Nowadays games immediately appear on the Internet and thus the life of novelties is measured in hours. Modern professionals do not have the right to be forgetful - it is 'life threatening'.

I'm looking forward to the day when my country is saved - and the current winner becomes a loser.

It's interesting that the greatest minds of computer science, the founding fathers, like Alan Turing and Claude Shannon and Norbert Wiener, they all looked at chess as the ultimate test. So they thought, "Oh, if a machine can play chess, and beat strong players, set aside a world champion, that would be the sign of a dawn of the AI era." With all due respect, they were wrong.

Quite frankly, I have to admit that with regard to the enormous financial assets and funds of Russian leaders in Western banks and on stock markets, the chances for the West to exert influence on Russia are quite low. I doubt that Western leaders are willing to exert pressure. I would not exclude an intervention in case of a crisis.

It is rather difficult to envisage a scenario that could change the domestic situation in the countries of the South Caucasus without solving the problems constantly hindering normal cooperation in the region.

A very strong player can manage and can just know how to manage a thousand positions. I get it; it's a very arbitrary number. So then you have the world champion who could do more. But, again, any increase in numbers creates, sort of, a new level of playing. And then you go to the very top, and the difference is so minimal, but it does exist. So even a few players who never became world champion, like Vassily Ivanchuk, for instance, I think they belong to the same category.

One does not succeed by sticking to convention. When your opponent can easily anticipate every move you make, your strategy deteriorates and becomes commoditized.