Magnus Carlsen: Greatest Chess Player of All Time | Lex Fridman Podcast #315

it is easier. In that sense, well, you are good at all aspects of

chess

, but also your ending is legendary, it baffles experts, so can you stop on that and then try to explain what the hell is going on there? If you look at the sixth game of the previous world championship, the longest game ever played in

chess

was, I think, his queen against your rook. knight with two pawns, yes there are so many options, it's such an interesting little dance and it's not obvious that it wouldn't be a draw, so how do you escape it not being a draw and win that match?

I didn't know. Well, most of the

time

it was a theoretical tie, since chess with seven or fewer pieces on the board is resolved, so you might like people who look online and can just check it, can check it, and can check the called table. base and they were just going to spit out when white would win, black or tie, so I also knew I didn't know that position specifically, but I knew it had to be a tie, so for me it was about staying alert first of all trying of looking for the best way to place my pieces, eh, but yeah, those game endings are a little unusual, they don't happen too often, so what I'm usually good at is 'I'm using my strengths which I also use in middle games is that I evaluate well and calculate short variations quite a bit, even for the endgame, short variations matter, yes, they matter in some simpler endgames, yes, but there are also these theoretical ones.

They end games with very few pieces like rooks, knights and two pawns against queens, but many game endings are defined simply by the exchange of queens and many other pieces left and it is usually not brute force, it is usually more understanding and evaluation and then I can use my strengths, um very good, why are you so good at the end of the game? Aren't there a lot of moves from when the end game starts until it ends and you have some pieces? I have to find out that it is like a sequence of small games that happen as a small pattern, for example how does being able to evaluate a single position lead you to evaluate a long sequence of positions that eventually lead to a checkmate?

Well, I think if you evaluate Well, in the beginning you know what plans to follow and then usually the game from there is usually quite simple, let's say you understand how to organize your pieces and often also how to organize your pawns at beginning of the game, that's all. all the difference and after that is what we call technique very often, which is technique basically means that the movements are simple and these are movements that you know many

player

s could do, not just the strongest ones. These are movements that are understood and unknown, so with assessment you are constantly improving a little bit and that only leads to smothering the position and then eventually wind, as long as you are doing the assessment well in one step. at the same

time

, to a certain extent too, yes, as I said, if you evaluate it better and therefore accumulate some small advantages, then you can, often, you can make your life quite easy, towards the end of the game, so you said in uh 2019 it's kind of the second phase of why you're so good, you did a lot of opening preparation, what's the goal for you of the first chess game?

Is it removing the opponent from any prepared line? I could explain in words why you are so good at openings again. These things have changed a lot over time in the days of Kasparov, for example, he very often gained great advantages in the opening, as White can explain why there were several reasons. because, first of all, he worked harder, he was more creative and found ideas, he was able to look in places where others couldn't. In addition, he had a very strong team of people who had specific strengths in the openings that he could use so that he would propose ideas and integrate them into himself and very often also propose them himself.

In the beginning he had some of the first computer engines that worked for him to define his ideas. Deeper to verify ideas, he used them better than many others. Now I feel like the playing field is much more level. There are computer engines, neural networks, and hybrid engines available to virtually anyone, making it much harder to come up with ideas. Now that that actually gives you an advantage with the white pieces, I mean, people don't expect to find those ideas anymore. Now it's about finding ideas that engines miss, whether they're missed entirely or missed. you failed at shallow depth and you used them to know gain some advantage in the sense that you have more knowledge and you know it's also good to know that usually these are not complete bluffs, they are like semi bluffs so you know that even if your opponent does all the right moves, you can still draw and also at the beginning of 2019, neural networks had just started to exist in chess and, uh, I'm not entirely sure, but there were at least some

player

s even in the main events that you could see you didn't use them or you didn't use them in the right way and then you could get a big advantage because a lot of positions were being evaluated by the neural networks differently than traditional chess engines because they just think. about chess in a very, very different way, the short answer is that these days it's all about surprising your opponent and getting them into a position where you have more knowledge, so is there any sense in which it's okay to make suboptimal moves? between quotation marks?

You have to do it, I mean, you have to do it because the best moves have been analyzed to death for the most part, so it's like when you say sami bluff, it's kind of a sacrifice, you're sacrificing the optimal movement, the optimal position so that you can take the opponent, I mean, that's the theory of the game, yes, you take the opponent to something that he didn't prepare well, yes, but you can also look at it another way, regardless of whether you turn on whatever engine you turn on, if you try. analyze either from the starting position or from the starting position of some popular opening, as if you analyze enough it will always end in a draw, so in that sense you may not go for the target, the attempts that are objectively the most difficult to face, but you know that you are trying to at least look at the less obvious paths.

Well, how much do you use motors? Do you use lilac fish broth in your preparations? My team does it personally. I try not to use them too much. on my own, uh, because I know that when I play, you obviously can't get help from the engines and I often feel like having imperfect knowledge about a position, or some knowledge of the engine, can be much worse than having no knowledge, uh. so I try to look at the engines as little as possible, so yes, for your team to use them to research an idea generation, yes, but you rely mainly on your human resources, yes, surely you can evaluate well, don't leave, Yeah.

I can evaluate as a human, I can tell what they find unpleasant, etc., and it is very common for me, to some extent, but a lot for others, that you get into a position and your opponent makes a move that you didn't make. You weren't expecting it and you know, if you weren't expecting it, you know it's probably not a great move since the engine wasn't expecting it, but if it's not, if it's not obvious why it's not a good move, it's usually very, very It's hard to understand and so looking at the motors doesn't necessarily help because at that point, like you're facing a human, you have to think like a human.

I was chatting with the demonstrable CEO of Deepmind a couple of days ago. and he asked me to ask you what you felt for the first time when he saw the alpha zero game, did you like interesting ideas, some creativity, did you feel afraid that the machine would take over? Were you inspired and what was going on in your life? mind and heart The funny thing about them is that he doesn't play chess at all uh like uh like an ai yeah, he plays in a very, very human way no uh, I was hugely inspired when I saw the games at the beginning um and in terms of man vs machine, I mean the battle was a bit lost for humans even before we got into high level chess so that's never been a problem, for me I never really liked playing against computers so it's completely fine , but that's how it was.

It's amazing to see how they think, quote, about chess in such a different way and in a way that you could mistake for creativity. Confuse with cr. Strong words. Is it incredible to you how many sacrifices he is willing to make? and then wait long periods of time before doing anything with it. It's so strange to you that it's part of chess. No, it's one of the hardest things to replicate as a human too or at least for my play style. when I sacrifice I feel like I'm, you know, I don't do it unless I feel like I'm getting something tangible in return and um like a few moves down the line, a few moves down the line, you can see that you can get the material back or you can put your opponent's king under pressure or having some very specific positional advantage, this makes up for, for example, in chess, so bishops and knights are quite equivalent, we both give them three points, but bishops are a bit better and especially a pair of bishops is much better than a bishop and a knight, so or especially two knights depends on the position, but on average they are like sacrificing a pawn to get a pair of bishops. that's one of the most common sacrifices in general, you're fine doing a second one, yeah I mean it depends on the situation but in general it's fine and there are a lot of openings that are based on that where you sacrifice for the pair of bishops and then eventually it's kind of positional equality, so that's fine, but the way alpha zero would sacrifice a knight or sometimes two pawns, three pawns, and you could see that he's looking for some kind of positional dominance, but It's hard to understand and it is.

It was really fascinating to see, yes, in 2019, I was sacrificing a lot of puns, especially and it was a great joy, unfortunately, it's not so easy to continue doing it, people have found stronger opening lines since that gift. I'm not allowed to do that since I'm often still trying to get those positions and I'm still trying to learn the art of sacrificing pieces, so Demis also made a comment that was interesting to my new chess brain, which is one. One of the reasons chess is fun is because of the creative tension between the bishop and the knight, so you're talking about this interesting difference between two pieces that there's some kind of how you would convert, I mean, it's like a poetic statement. .

About chess, I think he said: Why has chess been played for so long? Why is it so fun to play at all levels? If you can boil it down to one thing, it's the bishop and the knight, a kind of strange dynamic they create in chess. Is there any truth to that? Sounds really good. I haven't tried many other games, but I tried to play a bit of shogi, and to my newbie shogi brain, I compare it to chess. What bothered me? The game is how much the pieces suck, you basically have a rook and a bishop that move like in chess and the rest of the pieces aren't really very powerful, so I think that's one of the attractions of chess, as powerful which is especially the queen. which is interesting, I think it makes it a lot of fun.

Do you think power is more fun than variety? No, there is also variety in chess, although not much more than, of course, everyone moves in different ways. they're all weird, there's just all these weird patterns and positions that can come up, the difference in the pieces creates all kinds of interesting dynamics, I guess that's what I'm trying to say, yeah, and I think it's pretty fascinating that all those years Years ago they created the knight and the bishop without probably realizing that they would be almost equally strong with such different qualities. Yeah, it's crazy that you know that when you design computer games.

It's like an art form. It is a science and an art. Balance it, you know, you talk about Starcraft and all those games so that you can have a competitive game at the highest level with all those different units and in the case of chess they are different pieces and somehow they designed a game that was super competitive, but there are Probably some kind of natural selection that the chest just wouldn't last if it was poorly designed, yes, and I think the rules have changed a bit over time, but it would be, talking about games and all. interested in playing other games like chess 960 or fisher random as they call it that you have 960 maps instead of one yes for people who don't know a fisher 960 random chest yes that basically means the pawns are in de the same way and the main pieces are randomly distributed on the back rank, only there obviously have to be opposite colored bishops and the king has to be between the rooks so you can castle both ways, oh you can still castle. and you can still castle, but it makes it interesting, so you still have it, it still castles the same way, so let's say the king says, yeah, what happens in that case?

Yeah, let's say the king is in the corner, then, to castle this. side you have, you have toclearing a bunch of pieces, no, the king would go here and the rook would go there, oh okay, and that's happened in my games too, like if I forgot about castling, uh, and it would be like attacking a king. over here and then everything suddenly runs away to the other side, I think Fisher's chess is good because the maps will generally be worse than normal chests, I think the starting position is as close to ideal as possible to create a competitive game, but They will still be interesting and diverse enough that you can play very, very interesting games, so when you say maps, there are 960 different options and what fraction of that creates interesting games at the highest level and this is something that a lot of people are curious about .

It's about because, when you challenge a great chess player like yourself to look at a random starting position, it seems to push you to play pure chess instead of live memorization, yes, sure, but that's the idea, yes, that is what you want. and uh, how hard is it to play? I mean, can you talk about what it feels like to play with a random starting position? Is there an intuition you've been developing? It's very, very different and I mean, understandably, the engines have a bigger advantage in 960 than they do in classical chess, no, it's super interesting and that's why I also really want us to play more classical chess, like long games. four to seven hours, and in fish random chess chest 960 because then you really need that time even in the first moves, what usually happens is that they come to you 15 minutes before the game, they tell you the position 15 minutes before the game and then you can think about it a little bit, even you know it. check the computer, but that's all the time you have, but then you really need to figure it out, so some of the positions are obviously a lot more interesting than the others, in some of them it seems that if you don't play symmetrically at the beginning then you'll probably be in a pretty bad position, what do you mean by pawns? with pawns, yes, why, that's the thing about chess, so let's say white opens with e4, which is which.

It has always been the most played move, there are many ways to do it, but the strongest way to play has always been the symmetrical response, yes, with the e5 and then there is the real Lopez, there is the Petrov opening and so on. If you just banned first-move symmetry in chess, you'd get more interesting games, oh, interesting, or you'd get more decisive, um decisive games, so the nice thing about chess is that we've been playing it for so long that we've actually played it. devised. non-symmetrical openings that are also quite equal and symmetry is a good default option, but yes, symmetry is a good default option and it is a problem that playing symmetrical armed with good preparation in normal chess is too easy to do, huh , it's a little too dry and um, I guess if you analyzed a lot on just 960, then um, um, a lot of the position would end up being pretty even too, um, but because the random starting point sucks, you're forced to, you're actually forced to play symmetrically, like you can't try to play in a more interesting, interesting way, are there any other kinds of variations that are interesting to you?

Oh yes, there are several, so there is no castling. Chess has been promoted by the former world champion Vladimir Kramnik, there have been some tournaments in which I have not participated in any, although I like it, also my coach uses a lot of non-castling engines to analyze regularity. positions to just get a different perspective different um so castling is like a defensive thing so if you take away castling it forces you to be more offensive that's why yeah just yeah for sure um it seems like I think it's going to be different um probably no castling force you to be a little more defensive at the beginning or I guess so, because you can't suddenly escape with the kings, that will make the game a little slower at the beginning, but I feel like eventually it is This will make more games more um uh well, less draws for sure, then you have some weirder variants, like where the pawns can move both diagonally and forward and you also have self-captured chests, which is quite interesting so that your pawns can either commit suicide or yeah, the people can, why would it be useful?

A good move. No, sometimes one of your pieces occupies a square, I mean, let me set a position, let's put it like this, for example, like here, I mean there is. many ways to checkmate for white like this, for example, or there are several ways, um, but like this it would be uh, it would be great for people who are just listening, yeah, basically, you're bringing a knight close to the whole the king, queen and so on, yeah, and you replace the knight with a queen, yeah, that's interesting, so you have a front of pieces and then you just replace them with the second one, yeah, that's cool, I mean, I could to be interesting.

I think also, sometimes, in your just authorization, you basically add an additional element of authorization, so I think there are many, many, different variants, I don't think any of them are better than the one that's been played, at least. thousand years old, but it's certainly interesting to watch, so one of your goals is to reach the power elo chest rating of 2,900. Maybe you can comment on how this rating is calculated and what it takes to get there. It's possible? for a human being to get there, you basically play with a factor of 10, which means that if I were to play against an opponent who has the same rating as me, I would be expected to score fifty percent, obviously, and that means I would win. five points with a win and lose five points with a draw and then the same if I draw if your opponent has 200 points less rating you are expected to get 75 and so on and you establish that rating by playing many people and then it slowly converges towards an estimate of the probability of you winning or losing against the spreads, yes, and my rating is obviously carried out over thousands of games.

Right now my rating is 28 61, which is decent, I think more or less. corresponds to the level I have at the moment, which means that to reach 2900 I would have to improve at chess, which I think is quite difficult, or do at least considerably better, so what I would have to do is try and optimize still more in terms of matchup preparations, everything, but not necessarily like selecting tournaments, etc., but just optimizing in terms of preparation, like making sure that I will never have bad days and you can basically not lose, yeah, basically I can't ever screw it up, uh, if I want to, if I want to reach that goal, so I think getting to 2900 is pretty unlikely, the reason I set the goal is to have something to play for.

I would like to have a motivation to try to do my best when I play because otherwise I play to some extent mainly for fun these days. That's what I love to play, I love trying to win, but I don't. I have a lot to uh, I don't have a lot to prove or anything, but that gives me at least the motivation to try and try to be in my best shape all the time, which I think is something to aspire to. Right now I'm quite enjoying that process of um uh of trying to um yeah, trying to optimize what you would say motivates you in this now and in the years leading up to now the love of winning or the fear of losing for the world. championship, it has been fair to lose other tournaments, the love of winning is a big factor and that is why I am also happier to win most of the tournaments than to win the world championship, because then it has mainly been a relief, I also think I enjoy win more now than before because I feel like I'm a little more relaxed now and I also know it's not going to last forever, so every little victory I appreciate, I appreciate a lot more every now and then.

Yeah, in terms of fear of losing, that's a big reason why I'm not going to play the world championship because, uh, it didn't really bring me much joy, it was really about avoiding losing, why is it that the championship World Cup really makes you feel that way, the anxiety, and when you say losing, do you mean not just one match, but every position, like no, it's just the fear of a mistake? No, I mean the mistake is fine, like when I sit down. on the board so everything has been good because then I focused on what I have, then I focused on the game and I know that I can play the game, it's an in-between moment, like knowing that you know I feel like losing is not an option because it's the world championship and since in a world championship there are two players, there is a winner and a loser, if I don't win a random tournament that I play, then you know I usually am.

It depends on the tournament, I may be disappointed, I may even get quite angry, but in the end you know that you go to the next one with the world championship and you don't go to the next one, it's like it's been years, yes, and it has been too. Like it's been a central part of my identity for a while now that I'm a world champion and therefore there's not an option to lose that, yeah, yeah, you're going to have to carry the weight of it for at least a couple of years. having lost you are the former world champion now if you lose against the current world champion there are certain sports that create that anxiety and others that do not, for example, I think that UFC like mixed martial arts are a little better with losing, it is understood how everyone loses but not all, although not all, not all, not all, yes, you could lean towards the chat, but in boxing there is that extra pressure of maintaining the championship, I mean, maybe the same could be said about the UFC too. for you personally for a person who loves chess the first time you won the world championship that was the big thing that was the fun yeah and then everything after that is stressful yeah uh essentially there was stress uh involved the first time too, but it was nothing compared to the others, so the only world championship after that that I really enjoyed was the one in 2018 against the American Fabiano Corona and what that made it different is that he had been in a bit of a slump. for a while and had been increasing, so our ratings were very similar, they were so close that if at any point during the match he had lost the game, he would have been ranked number one in the world.

Our ratings were so close that in every tie they didn't budge and the game itself was close, yes the games themselves were very close. I had a winning position in the first game where I couldn't really get anywhere for a long time. games and he had a couple of games where he potentially could have won, then in the last game I was a little bit better and finally there they were, everyone was tied, but I felt like this is an interesting match. against an opponent who is in this position, at this point he is equal to me, so losing wouldn't have been a disaster because in every other match I would know I would have lost against someone I know.

I'm much better than and that would be much harder for me to accept, well that's fascinating and beautiful, the stress doesn't come from losing this because you have fun, you enjoy playing against someone who is as good as you, it might be better. that you, that's exciting for you, yeah, uh, it's, it's, losing at these high stakes, something that rarely happens to a person who's not as good as you, yeah, and that's why it's also been incredibly frustrating in other games, like when I know when we play a tie. after the draw and I can just know I'm better I can feel during the game that I understand it better than them but I can't you know I can't get over the hurdle so you're the best chess player in the world and not playing the world championship really makes that the world championship doesn't seem important or I mean, there's an argument that can be made for that.

Is there anything you would like to see if you had a change to the world championship that would make it more fun for you? better for the game of chess for everyone involved so I think 12 games or now 14 games that there are for the world championship is a pretty low sample size if you want to determine who is the best player or at least the best player in Para that particular matchup, you need more games and I think to some extent, if you're going to have a world champion and you call him the best players, the best player that you have, you need to make sure that the format increases the chances of finding the best players.

So I think having more games and if you're going to have a lot more games than necessary then you need to tone down the time control a little bit, which in turn I think is also a good thing because in very long time controls with deep controls. preparation you can mask a lot of your shortcomings as a chess player because you have a lot of time to think and defend and also yes you have deep preparation so I think that would be for me to play. those would be the main, the main, the main things, more games and less time, so you want to see more games and rules that emphasize pure chess, yes, but less time emphasizes pure chess because, um, defensive techniques are much more difficult to execute.

With a little time, do you think there is a sweet spot in terms of we areThey should know they are wrong. It's wrong and so much politics is like yes, they often ask you to do something, when it would be much better to do nothing, eh, no, but that happens in chess all the time, like you have a choice as I often tell people that in certain situations you shouldn't try to win you should just let your opponent lose and that happens in politics all the time yes just let your opponents get on with what they are doing and then you will win don't try to do something just to do it something they often say in chess that having a bad plan is better than having no plan at all, it's absolute nonsense, I forgot what it's general I said it, but it was like not interrupting your enemy when he's making a mistake, yeah I think which also, um, skipper, the former world champion said, um, when your opponent wants to play with the Dutch defense, don't stop them, I mean chess. the players will know it's the same actually this reminds me if there's anything that you found really impressive about the Queen's Gambit the TV show you know that's one of the things that really captured the public's imagination about chess people don't play to chess or became very curious about the game about the beauty of the game the drama of the game all those kinds of things are there in terms of precision in terms of the actual games played that you found impressive in the first place they made the chess they made the chess while doing it accurately and also found real games and positions that I had never seen before, which really captivated me.

I wouldn't follow the story sometimes I was just trying to surprise, where the hell did I find that game I was trying to solve? the positions, so, Beth Harmon, uh, the main character, were you impressed with the play she was doing? Was there a particular style that you developed consistently, but she was right at the end? It was totally universal as at the beginning. She was probably too aggressive but no, she was absolutely universal, you know, wait, what were the adjectives you're using universal in the sense that she could play in any style? Oh interesting and she was dominant that way, so wow, they said. there was also a development in style throughout the show yeah it sure is really interesting they did it they did it yeah and actually it happened with me a little bit too as I started off really aggressive and then probably got too much technical at some point taking a very few risks, I'm not playing dynamic enough and then I started to improve a little bit in dynamics, so now I would say I'm definitely the most universal player in terms of style, is there any skill? in chess that are transferable to poker, so while you play a little bit with poker, how fundamentally different this game is, what I find most transferable is probably not like letting past decisions dictate future thinking, yes, but in terms of patterns in betting strategies and all that kind of stuff uh what about bluffing?

Because I've left too much. It seems like you like to bluff and uh, daniel negrono was saying yes, you're not very good at it, uh, but yeah. It has very little material where the sample size is small, yeah, no, I mean, I enjoy bluffing, the more aspects of the game, the more excitement, so it's not the technical aspect of bluffing like you would do on the board. chess, not bluffing in the same sense, but there is some element, um, but I enjoy it on the chess board, like I know that, oh, I successfully scared my opponent by making the best move, that of course is satisfying, Likewise, it could be satisfying in poker, right? represent something, you scare your opponent, yeah, same thing, like, yeah, and also like you tell a story, you try to tell a story and then they believe it, yeah, tell a story with your bets, with your um, all the other different signs, yes.

You like the money aspect and the betting strategies, so it's like it's almost like another layer on top, like it's the uncertainty in the cards, but in betting there's so much freedom to bet, I'm not very good at it. So I can't say I fully understand it. You know, when it comes to different sizes and well, I just haven't studied it enough. To what extent is luck a part of poker? Would you say, from what you've seen, versus skill? I mean, it's very different in the sense that you can be one of the best players in the world and lose two or three years in a row without that being a massive outlier.

Okay, what more than one person told me. You're very good at talking trash. I don't think there are many people who make those observations about me. I think they expect very, very little, so they expect from the best chess player in the world. Yeah, just whatever. Non-robotic is also interesting when it comes to trash talking as I have the biggest advantage in the world that I am the best at what I do so trash talking becomes very very very easy because I can back it up yeah yes, but Many people who are extremely good at some things don't talk trash and are 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 like I'm better and plus you're doing it now, plus you're not robotic or you're not completely robotic, yeah, yeah, you're not talking trash. , you are just stating correct facts, have you ever considered that? uh there will be trash talk and about the chess board and some of the big tournaments like adding that kind of component or even talking, you know, that would completely distract the attention of the chess player, no, I think it could be fun and when the people play Fan games when they play blitz games like people talk trash all the time, it's a normal part of the game so you emphasize fun a lot.

Do you think we're living inside a simulation that tries to maximize fun, but that's just it? This has been going on for the last 100 years or so, no, it's like fun has always been increasing, I think so, okay, it's always been increasing, but I feel like it's been increasing exponentially, yeah, I mean to the importance, or at least the, of fun, but I guess so. It depends on society, just like in the West, we've had so much Christian influence and I mean, Christianity hasn't exactly embraced the concept of fun over time, so well, actually, to reject, I think banning certain things. makes more It's 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 it because it's like, um, it's doing something in the face of resistance from the What it is like is that every time there is resistance that somehow makes it funnier, oppressive regimes have always been good for comedy no, as I heard, yes, supposedly like in the Soviet Union, I don't know about fun, but supposedly comedy like at least underground. it's true, yes, there is a well, no, it permeates the entire culture, there is a dark humor, yes, that kind of cruelty, the absurdity of life really highlights the humor among the populists and the vodka on top of that, but this idea that, for example, Elon Musk says that, um, the most entertaining outcome was the most likely, which seems like the most absurd, dumbest, funniest thing the thing seems to be, so it happens more often than it should and it's something that goes viral in our modern connected world, etc. the funny things that memes spread and then we start optimizing for the funny meme which seems to be a fundamental property of the reality we live in and thus the fun maximizer emerges in all areas of life, like in chess. in poker and all that I think you're skeptical no, I'm not skeptical uh, I'm just taking it all in, uh, but I find it interesting and not at all impossible, do you ever feel alone, oh yeah?

Sure the life of a chess player is by definition quite lonely because you have no one else to blame except yourself when you lose or don't achieve the results you want to achieve it is difficult for you to find solace anywhere else it is in your own mind, yes, it's you against yourself, really, yes, really, but it's, you know, it's part of the profession, but I think any sport or activity is where it's just you and your own mind, by definition, You're only worried about that. It destroys you, oh not at all, as long as I'm aware of it then it's fine and I don't think the loneliness inherent in my profession really affects the rest of my life in any major way.

What role does love play? in the human condition in your lonely life of calculation you know I'm just like everyone else uh trying uh you know trying to find love not necessarily like trying to find love sometimes I am sometimes I'm not I'm not alone Trying to find my way, Yeah, and my love for the game obviously comes and goes a little bit, but there's always at least some level of love, so that 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 and also make you more receptive to love in general, so that's been my approach to love for quite some time now and I'm just trying to live. my best life and then love will come uh when it comes and in terms of romantic love it's come and gone in my life it's not there now uh but I'm not worried about that, I'm more worried You know, I'm not worried, but rather trying to be a good version of myself.

I can't always be the best version of myself, but at least I try to be good, yeah, and keep my heart open. What is this song by uh danielle johnston, true love? he will find you in the end no, he may or may not, but he will only find you if uh oh fuck, how are you doing if you look like that? You have to be open to it, yes, it may or may not, yes, yes, and it doesn't matter what you're going to lose in the end because everything ends, everything ends, yes, yes, so I don't think I'll stress about it, obviously it's so human that you can't help it to a certain extent, but I feel like like stressing about love, that's the model for determining whether you're looking or you're not looking or you're in a relationship or marriage or anything like stressing about that's like the blue model to be unhappy uh just to clear up the confusion.

I have a quick question, how do you move the night so the knight moves in a lum and unlike shogi you can move back and forth? It is a fairly agile piece, it can jump over everything, but it is less happy in the open position, where it has to move from side to side quickly. I'm generally more of a bishops guy for the old debate. I just prefer quality over intangibles, but I can appreciate a good night every once in a while. Last simple question: what is the meaning of life?

magnus

carlsen

obviously life has no meaning it's that obvious I think we're here by accident it doesn't make sense it ends at some point yes but it's still a great thing so yes you can still have fun even if I'm not there yes you can Still So, have fun, you can try to pursue your goals, whatever they may be, but I'm pretty sure there's no special meaning and trying to find it doesn't make much sense to me either, like life has no meaning. and meaningful for just being here trying to make the most of it not necessarily the most but the things that make you happy both short term and long term yeah it seems to be full of interesting things to enjoy it certainly does and uh one of that it's having a conversation with you uh

magnus

it's a great honor to talk to you thank you so much for spending this time with me I can't wait to see what you do in this world and thank you for creating so much elegance and beauty on the chess board and beyond so thank you for speaking today brother, thank you so much, thank you for having me, uh and uh, I wanted to say this at first, but I never got the chance.

I was always a little apprehensive about doing this

podcast

because You're a very smart guy and your audience is very smart and I always had a little bit of imposter syndrome, so I'll tell you this now after the

podcast

, so please judge me, but I hope that you enjoyed it. I loved. You are a brilliant man and I love the fact that you have imposter syndrome because so many of us do and it's beautiful to see even at the top. Do you still feel like an imposter? Ah, thanks brother, thanks for speaking today, thanks. for listening to this conversation with magnus carlson to support this podcast check out our sponsors in the description and now let me leave you with some words from bobby fisher chess is a war on the board the goal is to crush the opponent's mind thanks for listening and hope to see you next time.