World Chester Championships or the Olympics, where it feels like banning is counterproductive to alleviating some of the conflicts. We don't know. This is the thing though.

We really don't know about the long-term conflicts, and a lot of people try to do the right thing in this sense, which I don't really blame at all. It's just that we don't know. And I guess sometimes there are other ways you want to try and help us, Mom. 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, 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 is this appreciation of the fight over the chessboard. Even if you hate each other. Yeah, for sure, I think for every match that's been, you would briefly discuss the game with your opponent after the game, no matter how much you hated each other. And I think that's lovely. And Kasparov, I mean, he was quoted like somebody in his team asked him, like, why are you talking to the carp of after the game? Like, you hate that guy.

Yeah, sure, but he's the only one who understands me. Yeah, the only one who understands. So that's, no, I think that's really lovely. And I would love to see that in other areas as well, that you can, regardless of what happens, you can have a good chat about the game. And you can just talk about the ideas with people who understand 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 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 happens, 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 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 bigger, a clearer story. I think so 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.

I'm a lot more proud of that than the World Championships. How much anxiety or even fear do you have before making a difficult decision on the chess board? So 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 10, 15 minutes because you're in a fog. There's always a possibility of a blunder of a mistake. Are you anxious about it? Are you afraid of it? Really depends. I have been a times.

I think the most nervous I've ever been was game 10 of the World Championships in 2018. I thought that was just a thrilling game. I was black. I basically 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 going to lose. But I had so much adrenaline. So that was fine. I thought I was going to win. At some point I realized that it's not so clear. My time was ticking and I was just getting so nervous.

I still remember what happened. We played this time-triple face where he had very little time, but I had even less. I remember much of it just that when it was over, I was just so relieved because then it was clear that the position was probably going to be around in a draw. Otherwise, I'm often nervous before games, but when I get there, it's all business. Especially when I'm playing well, I'm never afraid of losing when I play because I trust my instincts. I trust 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- Are people scared of you? I would love to have a tournament online where, let's say, you play ten of the best players in the world and you don't freeze around, you don't know who you're playing. That's an interesting question.

There's these videos where people eat McDonald's, a burger king, or diet coke versus dipepsy, would people be able to tell they're playing you from the style of play, or from the strength of play? If there was a decent sample size, sure. What about you? Would you be able to tell others in the top 10? In the one game? Very unlikely. What sample size would you need to tell accurately? I feel like it's a size. Yeah, I think 20 games would help a lot.

For a person. Yeah. But I know that they've already developed AI bots that are pretty good at recognizing somebody's style. Okay. Which is quite fascinating. And they'd be fascinating if those bots were able to summarize the style somehow. Maybe great attacking chess. Some of the same characteristics you've been describing, great at short line calculations all that kind of stuff. Or just talking shit. Really. No, but really all the best chess players, there are basically just two camps.

People who have got longer lines or shorter lines, it's the hair on the torches, basically. And sometimes, you know, I feel like I'm the closest you can get to a high bridge of those. Because you got both a good and every position to the middle game and end game. And also, I can think to some extent both rapidly and deeply, which a lot of people, they're going to do both.

But I mean, to answer your question from before, I think, yeah, I sometimes can get a little bit intimidated by my opponent, but it's mostly if there's something unknown. It's mostly if it's something that I don't understand fully. And I do think, especially when I'm playing while 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 advantage.

If I sense that my opponent is apprehensive, if I sense that they are not going to necessarily take all their chances, it just means that I can take more risk. And I always try and find that balance to shake them up a little bit. Yeah. Even the toughest loss of your career, the year member, would that be the World Championship match? Oh, yeah, I'm sure. Can you take game eights in 2016? And who was it against? Against Karyakin in New York? Can you take it through the story of that game?

Where were you before that game in terms of game one through seven? Yeah. So game one and two, not much happened. Game three and four, I was winning in both of them. And normally, I should definitely have converted both. I couldn't partly due to good defense on his part, but mostly because I just, I messed up. And then after that, games five, six and seven, not much happened. I was getting impatient at that point.

So for game eight, I was probably ready to take a little bit more risks than I had before, which I guess was insane because I knew that he wouldn't beat me unless I beat myself. Like he wasn't strong enough to help play me. And that was leading to impatient somehow and impatience. No, because 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 2021 as well.

Like when I won the first game against Neville, I knew that the match was over. Unless I like fuck up royally, then he's not going to be able to beat me. So what happened was that I played a kind of an inocuous opening as wide, just trying to get a game, trying to game out of book as soon as possible. How could you elaborate inocuous, get him out of the book? No, basically I set up pretty defensively as wide. 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 going to set up my pieces this way. You can set them up however you want. And then later, where sort of the armies are going to meet, I'm not going to try and bother you at the start. And that means you can have as many pieces as possible, kind of pure chess in the middle game without any of the lines, the standard lines in the opening.

And so there was at some point, a couple of exchanges, then some maneuvering, a little bit better. Then he was sort of equalizing and then I started to take two minor risks. And I was still sort of fine. But then at some point, I realized that I'd gone a bit too far and I had to be really careful. I just froze. I just completely froze mentally, like what? Yeah, mentally what happened? 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. I could be patient, don't give him these opportunities. What triggered that face transition in your mind? No, it was just one thing. It was just a position on the board, like realizing, like there was one particular move he played that I missed. And then I realized this could potentially not go my way. So then I made another couple of mistakes and he, to his credit, once he realized the other 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 the worst I've ever felt after a chess game. I realized that I'm probably going to 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. And that was really, really, at the time, I was all in my own head. 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 eighth game.

So I did something that I never did at any other world championship. Like after game eight, I just, I got drunk with my team. And not a standard procedure. No, no, that's the only time that's happening in the world championship during the match. So yeah, just try to forget. But still before game nine, game nine, I was a little bit more relaxed, but I was still a bit nervous than game nine. I almost lost as well. Then only game 10, game 10, I was still, I wasn't in a great mood.

I was really, really tense. The opening was good. I had some advantage. I was getting optimistic. Then I made one mistake. He could have forced a draw. And then the old, old in negativity came back. I was thinking during a game like how I'm going to play for win with black in the next game. Like what, what am I doing? And then, you know, eventually it ended well. It didn't find the right line. I ground him down. And actually I played at some point pretty well in the end game.

And after that game, like there was such a weight lifted lifted. No, I after that, there was like no thought of losing the match whatsoever. I knew that, okay, I'd basically gotten away with 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 some dark places? We're talking about depression. Do you think about quitting at that point?

No, I mean, I think about quitting every time I lose the class. Or at least I used to. Yeah. Like, especially if it's in a stupid way, I'm thinking like, okay, if I'm going to play like this, if I'm going to do things that I know are wrong, then, you know, I'm going to do it. I might as well quit. No, that's happened. That's happened a bunch of times. And I definitely got a bit more carefree about losing these days, which it's not necessarily a good thing.

Like my hatred of losing lead to me, not losing a lot. And it also led to fire under me that I think my performance after losses in in classical chess over the last 10 years is like over 2900. But I really played 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 works. It's worked so far.

But then you've discovered now a love for winning to where ultimately longevity wise creates more fun. Yeah, for sure. What's the perfect day in the life of Magnus Carlson on a day of a big chess match? It doesn't have to be world championship. But if it's a chess match you care about, what time do you wake up? What do you eat? It depends on when the game is. But let's say the game is at three. I'll probably wake up pretty late at about 11. Then I'll go for a walk. Might listen to some podcasts.

Maybe I'll spend a little bit of time looking at some NBA game from last night or whatever to not just related stuff. No, no, no. Then I'll get back. I'll have big lunch, like usually like a big omelet with bunch of salad and stuff. Then go to the game. Win like a very nice clean game. This is a perfect day. Just go back after relax. The things that make me the happiest that tournaments is just having a good routine and feeling well. I don't like it when too much is happening around me.

The tournament that I came from now was the Chess Olympiad, which is the team that. So we were a team Norway. We did horribly. I did okay, but the team in general did horribly. Not Italy. Italy would be us, but Uzbekistan won the end. They were this amazing team of young players. It was really impressive. But the thing is we had a good camaraderie in the team. We had our meals together. We played a bit of football when swimming. I couldn't understand why things went wrong.

I still don't understand, but the thing is for me, it was all very nice. 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 a very small team of people that I see. You are a celebrity now. People within the Chess tournament and outside will 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 trying to really focus on the match? Are you able to block that? Are you able to enjoy those little interactions and still keep your focus? Yeah, most of the time that's fine as long as it's not too much. But I have to admit, when I'm at home in Norway, I rarely go out without big headphones and something. Oh, like a disguise. No, not just to block out the world. Just to block out the world. Otherwise, don't make eye contact.

Yeah, no, so the thing is, people in general are nice. I mean, people they wish me well and they don't bother me. Also when I have the headphones on, I don't notice as much people like turning around and all of that. So I can be more of in my own world. So I like that. Yeah. So about after 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 kind of loosely think about like? No, I just loosely think about it.

I've never been very structured in that sense. I know that it was always recommended that you analyze your own games, but I generally felt that I mostly had a good idea about that. Like nowadays, I will loosely see what the engine says at a certain point, if I'm curious about that. Otherwise, I usually move on to the next. What about diet? You said, I'm in salad and so on. I heard in your conversation with the other Magnus, Magnus number two about your, you had like this bet about meat.

One of you are going to go vegan if you lose, I forget which, vegetarian though. Vegetarian, yeah. And you both have an admiration for me. Is there 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 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. So you do eat before the tournament though. You don't play fast in. No, no, no. But I try not to eat too heavy before the game or in general to avoid sugary stuff to have a pretty stable blood sugar level. Because that's the easiest way to make mistakes that your energy levels just 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 fast in like, you know, like intermittent fast things? So playing without having eaten? I mean, the reason I ask, you know, I've especially when you do a low carb diet, when I have done a person in low carb diet, I'm able to fast for a long time like he wants a day, maybe 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 kind of talk about that. Yeah. You're able to kind of like zoom in. And if you're doing a low carb diet, you don't have this energy, the energy stable. No. That is true. Maybe that will be interesting to try. So what's happened for me if I 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 very calm, of course, because I don't have the energy. And it makes me super creative. Interesting. Being sleep deprived, I think in general, makes you creative. Just the first thing that goes away is the ability to do the simple things. That's what it affects you the most. You're kind of precise. So that's the only thing I'm worried about. Like if I'm fasted that I won't be precise when I play. But you might be more creative.

It's an interesting trust that yeah, potentially. What about you have been known to on a rare occasion play drunk? Is there mathematical formula for sort of on the x-axis how many drinks you had? And then the y-axis your performance slash creativity. Is there like an optimal for like one of the would you suggest for the feed-of-world championship that people would be required to drink with that change things in interesting ways? Yeah, not at all.

Maybe for rapid, but for blitz, think of 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 a little bit to drink. Can you explain 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, I think I think it's just 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 a little bit of the same in chess. In 2012 I played the World Blitz Championship and then I was stirring horribly for a long time. I also had food poisoning there. I couldn't play at all for three days. So before the last break I was like in the middle of the pack like in I don't know, 20th place or something.

So I decided like as the last last gasp I'm going to go to the minibar and just have a few drinks. What happened is that I came back and I was suddenly relaxed and I was playing fast and I was playing confidence 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 or probably would have won all thing but finally I was second.

So generally I wouldn't recommend that but maybe that's the 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 feel like you have the ability there are just factors that make it impossible for you to show it like numbing your mind a bit can probably be a good thing.

Yeah it was interesting especially during training you have all kinds of sports that have 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 in Brazilian jiu jitsu they'll smoke weed. It creates this kind of anxiety and relaxation that enables that creative aspect. It's interesting for training.

Of course you can't rely on any one of those things too much but it's cool to throw in a few drinks every once in a while to yeah one first of all to relax and have fun and to kind of try things differently to unlock a different part of your brain. What about supplements? Do you have a coffee guy? Oh no. I quite like the taste of coffee. 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 work it out. So I don't want to ever make my brain good use to coffee. Like if you see me drinking coffee that's that probably means that I'm massively hungover and I don't I just want to try anything to make my brain work. Yeah that's interesting. There are a lot of people like you said taste of coffee for a lot of people coffee is part of a certain kind of ritual. Yeah for sure. You enjoy. No but we can have rituals with that. I know that I would enjoy it a lot.

Yeah. Just you don't want to rely on it. I also like the taste so there's no problem there. What about exercise? So how does that like what you know a lot of people talk about the extreme. Stress that chess puts in your body physically and mentally. How do you prepare for that to be physically and mentally? Is just the playing chess or do you do cardio and you're that kind of stuff? This is going to be it 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. Other playing football or tennis or even other sports. Otherwise if I couldn't do that I would try and take my bike 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.

And that was the perfect exercise because I was running around enough to make the games pretty competitive and it means meant that he had to run a bit less as well. But he was just he said like he was shocked that if we played like for two hours I wouldn't flinch at all. Interesting. So like a combination of fun and the differential between skill, result in good cardio. Yeah. Yeah. So in those days I was pretty fit in that sense.

I've always liked doing sports but at times I think in winter especially I never had schedule. So at times I'll let myself go a little bit and I've always kind of done it more for fun than like for a concrete benefit. But now I'm at least after the pandemic I was not in great shape so now I'm trying to get back, get better habits and so on.

But 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 not really a dessert because I'd never like doing weights much at all. I run a bit at times but I never liked it too much. You just love playing sports.

So I think people confuse that because I'm not massively athletic but I do, I am decent at sports and that's sort of how built that perception even though others who are top level chess players, they're more fit like Karana for instance he's really really, his body is really really strong. It's just that he doesn't like to go to the gym. Yeah. I think play sports, that's the difference. And the thing about sports is also it's an escape.

It helps you forget for a brief moment about the obsessions, the pursuits of the main thing which is chess. Yeah, for sure. And I think it also helps your main pursuit to feel that you're not mastering but doing well in something else. I found that if I just juggle a ball that makes me feel better before a game. So a skill that activity, a juggler football. Yeah, skilled activity that you can improve on over time. It like flexes the same kind of muscle but nothing that you're much worse at.

Yeah. It focuses you, Alex, that's really interesting. What's the perfect day in the life of Magnus Carlson when he's training? So what's a good training resume in terms of daily training you have to put in across many days, months and years to just keep yourself sharp in terms of chess? I would say when I'm at home I do very little deliberate practice. I've never been that guy at all. I could never force myself to just sit down and work.

So deliberate practice just to maybe can educate me for some grandmasters. What would that look like just doing puzzles kind of thing? Yeah, doing puzzles and opening analysis. That would be the main things. Studying games? 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 our article or reading a book. Got it. I love chess books. I'll read just anything and I'll find something interesting.

So chess books that are like on openings and stuff like that or chess books that go over different games? Yeah. Both books. 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. 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. I mean, it could be just floating there and nothing is happening. But like I often do it parallel to some other activity though. And what does that look like? Like are you day dreaming 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 random game on my phone for instance or in a book and then my brain just keeps going out the same position and analyzing it and often it goes all the way to the end game. And those are actual games or you conjure up like fake games? No, they're often based on real games and then 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 you don't sit behind a computer or a chess board and you lay out the pieces and I'm not at all opposed to both for deliberate practice. I could never I could never work that way. My first coach, he gave me some exercises that at home sometimes, but he realized at some point that wasn't going to work because I wouldn't do it really or enjoy it. So what he would do instead is that at the school where I had the trainings with him that was this massive chess library.

So he was just like, yeah, pick up books. You can have anything you can have anything you want. Just pick up books you like and then you give it back the next time. So that's what I did instead. Yeah, I just absolutely rated them. 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 does it feel like a struggle like challenging like to be thinking of those positions? There's a 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 I go on to something else. Okay. Like if I can't figure it out, then you know, I go on. Change it. So that's easier to figure out. There was a point in your life, because Braw was interested in being your coach or try at least training with you. Why did you choose not to go with him? That's pretty bold move. Was there a good reason for this?

No. The first like homework society gave me was to analyze, like he picked out, I think three, four of my worst losses and she wanted me to analyze them and give him. My thoughts and it wasn't that there 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. Yes. I just felt like from the start there 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 the main reason. So it's great 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 don't think I thought it that way.

I just thought this is not for me. I'm trying it the 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 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. I lost two and I drew one. Right. One draw. No, the one draw.

But did 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. There was a Blitz tournament the day before, which determined the pairings for the rapid. 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, I guess, is very super long. Yeah, basically bullet just never played over the board.

So in terms of the board chess, Blitz is the shortest. Rapid is like a hybrid between classical and Blitz. You need to have the skills of both and then classical is. As long as the Blitz tournament, which didn't go so well, 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 hours or something that I woke up. Like, okay, I'll turn on my computer. I'll search chess space 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 was like, oh, he was the first 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 first game he arrived a bit late because they changed the time from the first day to the other, which is a bit strange. And everybody else had noticed it, but him. Then he tried to surprise me in the opening. I think psychologically, this situation was not so easy for him. Like clearly it would be embarrassing for him if it didn't win both games against me.

Then 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 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 in order to have a chance to win, but I thought like, I'll play it more carefully. Maybe I can win still. I couldn't.

And then I lost the second 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 thrap it and I lost both of them without any fight whatsoever. I wasn't happy about that at all. That was less than I thought I could be able to do. So to me, yeah, I was proud of that, but it was a gimmick. I was like a very strong Ion, but I had GM strength.

I was like, it can happen that a player of that strength makes a draw against Gary once so. Yeah, but I understand that I'm 13, but still I felt a bit more gimmicky than anything I mean, I guess it's it's a good thing that made me noticed, but apart from that, it wasn't and for people who don't know, I am as international master and GM as grandmaster and you were just on the I guess on the verge of becoming a young as grandmaster ever. I was the second youngest ever.

I think I'm like the seventh youngest now. I mean, these kids these days, kids these days. Yeah, but I was the youngest grandmaster at the time. In the world. 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 at since then about that? No, not really. I think he's a marathon. He's still bitter.

He's like, no, I don't think it's his bitter, but I think the game in the south was was a bit of a marathon for him. Even he can't see past like is no, 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 just it's funny just having interacted with Gary now having talked to you.

There is a little thing you still hate losing. No matter how beautiful like that moment is, because it's like in a way, it's a passing of the baton from like one great champion to another. Yeah, right. But like you still just don't like the fact that you didn't play a good game from a Gary, Gary's perspective. Like he still is just annoyed probably that. Yeah, he could have played better. And we did so we did work together in 2009, quite a lot.

And that corporation ended 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. He was up playing me quite a bit, but I was fighting well. So it was pretty, pretty even then. So 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 always found it at least based on that game you couldn't tell that I was going to take his, that I was going to take his spot. Like I made a horrible blunder and lost to an Uzbek kid in the world rapid championship in 2018. And I mean granted, he was part of the team that now won gold in the just Olympia, but he wasn't a 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 going to be world champion after 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. Everybody could see that, but to be the best in the world or one of the best ever. It's true. It is hard to say. But I do remember seeing Messi when he was 16 and 17.

But hasn't that happened with other players though? Yeah, but I just had a personal experience. He did look different than there's like magic there. Maybe you can't tell he would be one of the greatest ever, but 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 start to think, okay, this could be the next great person. And then we forget when they don't become that. Yeah, exactly. That's what I think what happens.

But when it does make 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 a whole point. No, you make a lot of a lot of long shot bats 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 Carlson for Garic Esparov? I don't know who else. Bobby Fisher, Mikhail Tal, anyone else for Hikaru and Nakamura just kidding. Yeah. I think I can make a case for myself for for Gary and for Fisher. So I'll start with Fisher. For him, it's very, very simple. He was ahead of his time, but that's like intangible. You can say it out about a lot of people.

But he had a peak from 1970 to 1972 when he was so much better than the others. He won 20 games in the row. Also the way that he played was so powerful. He had a peak 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 the first of second and the others have was greater than it's ever been in history at any other time. 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. While he was the consensus best player, I would say for almost 20 years, which nobody else has done in at least in recent time and longevity. That the longevity for sure also at his peak. He was not quite the level of of Fisher in terms of the gap, but it was similar to or I think even a little bit better than mine. As for me, I'm of course unbeaten as a world champion in five tries.

I've been world number one for 11 years straight in an even more competitive era than Gary. I have the highest chest 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 harder to dominate. And still I haven't always been a clear number one, but I've always I've been number one for 11 years and for a lot of the time the gap has been pretty big.

So I think there are decent arguments for all of them. I've said before and I haven't changed my mind that Gary generally edges it because of the longevity in the competitive era, but there are arguments. But people also 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 creative genius of it. Yeah, but I'm not interested in that. In terms of greatest of all time, I'm not interested in in questions of style.

So you so for messy, you don't give credit for the style for the stylistic. I like I like no, I like watching it. I just but you're not going to give points for the. The messy. No, I mean, because of the finishing. No, it's it's the the no, it's not because of the finishing is because of his overall impact on the game is higher than anybody else's. Okay. He contributes. He can just contribute more to winning than anybody else does.

What's so you're somebody who was advocated for and has done quite a bit of study of classic games. What would you say is, I mean, maybe the number one or maybe top three games of chess ever played. I doesn't interest me at all. You don't think of the nose. No, I don't think of it. I mean, I tried to I find the games interesting. I tried to learn from them, but like trying to to rank them has never interested me. What games pop out to you is like super interesting then.

Is there is there things like where I did like old school games where there was like interesting ideas that you go back or like you find surprising and pretty cool that that those ideas were developed like then. Is there something that jumps the most? Yeah, there are several games of young Kasparov like before he became world champion. If you're going to ask for like my favorite player or favorite style, that's probably young Kasparov.

Can you describe stylistically or in any other way what what Yakuza was like that you're that you like? It was just an overflow energy in his play. So aggressive, yeah, extremely aggressive dynamic chess. It probably appeals to me a lot because these are the things that I cannot do as well. That it just feels very special to me. But yeah, in terms of games, I never never thought about that too much. Is there memories big or small, weird, surprising?

Just any kind of beautiful anecdote from your chess career like stuff that pops out that people might not know about. Just stuff when you look back and just make you smile. No, so I'll tell you about the most satisfying tournament victory of my career. So that was the Norwegian championship under 11 in 2000 before that tournament I was super anxious because I started like kind of late the chess.

I played my first tournament when I was eight and a half and a lot of my competitors had already played for a couple of years or even three or four years at that point. And the first time I so I played under 11 championship in 99, that was like a little over the middle of the pack. I'd never played against any of them before. I didn't know what to expect at all. And then over the next year, I was just 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 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 who I shouldn't have drawn to and then I drew against the other guy who was clearly like the best or second best. At that point, I thought it was over because I thought he wouldn't give away points to others. And then the very next day, he lost to somebody. So the rest of the tournament, it was just like I was always playing my game, watching his.

And we both won the rest of our games, but it meant that I was half a point I had. Like the feeling when I realized that I was going to win, that was just so amazing. It was like the first 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 kind of saw, what did you think your ceiling would be? Did you see that? Did you see that one day you could be the number one?

No, I didn't think that was possible at all. But when you first, I thought that could be the best in Norway, the best in Norway. At that point, when did you first? Because like I started relatively late. Right. 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, it was like going 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. And I wouldn't, I would just constantly be trying to learn new things. I had like two hours of internet time on the computer each week. And I would always spend them on chess.

Like 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. Well, but 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 11, 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? So 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 narrowed 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? Yeah, essentially.

Is there some aspect to the patterns themselves, to the positions, to the elegance of like the dynamics of the game that you just find beautiful that doesn't, that where you forget about the opponent? 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 and that there are no pieces that are suboptimally placed or if they are suboptimally placed, they can be improved pretty easily.

Like I hate when I have one piece that I know is about the place that I kind of improve it. Yeah, when you're thinking about the harmony of the pieces, when you're looking at the position, you're evaluating it. Are you looking at the whole board or is it like a bunch of groupings of pieces overlapping? I would dance together kind of thing.

I would say it's more of the ladder that would be more 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 other side. So I would think of it a little bit that way. So everything is kind of gravitating to the middle. If it's going well then yes. And in harmony. Yeah, in harmony. 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. But attacking on one side without control of the middle would feel very non-harmonious for me. Like, I talked about the 10th game in the World Championship. That's the time I was the most nervous. And it was because it was a kind of attack that I hate where you just have to, you're abandoning one side and you, the attack has to work. It was one side and part of the middle as well, which I didn't control at all.

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 beginning, complete beginner. I mean, at every level. Is there something you can say? It's very hard for me to say. Because the easiest way is like, love chess, be obsessed. That's a really important statement. But that doesn't work for everybody. So I feel like it can feel like a grind. So you're saying if the less it can feel like a grind, 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, my way only works if you have some combination of talented and obsession. So I'm not sure that I'd generally recommend it. 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 early on that have been very, very hands-off and just allowed me to do my thing, basically.

But there's a lot to be said about cultivating the obsession, like really letting that flourish to where you spend a lot of hours with the chessboard in your head and it doesn't feel like a struggle. No. So just letting me do my thing. If you give me a bunch of work, it will probably feel like a short. And if you don't give me, I will spend all of that time on my own without thinking that it's work or without thought that I'm doing this to improve my chess.

In terms of learning stuff, like books, there's one thing that's relatively novel from your perspective. People are starting now as there's YouTube. There's a lot of good YouTubers. You're part-time YouTuber. You have stuff on YouTube, I guess. If you've seen my YouTube, it's mostly lost. It's very, it's not. It's carefully. Definitely not higher for content. Yeah. But do you like any particular YouTubers? I could just recommend stuff I've seen. So I got a matter. Got them chess. What does live?

I really like St. Louis chess club. Daniel Naradeski and John Bartholmue. Those are good channels. But is there something you can recommend? No, a little of them are good. You know, the best recommendation I could give is I got a matter. Purely... How much did he pay you to say that? No. So the thing about that is that I haven't really... So I can tell you I've never watched any of his videos from start to finish. I'm not like... 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 I got a matter. And he said like I watched one of his videos. I wanted to know what it was all about. Because I think I got a matter is like the same strengths as my father. Maybe just a little bit weaker like 1900 or something. My father is probably about 2000. And my father has played chess his whole life. 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. That's the best recommendation I could give. That's the only channel that my father actually enjoys. This is hilarious. I talked to him before this to ask him if he has any questions for you. And he said no, just do your thing. No, he's so careful. He wouldn't do that. He did mention jokingly about Evan's gambit. I think is that a thing?

Evan's gambit is some weird thing he made up. It might be an inside joke. I don't know, but he asked me to. Well, anyway. Yeah, I don't even get... It's something he made up. Yeah, I didn't even realize that he placed the Evan's gambit. Like he plays a lot of gambits there. Wait, Evan's gambit is a thing? Yeah, yeah, that's a thing. Okay. Like that's an old opening from the 1800s. Captain Evans, apparently, invented it. Well, he mentioned that particular. Yeah, I don't know.

Something hilarious about that one. I don't know. I don't think I've ever faced the Evan's gambit in a game. I feel like both of you are trolling me right now. But I mean, he's played a lot of other gambits. Maybe this is the one he wanted to mention. Maybe this is called the Evan's gambit as well. But I just know it as the 2G4 gambit. Maybe this is the one. Like this one he has played a bunch. He's been telling me a lot about his games in this line. It's not so bad.

And I'm like, yeah, but you're upon down. But I can sort of see it. I can sort of understand it. And he's proud of the fact that nobody told him to play this line or anything. He came up with it himself. And I'll tell you another story about my father. So there's this line that I call the Henry Carlson line. So at some point, he never knew a lot of openings in chess. But I taught him a couple of openings as black.

It's the Sveshnikovs to Cylin that I played a lot myself also during 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 Ragostan defense. And then so the Ragostan defense goes like this. It's characterized by this Bishop move. And so he would play those so things pretty exclusively as black and the tournaments that he did play. And also the Sveshnikovs to Cylin is like, that's the only two of my sisters play.

I played a bunch of chess tournaments as well. And that's the only opening they know as well. So my family's rapporture is very narrow. So this is the system. Black goes here and then we often wipe takes upon him. So at some point I was watching one of my father's online blitz game. As white he played this. So this is called the Carcon defense. He took the pawn. It was taken by because then he went with the Knights. It's opponent went here and then he played a bishop here.

So I never seen this opening before and I was like, wow. How on earth did he come up with that? And he said, no, I just played the Ragostan with different colors because if the Knights was here it would be the same position. I was like, I never, I was like, how am I like one of the best? That's 20 pairs in the world and I've never thought about that. So I actually started playing this line as white with pretty decent results and it actually became kind of popular.

And everybody who asked about the line, I would always tell them, yeah, that's the Henrik Carlson location. I wouldn't necessarily explain why I was called that. I was just always calling that. But I really hope at some point this line will be, well, fine as it's rightful name. It finds its way into the history books. Can you, what did you learn about life from your dad? What role has your dad playing in your life? He's taught me a lot of things.

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

I was less and less interested in school and for a long time, we were kind of going back and forth, fighting about that, especially my father, but also my mother a little bit. It was a times a little bit difficult. They wanted you to go to school. Yeah, they sort of wanted me to do more school, to have more options. And then I think at some point, they just gave up. But I think that coincided when I was actually starting to make real money of tournaments.

After that, everything's been sort of easy in terms of the family. They've never put any pressure on me or they've never put any demands on me. There's just, yeah, my life has to focus on chess. That's it. I think they taught me in general to be curious about the world and to get a decent general education, not necessarily from school, but just knowing about the world around you and knowing history and being interested in society. 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. This world is a lonely place. It's good to have people around you there like. Yeah. They got your back kind of, you know? Yeah. Basically, Shay, 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 has always been around and it's for that reason that I know he has my back no matter what. Now there's a cliche question here, but let's try to actually get to some deep truths, concepts, 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 reason that involved in chess that's transferable to other things. Can you speak to that in your own life and in general, the kind of reasoning involved with chess? How much is that transfer to life out there? It just helps to make decisions of all kind. 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 have geopolitical thinkers and leaders, Henry Kissinger will often talk about geopolitics as a game of chess or 3D chess. Is that a two oversimplified of a projection? Or do you think that the kind of deliberations you have on the world stage is similar to the kind of decision making you have on the chess board? Well, I'm never trying to get reelected when I play a game of chess. There's no special interest yet to get happy. Yeah, that kind of helps.

No, I can understand that obviously for every action, there's a reaction and you have to calculate far ahead. It would probably be a good thing if more big players on the international scene thought a little bit more like a chess player in that sense, like trying to make good decision based on limited amounts of data rather than thinking about other factors, but it's so tough. But it doesn't know you mean 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, exactly. That they should know that are wrong. So much politics is like, it's, you're often asked to do something when they would be much better to do nothing. Like, no, that happens in chess all the time, like 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 loose. And that happens in politics all the time.

But yeah, just let your opponents continue whatever they're doing. And then you'll, when 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. Just absolute nonsense. I forget what General said, but it was like don't interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake. Yeah, I think there also, um, patroation, um, the former world champion said, um, when your opponent wants to play the Dutch defense, don't stop them.

I mean, chess players will know that it's the same thing. 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 don't play chess or 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 in impressive, first 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. It's 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? It's trying to solve the positions. So Beth, how are the, uh, the main character?

Were you impressed by the play she was doing 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. You know, wait, what were the, what adjectives using universal in the sense that she could play in any, any style? Oh, interesting. And, and was dominant in that way.

And, wow, they said there was a development in style to throughout the show. Yeah, for sure. It was really interesting that 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 to fewer risks. I'm not playing dynamic enough. And then I started to get a little bit better at dynamic.

So that now, um, I would say definitely the most universal player in terms of, um, in terms of style. Are there any skills and chess that are transferable to poker? So as you're playing around poker a little bit now, how fundamentally different of a game is it? What I find the most transferable problem is not like letting past decisions, dictates, if you're sure thinking. Yeah. But in terms of the patterns in the betting strategies and all that kind of stuff, uh, what about bluffing?

Because you might have left way too much. It does seem you enjoy bluffing and, uh, Daniel and the ground will say, yeah, you had it good at it. Uh, but yeah, it has very little material to go by. Sample size is small. Yeah. No, I mean, I enjoy bluffing for, um, the more of the gambling aspects, uh, 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 is some element. Um, but I do enjoy it on, on, on the chessboard.

Like if I am, um, no, that like, oh, I successfully scared away my opponent for making the best move. That's of course satisfying. In that same way, it might be satisfying in poker, right? That you represent something you scare away your opponent. Yeah. And same kind of like, yeah, I know. So like you tell a story, you try and tell a story and then they believe it. Yeah. Tell it tell a story with your betting with your, um, um, all the, uh, different other cues.

Yeah. Do you like the money aspect, the, the betting strategies? So 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's so much freedom to the betting. I'm not very good at that. So I cannot say that I understand it completely. You know, when it comes to different sizing and, well, I know a lot, 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, 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, they're just anything that's non robotic. It's 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 easy because I can back it up. 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 just that I can back it up, which makes it seem that I'm better and also you're even doing it now. You're also being non robotic or not completely a robotic help. Yeah. Yeah. You're not trash talking, just stating facts. That's right. Have you ever considered that there will be trash talking and over the chess board and some of the big tournaments like adding that kind of component or even talking, you know, with that complete distract from the game of chess?

No, I think it could be fun in when people play off-found games, when they play blitz games, like people trash talk all the time. It's a normal part of the game. So you emphasize fun a lot. 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 like the fun has always been increasing, I think. Yeah. Okay. It's always been increasing, but I feel like it's been increasing exponentially.

Yeah. I mean, or at least the importance of fun. But I guess it depends on the society as well. Like in the West, we've had such Christian influence and I mean, Christianity hasn't exactly embraced the concept of fun over time. So actually to push back, I think for bidding certain things kind of makes them more fun. So sometimes I think you need to say, you're not allowed to do this.

And then a lot of people start doing it and then they have fun doing that because it's like a, it's doing a thing in the face of the resistance of the thing. So whenever there's resistance, that does somehow make it more fun. Oppressive regimes has always kind of been kind of good for comedy, no? Like in, no, I hurt. Yes. Supposedly like in the Soviet Union, I don't know about fun, but supposedly comedy, like at least underground, it's, it thrived.

Yeah, there's a, well, no, it permeates the entire culture. There's a dark humor. Yeah, that 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 this, for example, Elon Musk has that 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 happens more often than than it should.

And that's the most 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 the reality we live in. And so emerges the met, the fun maximizer in all walks of life, like in chess, in poker and everything. I think you're skeptical. No, I'm not skeptical. I'm just, I'm just taking it all in. But I find it interesting. I'm not at all implausible. Do you ever get lonely?

Oh, yeah, for sure. Like chess player's life is by definition pretty lonely. 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 difficult for you to find comfort elsewhere. It's in your own mind. Yeah. It's you versus yourself really. Yeah, really. But it's, you know, it's, 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, no, not at all. As long as I'm aware of it, then it's fine. But I don't think the inherent loneliness of my profession really affects the rest of my life in a major way. What role does love play in the human condition in your lonely life of calculation? You know, I'm like everybody else trying, you know, trying to find comfort elsewhere. Trying to find love. No, not necessarily like trying to find love. 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 love in general. So that that has been my approach to love now for quite a while that I'm just trying to live my best life.

And then the love will come when it comes. And in terms of romantic love, it has come and gone in my life. It's not there now. 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 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? Daniel Jostin's song, True Love will find you in the end. Wait, it may or may not.

But he will only find you if, uh, uh, uh, kind of if you're looking. So I guess to be open to it. Yeah. He may or may not. Yeah, yeah. And no matter what, you're going to lose it in the end because it all ends. A whole thing ends. Yeah. So that's it. 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 married or anything like stressing over it is like the blue blueprint for being unhappy. Just to clarify confusion, I have, um, just a quick question. How does the night move? Ha, so the night 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 and open position where it has to move from, from side to side quickly. I am generally more of a bishops guy myself for the old debates. I just prefer quality over the intangibles, but, uh, I can appreciate a good night once in a while. Last simple question. What's the meaning of life? Magnus Carlson. 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.

Yeah. But it's still a great thing. So, um, you 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 in trying to, to find it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

For me, like, 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. And one of those is having a conversation with you. 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're doing this world.

And thank you for creating so much elegance and beauty on the chess board and beyond. So thanks for talking to you, brother. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. And I wanted to say this at the start, but I never 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 you this now after the podcast.

So please do do judge me, but I hope you've enjoyed it. I loved it. You're a brilliant man. And I love the fact they have imposter syndrome because a lot of us do. And so that's beautiful to see even at the very top, but you still feel like an imposter. Thank you, brother. Thanks for talking to me. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Magnus Carlson. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Bobby Fisher.

This 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.