hi everybody and welcome to in good company.

today we are incredibly honored to have a guest who needs very little introduction, Magnus Carlson, the highest rated chess player in history.

and today we're going to talk about business or actually we're going to talk a bit about what we as investors can learn from chess and from humongus.

very welcome.

thank you very much.

now um during um the second world war in uh Britain uh pretty much every chess expert were recruited to the ultra project which was basically cracking cods used by the Nazis.

and so there's been this assumption that uh brilliant chess minds are brilliant at everything and I was just wondering uh what do you think we in business can learn from chess?

it's um funny you should mention that cuz um my uh father's parents uh they were born uh before the war they were very much into everything that's American and English because um that those were sort of what they saw as the victors of the war.

but one of the books they had at home which um they recommended to me at an early AG it was called uh K Ultra I think a translation for to Norwegian about how they cracked the Enigma code.

but I didn't know until the time of the um imitation game movie that actually chess players were involved in that so that angle I didn't really know.

um I also know that at some point I don't know exactly which but there was at least one hedge fund on Wall Street that was actively recruiting chess players and I think at least a couple of people made a really good career from from that.

but I think playing chess at an early age certainly teaches you to solve complex problems in a limited amount of time.

continuing to only play chess probably will not get you far in business but I think it's a it's a good it's a good start.

now um when we invest we use um intuition quite a bit right or we typically call it pattern recognition.

we we find it useful when the situation is complex when we have a lot of experience and when we've seen similar situations before so pretty much bang in line with what you are doing in in Blitz.

how do you look at your intuition versus analysis just how how do you think about the trade-off or E Trade of?

I think chess players when you've when you play chess professionally at a high level your brain is really trained to narrow the search uh and to use intuition because you know there is a limited amount of time.

so you're trained to recognize patterns and sort of make these quick quick decisions.

uh and I think I am very much the type of player who uses that more than than than others.

I can certainly calculate make deeper decisions based on deeper analysis but it is not necessarily my forte.

usually when I lose games it's because people have looked deeply at something that I've intuitively sort of um discarded.

and I guess that's a way you can get an edge and in business as well for sure.

um but do you use intuition to figure out which directions to analyze more or um?

absolutely I use my intuition.

so how many do you end up with so you use your intuition you you then think about how many different Alternatives?

I would say as a rule if I think about more than three Alternatives I'm clueless.

then I've uh then I've probably then I'm probably not happy with any of them.

um usually I think about two Alternatives of what to do and I usually have a bias uh towards one of them but I try and cut that out as much as I can uh and try and look at both Alternatives objectively.

and then again if both of them don't satisfy me I might look at a third.

I I heard you somewhere say that you you felt that you didn't add much value after 10 15 minutes.

I think after 10 15 minutes um that's when you first of all it's hard for our minds to to have the level of concentration that you need for much longer than that.

but I think you usually start looking pretty widely at diff at other Alternatives and sometimes they can load somewhere but usually they um they don't.

so yeah I would say for for a fairly deep think about 15 minutes is probably is probably a good time.

well we we we often see people who overanalyze situations.

so if you were to go on after 15 minutes what would happen then?

after 15 minutes I'll probably be widening the search and or just end up going in circles.

um so I probably would not add too much value after that.

and um I might end up cuz my thought process is not that um it's a bit chaotic so I might end up um playing a move that I that I was considering earlier and then I forgot why it was not good because it's it was 20 minutes ago and my brain had just processed a lot of information that since that time so I forgotten a crucial um crucial detail.

a lot of things can go wrong if you think for too long that's for sure.

well what we see often in inves thing is that if you spend too much time on it you become more certain but not it but the decision doesn't improve.

I think that's a very G good way to to put it actually.

um and U that's that's true that often if I'm not a professionist in chess I am a practical player.

I want to um I want to get as good result as possible and then know that I I have limited limited time.

uh but you see a lot of perfectionists they think for 45 minutes and they end up making an obvious move that they certainly considered from the from the get-go.

so I think there is certainly something in that.

I'm just a slightly personal that I mean you you are the number one uh you know player in the world and you've already uh characterize your thinking as chaotic and uh you're not the perfectionist.

so how do you how do you tell you this?

so I am I I want to learn and I want to get as good at chess as possible.

so I mean saying I'm not a perfectionist is slightly inaccurate it but it is in the sense that I will not sort of widen my search in order to make sure that I don't miss anything from from the get-go uh or at least I will rarely do that because I know it's not an effective usage of my time.

I think for everything in life if if we had unlimited time to make decisions we would make them quite differently but there's always this element of yeah I I have to make a decision at some point.

now in investing we it's about uh long-term strategy and so on.

how how long term how long term can you be how how far ahead do you think?

so when you start out how many moves have you thought about?

openings you usually have something something prepared but after that you have a general idea of what plants you want to you want to use what pawn structures are good what pieces would be good in those structures so with these patterns you can you can plan quite far ahead in in terms of what what do you want to achieve and where you eventually think you might um win the game so you always look far ahead but then you also have an opponent who constantly tries to ruin your plans so you have all the time you have both things in mind shortterm and long-term planning.

when when do you find chess easy and when do you find it hard?

I find chess easy when I can sort of play with flow when when the first thought that comes into my head is usually the right one then that's that's when it's uh that's when it it when it's easy when I'm always when I'm not when I'm on the front foot when I'm not reacting to what my opponent is doing that's like that's really U really important like very sure sign of bad form is that you uh um you see um your opponent's threats sort of before you see your own response because they should be uh they should sort of come at the same same time but yeah CH it's just easy when I can play with intuition that's a simple simple answer.

now in in chess you have uh perfect information.

what do you think would have happened if uh you didn't have perfect information like in like in business?

so chess is unique in the sense that it's you have perfect information but it's still very difficult.

so I sort of think about it in the way that we are well informed we all sort of have the same tools but it's about how you use those those tools and the information um that you have.

so yes we do have perfect information but I I I sort of I I don't see it that way cuz uh you still cannot you still cannot calculate every um every possibility.

but you also play poker a bit uh I also yeah I I've played a bit of Poker for sure yeah um where there is an element of John uh uh yeah that's annoying part that's the annoying part of playing playing poker.

um I think that games like poker are different are interesting in a in a different sense.

but what I feel is that the best players now they play in a different way so they play in a less uh exploitative style so they sort of treat the game as if everybody has the the same information rather than um they try and sort of create their game against uh as something that doesn't really depend on their um opponents in the in the in the end like they the game play is not that different I would say.

moving on to risk so um when do you decide to play conservatively and when do you play more risky?

my level of aggressiveness risk taking in a game uh depends a lot on the tournament situation but also on my opponents.

against more passive opponents people who play solidly who are risk averse I will naturally take more risks and vice vice versa.

um if I know I'm playing a very aggressive opponent I might take a more cautious approach.

why?

um because I think that I don't need to create imbalance in the game my opponent will create that balance imbalance.

and I generally believe that imbalance in the game in the long run is it's good for me.

of course in the short term it can be it can be dangerous but um in the long run it's it's going to yield me uh the best results because they they will fail.

uh because um because if the games are more imbalance they will there will be more decisive games fewer draws and since I was generally make better decisions in those situations I will I will come up out on top.

um if you see another scenaria where people play really really solidly then I probably will have to take more risks in order to get chances to win and then I might sometimes overstretch.

so I I I I feel like people who are really solid but also are good at counterattacking taking their chances like you not you cannot be solid without the threat of Counterattack.

and it's it's a surprising amount of people who are solid but with little counter attacking threat but the counter attackers those I feel are are the most dangerous for sure.

how can you calibrate this before the game how you how can you calibrate opponent's risk tolerance?

it comes down a lot to opening choices um whether you want to steer the game into more quiet Waters.

sometimes how long you want there to be an element of computer preparation maybe.

if you if you're playing a risk averse opponent you will take them out of book so to say from the from the from the opening stage to force them to make difficult High uh High leverage decisions as early as possible.

has has your attitude to towards risk um changed a lot with age?

I think uh my attitude hasn't changed changed that much.

I probably gotten better in general at assessing sort of what is what is the appropriate amount of risk to take at times but then you also counterbalance that with sort of youthful um youthful Spirit which makes it Tak take a bit more risk.

and I I think it sort of ended up more or less in the same way.

I'm certainly more conscious of these of these things now um I try and balance them more but I think I end up in more or less the same spot.

moving on to to teams so um you you have a you have a team who helps you prepare right um what uh how does a teamw work?

uh so right now I don't have a big team.

I've had different people working for me in the past but now I have my main coach Peter.

um who has been helping me I've known him for 20 years and he's been my main coach now for 11.

for him it's mainly about computer preparation finding new ideas which is becoming more and more difficult um and basically providing me with a bit of a choice so I can I can decide what to do against um certain opponents and and that I I could sort of take it in in um in different directions.

so what happens so so let so a work day when do you when do you go to work?

I honestly I don't do very much these days in terms of um preparation.

I mainly play and prepare prepare for the games.

I look at chess all the time in the sense that I'm always studying the uh the newest games and and playing for practice but I don't sit down in the morning and think I'm going to do this this and this.

that's sort of what my my coach does that he works on something new every day.

um does he find that out himself or you steer him?

uh sometimes I steer him sometimes he will start out working on something uh and then I will you know I will look at it see whether I like it or not.

but generally he's a lot better at this than I am uh and he also like he knows my preferences in general uh so he generally has an idea of of how to to do this.

but honestly I F I find the analysis opening analysis bit I don't find it that interesting it's more of a necessary thing to be able to to get uh new positions and to get situations where you can sort of prove your playing strength but I don't find it particularly interesting in itself so I'm really happy to to sort of delegate that in general.

but when you say he's better at it than you are better at what?

uh he's better at using at using computer engines to find new ideas basically using different engines um and comparing them um trying trying to go sort of a bit deeper in directions that the computer doesn't necessarily show at first trying to find ways that I can play where I sort of increase my opponent's risk more than than mine like where I can take risks but not not unacceptable risks but it is is is really getting it's really getting much more difficult.

if we were talking about this 15 years ago his he was doing the same job 15 years ago but for Anan who was a world championship back then and I think he'll tell you that his job was a whole lot easier then um it's getting very very very difficult.

what's what's getting more difficult to find New Alternatives?

yeah uh basically you have you can look at it in a in in the way that you have a market that's much better informed now and the people are using more or less the same tools um so it's much much harder to find to find an edge.

did you train differently and prepare differently let's say 10 15 years ago from about 14 to 11 years ago?

uh I didn't really have a coach uh I was generally I had some I had training camps with people but I was mostly doing this stuff on on my own but it was not nearly as deep as what is being done now and I think also back then it was easier to get by with playing worse openings.

um basically now everybody sort of knows everything there have been new ways that have been discovered that makes it so much more difficult um to to get a game so uh I think I could get by then I could not get by now without um without proper analysis.

was it more fun in the past the game?

yeah um so I think for improving chess players having access to all this information at an early age at an early stage is great it's great to get you at a higher level earlier.

they used to say that back in the day like in order to learn a new opening that takes a month now even top players can just turn on their computer engine um by an opening course and within five hours like you can know like if of course if you like if you have the understanding and so on like you can you can pretty much know these things pretty well so um yeah it's just a it's just a different diff it's just a different age.

I think computer engines have been great for spectating chess but for the players yeah it's made it more difficult.

does that mean that there are different types of personalities which will do well in chess going forward what do you think?

so for now I consider myself kind of a hybrid generation since I did grow up with computers but I would I was not reliant on them.

I was still using a lot of time with the chess board and chess books as well.

I think we're seeing the first generation now of like pure computer kids uh and they play chess in in a less pragmatic uh sorry less dogmatic um more sort of computer based way in that they are less intuition based and so much more um sort of Brute Force calculation um so it's going to be interesting to see if this sort of new type of chess player beats the the older ones um that are more like me that are more based on on uh on F.

do you you think would have implications for which countries dominate the game?

I think we're already seeing uh a generation now of Indian players obviously there are huge individual differences but what most of them have in common is that their calculation is extremely good even those players who have zero understanding of the game and they're inter in or Z in zero understanding I'm generally mean that their intuition is not that good they calculates so well that with longer time controls they can still get by and give even people like me a really really hard time.

what about China?

Chinese players are are a bit different it's it's hard to say I feel like there's a bigger variety within uh Chinese players.

you have some players who are a bit of the same as the uh as the Indians but you also have others who have completely different styles.

you have the um world champion right now ding who's well he's not doing great at the moment but at his Peak he was like an incredible um intuitive Dynamic player uh so um yeah defin definitely um very different styles there.

any talent in this country?

there are definitely a lot of people who are very en enthusiastic and about Chess and are talented as well in terms of whether anybody's going to become uh the new miners sort of or world champion one day that's probably going to be hard especially since we don't have the numbers that countries like India have um but I don't find that as important.

I want people to um enjoy chess learn it at an early age so that you can have joy of it your life and if it can teach you other skills as well then that's even better.

moving on to um to learning so after um becoming World Champion in 2013 you said uh I'm still far away from really knowing chess really there is still much I can learn and there is much I still don't understand.

how do you feel about that now?

well I wish I could say something no actually I don't wish because that that would be woring.

um I would look at the way that I played 10 years ago and think that I was coolest about a lot of things.

I I think I play better now but then also other people play better so my results are not necessarily better.

um but I feel like I'm still learning all the time.

um I don't think I'm at a point in in my career where where I will drastically change the way that I play but I do feel that my understanding of certain ideas certain positions is always evolving.

what was the setback you learned the most from when it comes to chess?

I've always been very optimistic almost blindly so.

so I've had I think two like two and have specific periods of my chess career where I've stagnated or even gone a bit back.

um they were all before the the age of 19 and during those times I always kept a very positive mindset.

I always had pretty much delusional idea ideas of what was going on.

I always thought that this is going to turn around next game next tournament.

I probably gained a rating that was a bit higher than my actual level so I was like trying to push really hard um to play towards that level.

um and maybe I was taking I was taking too many risks I was forcing a bit but I always thought like next time next game next tournament.

and then all of a sudden it turned around and that's what H happened every single every single time.

that I just needed like one good moment and then I believed that everything was going to be going to be great again.

and ever since then I've certainly had bad tournaments I've had like two three months periods where I don't play but I've sort of kept the same mindset most of the time that overall I think I'm really good at this and it's going to turn around.

um so I haven't really had that one moment in a big tournament in a in a championship where I'm thinking like this is going to take some time to recover from it's always gone like remarkably remarkably well.

well this interesting this positivism you know positive people also make more money.

I always think I've always thought in chess that the right balance is somewhere between optimistic and delusional that's where you're going.

what do what do you mean by delusional here?

uh you have people in chess who are like absolutely delusional optimists like uh former World Championship kramnick.

um whenever I um whenever I played a game uh he would say afterwards yeah it's a miracle you survived.

and H he would say again against me and and everybody else and I don't know like I don't know if he completely believed it but then like he would he's super fast so he would rattle off variation after variation how he could potentially have won if he didn't win it was just it was usually Miracle.

so I'm probably more on the side that I'm on the optimistic side but I keep my my feet on the ground at least a little bit more more.

but it's an interesting kind of survival mechanism no.

yeah I I do think I do think so.

and if you always have a slightly more optimistic Outlook you will take more opportunities you you will see more opportunities.

um you will take more risks you will put more pressure on your opponents.

so I think it's um uh yeah it's a it's a good thing also makes you a happier person supposedly at least if it gives good results right.

but I mean it makes it sort of easier to um uh to to to play the game.

um often when I play the best I'll make a move based on intuition and then I'll I'll spot a reason right after like oh I missed that one maybe that was a mistake and I'll think no actually it wasn't wasn't a mistake I missed something but still sort of my optimistic mindset made me make the right decision quickly based on intuition.

and if you're a pessimistic person if you overthink you will not do that.

does any this uh explain the kind of happy streaks?

oh yeah for sure.

um uh I I can recall like streaks where I just go on winning winning and I think I'm like playing Amazing.

then I look back and analyze and it wasn't that great.

so what explains the the results then?

because I put a lot of pressure on my opponents and my optimism and my confidence makes them less confidence.

how important is psychology these type of psychology in in chess?

I think psychology is very important.

you have these all these people who have the same tools like you have a lot of people who understand the game at a level that is at least similar to what I do.

um but as long as they don't have the right mindset they will inevitably um not take enough risks they will leave chances at the table.

maybe others they are too optimistic they will take too many risks.

so like having a balanced mindset like knowing where to when to go for it when to to not like you're obviously obviously never going to always make the right decisions.

but um yeah if you're conscious of these things like inevitably you're going to um to make better decisions than than your opponents.

do you think um successful chess players deal with failures differently than less successful players?

is how much of the winning recipe is in how you deal with failures?

I generally try to sort of avoid failures rather than rather than um sort of learn how to deal with it.

but what I do know is that my best results over the last 15 years so my rating classical rating has oscillated between uh 20 2880 and 2820 for many years now but my performance right after a loss is over 2900.

so apparently I do do something really well.

um I think I am probably likely to take a bit more risk after losing I think that's one thing that I will put a lot of pressure on my opponents in in such a situation.

but I think more interesting situation is not in classical chess but it's in Rapid and Blitz tournaments where you have a failure you fail to win a winning position or you lose um a painful game and then that's when a difficult part comes when you have to play a lot more games that very same very s same day.

and that's when you can see even myself just you try to do the right things but your mind just cannot be balance so you end up sort of you end up sort of spiraling um and that's what I find really really difficult.

it's interesting that you take more risks after losing right?

because in most situations in life people take less risk after losing.

it will depend on the situation but I think on average yes I will take I will take more risks.

investors generally take less risk after losing.

yeah um in my most recent tournament um I did lose a game early on um and and that was I I made two draws and then I lost one so I was sort of minus one not a good score and then I was playing the number two player in the world and then I actually decided that I wasn't going to take any risks like I wanted to stop the bleeding which is not typical of me and this time it actually worked out great.

I sort of managed to steer the game into fairly Quiet Waters and then I sort of then I sort of started not taking risks but at least I didn't take like I had so many opportunities to steer the game towards the draw and and I and and I didn't.

but I think just in general like having that little fire in me that I normally have where I really really want to strike back in in classical chess like it's it's I don't know I I think it's just given me a fairly fairly good good balance.

also like I'm extremely focused after a loss because I don't want to don't want to lose another one so I probably like spend more energy on those games as well.

do you have the same type of fire as you had when you were younger?

rarely but but sometimes.

um I had a tournament recently where uh I was um I had a good start but there was um a guy Wei Chinese guy uh who's ranked number 10 in world now he had a Tournament of his life.

This was um a rapid and Blitz event and at some point I realized that like a good event is not going to be nearly enough for me like I have to win every single game now and that was my mindset.

I I I like I was winning these games like purely on on will uh taking like risks here and there and I ended up winning 10 games in a row and I Won Won won the tournament.

um but it's I don't know you cannot always you cannot always do that.

uh that was easier for me earlier like now I really I had to fire myself up for.

how do you get into that mental stage?

I think at that point you sort of have to treat every game as Do or Die really uh you're sort of told that you know you shouldn't do anything special like but I think in those situations a sort of a different mind like these things obviously could go horribly wrong but if you want to try and get on the streak where you just win every single game then yeah I think you just have to to take risks every single game and be like like Survival Mod like 100% for.

but do you do self talk do you go into the bathroom look yourself in the mirror and said Magnus get your finger out sharpen up here?

I don't feel like I don't really need to do that because when I sit down at the board that's what I need to what what I need to do.

but I I do know know that I I need to like put every inch of pressure on my my opponent and and yeah maybe go more from optimistic to solutional probably.

how do you cleanse your mind after a a a loss after a bad game?

when I lose it kind of depends on how I lose.

if I feel that I did a lot of things well but at a certain moment I didn't calculate deeply enough if I did something that I if I made a mistake that I I know that I can make and it's not a mistake necessarily of negligence then I'm sort of it annoys me but I'm sort of fine with that and and then my mindset is basically we move on.

if I know that I've made avoidable mistakes if my mindset was wrong all of these things yeah then I I have to try and reset um completely like just take a minute to myself like focus on breathing try and be somewhere else for for a moment and uh and see if I can get it back.

but it's yeah it's it's at that moment is is not easy um if you don't have a day uh to recover then is usually hard to get back.

if you make a bad move in your in your personal life do you manage to put it behind you quickly as well?

well do you make bad Moves In C life?

I think um I think um at times like I will make decisions sometimes like out of NE negligence I will not do the right thing and that's that can be a bit it can be annoying it can be embarrassing I think I experienc a lot of the same emotions that that everybody body does as other people like I find it also really hard to change to change patterns completely.

in the fund we have this uh investment simulator where we analyze mistakes investment mistakes and you of course have your famous chess engine what do you what do you get out of that?

I do find it interesting to look at my games with engines after and I like I always do that um but it's very important to be able ident to identify what are sort of human mistakes and and what are um what are the mistakes that only like computers can identify because you cannot condition yourself to try and play like an engine or at least with my style I cannot.

um so at certain times like looking at games with engines like you have to be you have to try and understand what you did wrong even if the reason is non-intuitive um in order to learn but you cannot base you cannot base everything on that because your opponents they will continue to be human and make human um errors and also yeah make good and bad moves as as humans not as engin.

I've heard you talk about um physical health and how that uh impacts your games and and in a way your mental health just how how do you feel that they're Interlink?

I mean you're you're a fit guy right?

I think for anything if your body is fit your mind is fit you're going to perform better.

I've probably been lazier in the last few years when it comes to when it comes to Fitness than than I was before.

um wait how many how many times a week do you work out?

I've never had a schedule much so now nowadays I golf a lot so I do get um like my steps every single day.

I play a bit of paddle I do when I'm at home I probably do like once a week uh strength workout but I don't particularly like that.

um so I was definitely like fitter before when I was my in my early 20s I would win a lot of games purely on stamina because I was like physically stronger.

but yeah nowadays I find it find it difficult to to sort of be in that shape.

how was your golf?

I started Golf last year uh and I really enjoy it um but I'm I'm not very good but it it's um it's a way for me to at least you know uh get some exercise every single day.

when we go back and look at your uh your history and I think yourself you say that you were at really at the top of your game in 13 and 19 what what stand out with those years?

I think 13 14 um I was really fit I just started working with a new coach that helped a bit that I had some some ideas but it was not only that I think it was just at that time was sort of at my Peak like close to my Peak physically and mentally.

and then 2019 I think I just had a period where I had like a lot of leftover preparation from the world championship in 2018.

I couldn't really that 2018 um the match was all draws 12 games but they were extremely high quality so when I came to other games uh other tournaments later I wasn't n playing that one game guy all the time so uh I could use some of the preparation like other people were sort of more forgiving uh so I think that was like a very specific moment and also that was the start of AI in chess that that was the start of people working with uh with neural Nets so that gave some people an edge uh because some people learned how to work with them to find new ideas quickly uh and so like in in a few months time you could suddenly be ahead in the openings in a way you couldn't uh you couldn't be for years before that uh so I think that was like a very specific Moment In Time whether that would have carried on a bit in 2020 if it hadn't been for everything closing down I'm not sure but I think that was just a very specific moment in time cuz ever since then um I've had like ups and downs but my level has been quite consistently uh a little bit lower than in 2019.

um what do you feel about ai's involvement in chess?

I think there was a very specific moment when AI was extremely exciting for players and coaches.

now it's still interesting to see especially if you compare uh neural Nets to uh traditional chess engines and also hybrid engines how differently they think but now everybody sort of has their same tools so working with them is definitely a lot less uh exciting and it's more the now they've probably um contributed to evening the playing field even more.

what what has it added to your game the newer uh neural network engines?

they've uh definitely contributed to um the way that I evaluate um sort of time and material I mean broadly um and also King safety uh my view on the importance of King safety shortterm and long term has changed and I think my understanding has improved so much since 2019.

in what ways?

you have more now of an understanding of how both like taking time to build a safe King sacrificing material to weaken your uh opponent's king or safeguarding your own king um these are things that humans are intuitively not very good at and it's a thing that engines used to be even worse at and now these neural Nets they understand it well they don't understand understand but they do it so well um that we're we're learning a lot from that and I've had to re-evaluate a lot of things for sure.

what do you think is the most value aspect that humans can still add to this game?

there used to be a thing called anti- engine chess I don't think that would work anymore uh supposedly like engines did not play well in closed positions that are more strategical less tactical that is less of the case anymore.

essentially humans can play chess and they can they can explain to other humans what the engines mean but I don't think we can do a lot more than that.

I think for training purposes having a human touch is really good still but honestly like you can get really good at chess these days without any human input.

and where do you where do you think this will take chess over the next decade?

I think chess will get faster and faster at a high level.

I don't know if this is direction that we we were going to go but I'm very excited about the prospect of playing chess 960 um which is basically that the pieces on the first rank are being uh ran randomly chosen on before the game so you end up with playing without opening Theory and I find that extremely exciting to play.

if you're going to play with longer time controls I feel now with longer time controls the game is just a bit too easy and forgiving with all the preparation you have but overall yeah I think everything that's happening in chess with engines and preparation is just going to mean that we have to play faster chess in order for there to be enough room to both show your strengths and and weaknesses.

G given all the uh AI uh interference or uh uh involvement in chess are you surprised that it's still so popular and people find it so exciting?

the thing about Chess is that it's complicated but it's also it's also simple enough.

I think people like that it's relatively easy to to not to understand but but to play.

also I think it's as simple as the queen is a really strong piece uh people like like that the pieces are relatively powerful compared to other games.

and uh I I think it doesn't necessarily matter that much that we're so terrible at it compared to compared to engines.

um it's made the game less mysterious serous for sure.

chess players used to be magicians on the board were clearly not anymore uh since everybody can see now what we do right and what we do wrong but that's also the good thing it's made it more accessible.

chess used to be this mystery where nobody understood what was going on like humans sort of had to explain that but now humans only have to explain why um the engine which basically is very close to the truth why it's showing the score that it does and this means that people can follow the score and honestly like most people watch sports or games for entertainment they are not that interested in all the technical aspects they mostly want to watch the score to see what who wins and and if it's fast then then better so I think overall no I'm not particularly surprised that chess is still popular.

would if it have been as popular if it was invented now?

I'm not sure but chess has such a rich historical background as well as modern to tools to follow it so I think um probably a lot of good things are still in store.

last few questions here do have you ever had the impulser syndrome?

I don't consider myself particularly brilliant genius or or that intelligent so yes I've had times where I've seen people whom I consider to be smarter than I am do worse at chess and it m really makes me wonder whether sometimes whether I'm actually this good are PE are everybody just fooling me?

um less recently I've sort of accepted it more now but I've had brilliant people talk to me as if I'm the smartest person in the room and that really makes me uncomfortable because I see myself as an intelligent but not brilliant guy who happened to find the one thing that he can do really really well.

do you think this mindset is the reason why you're being so successful?

I think this mindset has definitely kept me I kept me grounded and I think it's been really good for me in chess but I cannot say that this or that is the reason because I don't know.

is there a piece of advice from a mentor or coach that has stuck with you forever?

I've had a lot of good advice over the years but I think maybe the best advice that I got was from C Lan at a fairly early age.

he was not my main coach or anything but we would probably meet up once a week or every two weeks depending on whether I was playing tournaments and so on.

um and then we would go through some of my games and once he noticed that for a few black games in a row I'd played the same variation of the Sicilian Defense.

and he said I don't care whether you consider this to be good or a bad opening if you're not going if you're not going to um explore then you're not going to learn.

and so he said he just went to a shelf like he's he's like me he's not a very organized person he went to the shelf and he said said this book this opening learn this instead.

and so I learned that open opening I tried that in the next game then I then I tried something tried something else.

and that thing like always being curious thinking about learning rather than being um stuck in in sort of the same comfortable patterns has been has been really important to me.

and in addition to to golf what are other things you're trying to learn and explore in your in your normal life these days?

I'm I'm trying to learn Spanish um because I will be moving to Spain after a bit.

why are you moving to Spain?

because of weather.

um I've I've had you know um I've had a lot of winters in Norway but I feel like I'm privileged enough that I can I can sort of choose more where to to live.

I still want to spend time in Norway but I probably don't want to spend six months of winter here.

but apart from that I have fairly Simple Pleasures in in life.

so I had times last year where I thought that I was going to try and carve out sort of a new career path that I could pursue at the same time as chess but so far I haven't really found it and also so far I haven't been any less happy because of it.

now last thing um what is your advice to young people?

be curious learn read and play chess but don't pursue it as a career unless you're going to be the best in the world.

all right good mag you are a real magician uh big thanks for for being here thank you so much thanks.