Garry Kasparov: ‘Putin will violate a truce when he finds it convenient, as he did with dozens of others’

The man who in his heyday at the chessboard was nicknamed “the Ogre of Baku” can certainly measure up to that moniker: behind his bushy eyebrows and luminous, yet severe eyes lie a steely determination and an aversion to wasting time. This is evident in his interview responses, which can be sharp and abrupt. But if Garry Kasparov, 61, is expeditious, it is because much is at stake — and not on the chessboard. And so he has learned how to be didactic, even affable. A resident of New York, the man who was world chess champion for two decades is now among the staunchest opponents of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Because of this, he cannot take life for granted. He is under constant surveillance due to security concerns, and cannot even step out into the hallway to have his photo taken for the 15-minute interview. He’ll only leave his room in Barcelona to give a talk at Mobile World Capital’s Talent Arena on artificial intelligence, his old rival that he beat in a game of chess in 1996, only to lose to in a rematch the following year.

Question. Is Putin stronger after the falling-out in the White House between Trump and Zelenskiy?

Answer. Obviously, but I think the underlying story is a bit more complicated. The main instigator of the conflict was J.D. Vance. It’s highly unusual for a vice president to be at a meeting in the Oval Office. I feel that the Trump administration is greatly divided on the issue. You see those who are pushing Trump, and he doesn’t want to resist, to embrace Putin and to make money. There’s clearly people behind Vance like Musk, Donald Trump Jr., Kushner, and others. But you also have kind of a silent group, probably a silent majority, of people like Susie Wiles and Ted Cruz, who can’t accept America becoming an ally with Putin, who say Putin is a criminal, you can’t make a deal with him, we have to make sure Ukraine wins and Putin is defeated.

Q. What does Donald Trump want?

A. Trump has been very soft with Macron and Starmer. He is getting old, he just wants a good TV show. I think Vance was there to make sure that wasn’t going to happen. Vance is the one who provokes Zelenskiy, who made one mistake, in my opinion: he had to ignore Vance. The deal was there, and then Trump was ignited and got really, really angry. Zelenskiy actually tried to correct Vance, who has a great ability to lie, insult people, and not even blink. Like when he was at the Munich Conference and basically looked at Europeans and said, you are irrelevant. They have the same interest as Putin: they want the European Union to be weak.

Q. Europe is already weak.

A. Europe is weak, but Europe is weak by choice, not by definition. Europe has resources, money, manpower, it’s a nexus of history. If it wants to build a strong Europe, it has to start reconsidering many things. For instance, unanimity. If you face enemies and adversaries, you cannot make decisions unanimously, because to find one Trojan horse out of 27 nations is not difficult, like Orban [in Hungary] or Fico [in Slovakia]. Also, you cannot rely on America for security, you have to build your own.

Q. In this new scenario with Trump, what do you think Putin is capable of?

A. Putin is capable of anything, that’s very important to understand. Think about terrible crimes, then multiply them by ten. Prepare for the worst. I don’t know what, exactly, he is capable of, but I can tell you exactly what he is planning to do, simply because I’m listening to what he has been saying. He and his propaganda keep repeating it: in Putin’s world, there is no Ukraine, it’s a bunch of Russians who speak a distorted Russian. The propaganda that is pushing these narratives in Russia starts from kindergarten now. I don’t think he’s read many books, but he knows — it’s like animal instinct — there is no Russian empire without Ukraine. So even if there is a temporary hold of hostilities, there will be no lasting peace. Trump maybe dreaming about it, but for lasting peace, you need some common ground. Putin will violate a truce when he finds it convenient, as he did with dozens of others. The war against the free world will continue. He might be seeing Trump as a useful idiot to help him weaken Europe and weaken NATO, for it to go back to its 1997 borders.

Q. Inside Russia, you are part of the opposition —

A. The what?

Q. The opposition to Putin, what can —

A. What opposition? You’re kidding me. How? It’s Nazi Germany in 1943, Francoist Spain in 1960 — by the way, Franco in 1960 was much less cruel than Putin today. Was there even an opposition in Spain before 1975? Resistance? No, it was a dictatorship. Putin is more like Franco in 1941. People keep repeating the same question about whether the Russian opposition can do something, and meanwhile, Boris Nemtsov was killed, Alexei Navalny was killed, we have thousands of people in jail now just for tweets expressing doubts about the war.

Q. Are you living in fear?

A. Would it help? No. I have to deal with it. This is the motto of Soviet dissidents: do what you must and so be it. Many of my friends and allies have been killed. We are all under potential threats, especially now with Trump being so friendly to Putin. What can I do? To stop talking is not an option.

Q. You have faced Putin and you have faced AI. Which one makes you feel more vulnerable?

A. AI doesn’t threaten my life or livelihood; it offers benefits and great opportunities. I’m very optimistic about the future. Our problem is Putin and other terrorists and dictators. It’s humans who have a monopoly on evil.

Q. Can’t this technology also be used for evil?

A. By whom? Humans. A hammer can be used to build a house or to kill somebody, but you cannot blame the hammer for that. It’s the same as AI, which is of course, a very powerful tool. You can make a nuclear bomb and drop it, or you can make a nuclear power plant and give light and energy to the entire city.

Q. How have your views on AI changed since you played against Deep Blue?

A. I was the first human being to recognize that this relationship has to be about collaboration, not competition. At first, I went through a period of frustration, but then I started to have my current thoughts, which I’ve been promoting for nearly two decades: the future is for us to find the best algorithm to collaborate and to benefit. We are not going to be replaced. It’s more like we’re going to be promoted.

Q. Are there risks in relying too much on AI?

A. We have always relied on data collectors. Now, there’s a temptation to look for advice from ChatGPT. At the end of the day, it’s still your decision. I see technology as something that empowers humanity’s instincts, whether good or bad. It’s like an amplifier. At the end of the day, it shows who we are, like a mirror. You don’t like what you see there, your body is not good? You can either distort the mirror or you can start training.

Q. Do you still play chess?

A. It depends on the definition of “play.” Because for me, play means professional. I still take part in exhibitions, you know, some fun. I call myself, half-jokingly, the strongest amateur on the planet.

Q. Has AI changed the way we play chess?

A. It has a massive influence on chess, as on anything else. On the openings, being more cautious, avoiding sharp lines, not being the immediate victim of someone’s preparation. Many young players, they don’t really view the game of chess in the same way: it’s machine-like, it’s very difficult for them to take their eyes off the screen.

Q. What do you think about the new world champion, Dommaraju Gukesh?

A. He’s very talented, very stubborn, he has great tenacity. But for me, after Magnus [Carlsen, who was world champion from 2013 to 2023, when he declined to defend his title, citing lack of motivation], it was not the same, because I always view the world championship as a match between the two best players, and Magnus is out. I don’t want to undermine Gukesh’s phenomenal accomplishments, but the traditional history of the 16 world champions ended with Magnus. Now it’s a FIDE title, which is perfect, but I don’t think it has the same aura of sanctuary as before, when you had Fischer, Karpov, myself, Anand, Magnus…

Q. And Spassky, who recently died.

A. Exactly. It was like a pantheon. Look, I think chess is making phenomenal progress these days. When you look at the numbers, it’s just insane. You’re talking about hundreds of millions of people playing. I’m very proud, and it’s because of the computers, the technology, the machines that are playing better than humans, but that on the other hand, allow so many millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people to play with their help.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition