The biggest problem I see among people who want to excel in chess – and in business and in life in general – is not trusting their instincts enough.

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.

We have to stop the propaganda, the shameful propaganda used by Kremlin to rehabilitate these old types.

It was not about losing my mental power; it's about not feeling good about my contribution to the game.

We know that the governments in most of the successor states formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union are replaced through a process of regular elections.

That machines will surpass us in intelligence is inevitable. What it means is unknowable. Will they be sentient? What will they care about in the sense that determines our human motivations? All the theorizing by the experts and non-experts makes for interesting conversations and dramatic headlines, but it's more likely we will be surprised by how our technology develops and how it is used, as we so often are.

Chess continues to advance over time, so the players of the future will inevitably surpass me in the quality of their play, assuming the rules and regulations allow them to play serious chess. But it will likely be a long time before anyone spends 20 consecutive years as number, one as I did.