Latest news with #Kasparov
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Hindu
Christian Cooke on ‘Rematch': A celebration and a cautionary tale
Yan England's Rematch recreates the 1997 match between reigning world chess champion, Garry Kasparov and IBM super computer Deep Blue. The six-part series features Christian Cooke playing the Russian Grandmaster. The role called for intense research and provided insights. 'I learned that I'm not very good at chess,' Christian says laughing. Speaking over a video call from London, Christian says he watched documentaries and read books by Kasparov in preparation for his role. 'With that material and the script I started to get a sense of who he was as a person. Single-mindedness, drive, ambition and tenacity were some of the adjectives that came to mind when I thought about Kasparov.' Kasparov's intense focus and precision was compelling and challenging, says the 37-year-old actor. 'When you're playing something as focused as chess, you have to concentrate specifically on the board in front of you, on the table the board is on, and on the person sitting opposite you.' That, Christian said is a practical line of sight. 'You're not moving around, you're not interacting with props or people. That innately results in a specific type of focus, which is the same focus a chess player has in real life. I just tried to personify that intensity.' For the chess scenes, Christian says they worked with chess master Malcolm Pein in England and a Hungarian Grandmaster who was on set every day. Precipice of change Rematch revisits a pivotal moment in the history of AI. 'It was the precipice of this huge change. Now, 30 years later, we're standing at the precipice of another large leap forward. Human beings didn't know what they were in for back then, with the advent of personal computing and the Internet. The digital age was just taking shape, and now AI is becoming a part of people's lives.' There is a parallel to the present moment, says Christian. 'It's going to be interesting to try and get a grip on how we want technology to affect our lives versus what we want to stay the same.' Kasparov's story is both a cautionary tale and a celebration of human ambition, says Christian. 'It's incredible what one human being can achieve when playing against a computer that could do 200 million moves a second. It's a celebration of what the human mind is capable of, but also, a cautionary tale as Kasparov was ultimately beaten by the computer. I don't know what that means for humanity in general, going forward, in terms of technology, but hopefully we can learn to work with it instead of against it, or hopefully we won't let it work against us, who knows?' Intimidating and motivating It is always intimidating to play a real person, Christian says. 'That also provides motivation to buckle down and get on with it. Sometimes what scares us is also what drives us and that was true for Garry. He was probably intimidated by the prospect of a computer being better than him. But it's what drove him to take the challenge.' Playing Kasparov reminded Christian of how hard one has to work to be at the top. 'Kasparov worked very hard, and trained and researched a lot. It's not all about natural ability. It's about how hard you work and the hours that you put into being good at something. That's true of every discipline.' Deep dive Shooting the chess games was a real challenge, Christian says. 'You're sitting in a chair for 12 to 13 hours a day acting like you're playing chess. It's exhausting mentally as an actor, because you can't re- energise yourself by getting up and interacting with others. Physical scenes might have been less tiring, in a way. There's something exhausting about just sitting in a chair and having your very small, specific points of focus.' You also have to communicate a lot as an actor, says Christian, without doing too much. 'You're playing chess, and have to communicate how each move is affecting you as a performer. It's quite niche and specific.' Too much or too little Jan Ingram, the director, wrote voiceovers into the script to show Kasparov calculating the moves he was making, instantaneously. 'Jan wanted the audience to understand the sort of math that was going on in his brain. I was a little worried about that. Voice over is a delicate thing in film, it either works or it doesn't. You're giving the audience too much and can seem patronising.' Christian raised his concerns about the voiceovers with Ingram. 'He listened to me for about 20 minutes, and then showed me this clip from A Beautiful Mind where Russell Crowe is at the chalkboard, and there is this voice over, with the words blending into each other. And he said, 'This is how it's going to be.' That put me at ease.' Though Rematch is about more than chess, being also about obsession, legacy and control, Christian admits not thinking about themes. 'As an actor, you're thinking about practical, tangible things like the writing, or if the story works structurally, if the character three-dimensional.' Filming took place in Montreal and Budapest, which are among Christian's favourite cities. 'I filmed there multiple times. It's nice to return to a city that you love.' If he could ask Kasparov one question, Christian laughs and says he'd ask, 'Do you think I did a good job?''. Rematch is currently streaming on Lionsgate Play
Indian Express
22-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
When chess legend Garry Kasparov tried to make the machine blink… and failed
Over the last couple of years, the world has been gripped by a Y2K-esque paranoia of a different kind: wondering if artificial intelligence will become all-conquering. Garry Kasparov, former world champion and one of the greatest chess players in history, was possibly among the earliest humans to mull this question — will AI take over my job? — sometime back in the 90s. 'I am not unsympathetic to those whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by disruptive new technology. Few people in the world know better than I do what it's like to have your life's work threatened by a machine,' Kasparov once wrote in his book Deep Thinking, which chronicles his famous battles with machines. An early evangelist of man versus machine contests, Kasparov added: 'No one was sure what would happen if and when a chess machine beat the world champion. Would there still be professional chess tournaments? Would there be sponsorship and media coverage of my world championship matches if people thought the best chess player in the world was a machine? Would people still play chess at all?' Ironically, Kasparov was thinking this in an era where his powers were at their peak. He was the undisputed world champion. And having brushed aside the challenge of every man that faced off against him on the chess board, Kasparov started to seek battles against supercomputers, with minds made out of silicon, nerves of wires and bodies held together in large metal cupboards. Among his many duels with electronic foes, the two battles with a supercomputer created by IBM, called Deep Blue, became the most famous. It is this Kasparov vs Deep Blue battle — famously called 'The Brain's Last Stand' by Newsweek magazine on its cover back then — that forms the setting of 'Rematch', a six-part miniseries released on Lionsgate Play late last week. Starring Christian Cooke with a pitch-perfect accent and a voice with a gravitas befitting the intimidating Kasparov, 'Rematch' uses the first Kasparov vs Deep Blue battle in Philadelphia in 1996 (which Kasparov won easily) to set the backdrop of the actual battle: the second contest in 1997, which Kasparov lost in New York. As Kasparov once pointed out, the first battle was a science experiment. The second one was war with a machine. 'Rematch' captures the drama of both these duels, with a few creative liberties to spice up an already intriguing battle between the greatest general on the battlefield of 64 squares and a large cupboard that could think faster than anyone had thought before. The man behind the machine, Feng-hsiung Hsu, called it a battle between 'man as a performer and man as a toolmaker'. It was a war that made global headlines back in the 90s. 'How do you make a computer blink?' ran the catchphrase across giant posters advertising the 1997 chess match. Kasparov's duels with computers started even before he became a world champion. In one particularly enjoyable one for the Russian, in Hamburg in June 1985, he played a simultaneous exhibition game (called simul) against 32 computers created by four chess computer manufacturers. 'One of the organisers warned me that playing against machines was different. Because they would never get tired or resign in dejection the way a human opponent would; they would play to the bitter end,' wrote Kasparov in Deep Thinking. Kasparov won each of the 32 games. 'These were the good ol' days of human versus machine chess. But this golden age would be brutally short,' he noted. So short, that in 1997, just 12 years after he had defeated 32 computers in a row in a span of five hours, Kasparov was handed defeat in New York by IBM's $10 billion supercomputer, Deep Blue. 'Chess computers went from being laughably weak to being nearly unbeatable during my 20 years as the world's top player,' Kasparov wrote. For those interested in computer speak on how Deep Blue ended up making Kasparov blink instead of the other way round (Kasparov won one game out of six while the machine won two games), the second machine which took down the Russian used '32 processors to perform a set of coordinated, high-speed computations in parallel. Deep Blue was able to evaluate 200 million chess positions per second, achieving a processing speed of 11.38 billion floating-point operations per second, or flops', notes the IBM website. 'They improved the databases dealing with chess endgames, created a more powerful evaluation function for chess positions, hired additional chess grandmasters to advise the team, and developed methods to disguise the computer's strategy.' In 'Rematch', before the second man vs machine battle, Kasparov is doing an interview where he is asked by a reporter: 'In a factory, when a machine outperforms an employee, the employee will often lose their job.' An introspective Kasparov/Cooke opts not to answer the question. This question is the elephant in the room of the whole battle. In one of the earliest scenes of 'Rematch', the man behind the Deep Blue asks Kasparov/Cooke: 'Aren't you even a little concerned you might lose?' A belligerent Kasparov responds: 'Why would I be concerned? It's a science experiment and computers are the future. I want to see what Deep Blue is capable of more than anyone else. But of course I will win.' Machines did become much stronger. Much stronger than humans will ever be on the board. But yet, the world does not spend time watching two machines fight each other while being tended to by human handlers. It would rather watch humans test themselves, even with flaws in their game play, against other humans. Why? The answer lies in what transpired after Kasparov's defeat in New York. Even though the Russian was deeply livid at his defeat — at the press conference afterward, he is said to have 'personally guaranteed' that he would 'tear Deep Blue into pieces' in games if it started playing competitive chess tournaments — Kasparov lent himself to plenty more 'science experiments'. One of them, in 1998 in Leon, saw Kasparov team up with a computer running his preferred chess program (German chess program Fritz 5) while taking on Veselin Topalov using ChessBase 7.0. They didn't just use the computers in the background for their prep as every professional chess player does now. They were allowed to use them during the game. The result was a 3-3 tie. And therein lies the problem with computer perfection. If two of the world's best computers played against each other, the result would inevitably be a dead draw. Who would want to watch that? Amit Kamath is Assistant Editor at The Indian Express and is based in Mumbai. ... Read More
Atlantic
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
The Road Map to Restoring American Democracy
Have Americans grown complacent, thinking nothing can shake the United States' democracy? Host Garry Kasparov is joined by Frank Luntz, someone well versed in taking the temperature of the American public. Luntz is perhaps best known as a behind-the-scenes operative in Republican politics. He is the pioneer of an 'Instant Response' focus-group technique that lets him understand not just what people think but why. That's how he began to sense, more than 10 years ago, that something had gone very wrong in American politics. Frank and Garry discuss how the problem started—and what must be done to fix it. The following is a transcript of the episode: [ Music ] Garry Kasparov: A common problem for citizens of the free world is that they do not have the vocabulary to understand authoritarian regimes and leaders. They expect their own terms and experiences to translate, when often they are meaningless or even contrary. Long before the question of autocracy in America became an issue, I spent a lot of time trying to explain these differences. One example stands out: my appearance on the Bill Maher show Real Time in October 2007. Maher, who considers himself well informed and often is, walked right into the point I wanted to make. He said: Bill Maher: But when you look at what's going on in Russia, Putin has a very high approval rating. Kasparov: And I had to interrupt. Kasparov: How do you know? (Laughter.) Are you seriously relying on the polling results in a police state? I think that with the same tight control of media and the pervasive security force, I believe Bush and Cheney could enjoy the same approval rating here. Kasparov: The audience erupted in cheers. And Maher could only respond, Maher: Checkmate to me! (Laughs.) Kasparov: From The Atlantic, this is Autocracy in America. I'm Garry Kasparov. The American political system has been an example of a stable democracy for some 250 years. But have Americans grown complacent, thinking that nothing can shake a system that has worked so well for so long? My guest, longtime pollster Frank Luntz, is well versed in taking the temperature of the American public. Frank is perhaps best known as a behind-the-scenes operative in Republican politics, but he's also an author, adviser to CEOs, and, most recently, an instructor in American politics at the military academy at West Point. Frank is the pioneer of an 'Instant Response' focus-group technique that lets him understand not just what people think but why. That's how he began to sense, more than 10 years ago, that something was very wrong in American politics. Hello, Frank. Frank Luntz: Hello, Garry. Kasparov: Let's start with personal stuff. Do you remember when we met? Luntz: I believe we were introduced by a human-rights activist about 15 years ago. And one of the coolest moments for me is when you and I marched in a protest in Russia, and you told me to be careful. It was—I could not believe I was with you. And to be doing this podcast right now, I know you're gonna get into some stuff, some pretty heavy stuff about where we are and where we're headed as a country and the leadership. But this is Garry fucking Kasparov. I can't believe it. But what I respect the most is your courage. The courage of conviction. You know, I teach at West Point, and we teach students to have leadership with character. You have character, courage, and selfless service. So whatever you want to know from me for the next however long we go, this is an honor and a privilege. By the way, I may even get emotional. I've had two strokes, and that disconnects my emotions from my head, and so you'll know that I really mean it. But Garry, this is very special. Kasparov: Frank, I'm speechless. I want people to feel that you're so special, also, because no one can read the minds of voters and all the on-the-ground trends in American politics better than you did, and you still are the master of it. And, I wanna go back, so just— Luntz: But, but you're going back, and yet it's so bad right now. Kasparov: No, it's so bad. But let's, I mean, let's analyze it. Luntz: We have never been this angry. We've never been this distrusting. We don't trust any institution except for the military. We don't trust any people who lead anything right now. We're fed up, we're mad as hell. If I were to summarize in a single word how Americans feel, it's all caps with an exclamation point: ENOUGH! Enough politics, enough lies, enough being ignored, forgotten, betrayed, which is an emotion that breaks society. And however bad you think it is, it's worse. Because I can't sit 15 people in a room that's a little bit bigger than this and have them not tear each other apart. The problem that I have right now, and I don't know how to fix it, is that we don't want to listen to each other. We want to be heard, we want to speak and make sure that other people listen. And when a democracy stops learning and a democracy stops listening, that democracy's in trouble. Kasparov: And we're going to get into all of that. But first, as a chess player, I did a little research. And researching this project, I came across a 2014 profile of you in The Atlantic by Molly Ball. Luntz: Yeah. You know, that profile almost cost me tens of millions of dollars. I dunno if you know this. Kasparov: No, I didn't know! Tell us. Luntz: She ran that—and it was a good interview, and she told the truth. I believed that America was breaking apart back then. Kasparov: Yes. Luntz: The level of anger, the level of disrespect. Kasparov: What did you see? That's, again—can you be more specific? What did you see then? Because the picture that, from this interview, emerges of a man who may be in the political wilderness. But you were getting a sense of what, you know, what was wrong. You know, in America, the real American problems. Luntz: And it's not what I saw. It's what I heard. I did focus groups. I've been doing focus groups now for 35 years— Kasparov: But this country has zillions of pollsters. They all heard the same stories. How come that you indicated this? Just, you know, just deep down, you know, just many layers beyond what others saw—this is the rotten core. Luntz: Because they could hear it, but they weren't actually listening. They were dismissing it. And this is a problem that I have. It makes me a good pollster and not particularly great to be around at nights and weekends—which is, if I'm surrounded by angry people, I get angry. If I'm surrounded by people who are depressed, I get depressed. For some reason, and this is partially my upbringing, I become the people that I'm talking to. And it's more than just even empathizing. I understand it. I appreciate it, and I become one of them. And in 2014, my head was exploding, because we were heading toward the conditions that gave us Donald Trump just two years later. And my company was for sale right then, and Molly correctly indicated that I was getting ready to give up. And the owner of my company, the company that was buying me, literally pulled me out of the room, pulled me out to say, What the hell are you doing? You sound like someone's giving up. Frankly, you sound suicidal. What am I buying here? Tell me. And I'm thinking to myself, Oh shit. I have now, through my honesty—through my candor, let's put it that way—I have now doomed myself. So I'm telling the owner, No, I'm not quitting; I'm not giving up. And the truth is, I was. He had figured it out. He didn't have to read through the lines. I was very blunt about it, but I did not want to lose the money. I did not want to lose the sale. So I said to him, No, she misquoted me. She misread it. She doesn't understand. This is my clarion call to say: We have to be better. We have to do better. We have to find a way to get out of this. That's not how I felt. And even today, if I can be candid with you again, if I didn't have West Point to give me hope and a belief in the future, if I didn't have these 4,000 incredible young people that you've met twice now— Kasparov: I did. Luntz: These cadets are just amazing in their commitment to their country, in their willingness to sacrifice, and even the greatest sacrifice—and that, and they know what this means. And if I had not discovered that, I was heading out. I was getting ready to move to the U.K., not that it is so wonderful, but I just couldn't watch my country tear itself apart. Because I still have, I still have even deep down, a love for this place, even with its flaws and even with the anger that we get out there. Kasparov: But it seems to me that we have to go even deeper. Because in 2014, you already sensed this anger that gave us Trump two years later and then led to January 6, 2021, and to current crisis. So— Luntz: And in 2014, I got it. I got how awful our country already was with each other. And that's because all these focus groups I was doing would degenerate into delegitimization, dehumanization. It was all the bad that we were to come to see 24 months later. And the reason why I saw it is because I heard it. Because I did these focus groups—not the polling. I have to sit with people and see them. First, the arms get folded. Then the head starts to nod back and forth in a rejection of what they're hearing. Then the eyes roll and the head goes back, and at that moment they're getting ready to be disrespectful, disingenuous. I see it coming. And I saw this again and again and again. And my issue is, I don't know how to fix it. Luntz: At that time. Kasparov: At that time. But did it mean that in 2014, you sat only with Republican voters, or you had independents and Democrats as well? Luntz: No, I've always sat with the entire electorate. Kasparov: Yeah. You could feel the temperature in just various segments of American polity. Luntz: And the temperature was hot. Kasparov: In 2014? The temperature was hot. Luntz: And that's why Trump emerged. And I felt that in 2014. And when you and I first started to engage in this, I did not believe, at the beginning, that Trump was gonna win. Let's be completely candid in this. I thought— Kasparov: At what point, you knew he would be winning? Luntz: Oh, by September. Kasparov: 2015. Luntz: So let me tell you something that nobody knows. Kasparov: Okay, good. You are sharing it with many more people, of course. Luntz: But I'm sharing it with you, and other people are just listening. Kasparov: Okay. Luntz: I held a meeting, I sat down with the Senate leadership, and I thought I was only meeting with John Thune and Mitch McConnell. John McCain shows up. John Barrasso shows up. The entire leadership, and no one tells me, 'cause they're afraid that I'm gonna be nervous. The entire Republican Senate leadership walks into the room. Mitch McConnell folds his arms like I'm doing right now and says, 'I hear you have something to tell me. What is it?' And I said, 'Sir, unless you do something right now, Donald Trump is your nominee, and he may well get elected president.' Not a single vote had been cast—no Iowa, no New Hampshire—but Trump was rising and rising in the polls. And this was their wake-up call that it was working. Kasparov: And? Luntz: They didn't do enough, and it was too late. Donald Trump is a phenomenon. Donald Trump is a—we've never had anything like him, and we never will. Kasparov: So by 2014, the Republicans were ready to embrace Donald Trump, and some independents moved in the same direction. So what did go wrong prior to 2014? So it's the, clearly we are seeing now, the decline of the political system, the two-party system. So when did it go wrong? Because there were many moments where people talked about, you know, We probably need a third party. We have to change this and that. But now we are, you know, deep down in this, you know, just in, in this swamp, political swamp. So 2014 was already the moment where you were the only one, or just one of very few, great experts who could read the minds of people and could smell the trouble. So when did it start? Luntz: 2000. Kasparov: 2000? That's the presidential election you're talking about? Luntz: Yes. Kasparov: So the Florida recount? Luntz: Yes. Kasparov: Okay. Tell us. Luntz: Five weeks. We went on and on, and no one knew who was president. And one-third of the Democratic Party never gave George W. Bush the respect that he'd been actually elected president. They thought that the election had been stolen, and they were bitter, and they never forgave him. They never accepted him as their president. And then we had another close election in 2004. Kasparov: It wasn't that close. Luntz: Yeah. With John Kerry. Yeah. It was close enough. Kasparov: He lost Ohio by quite a margin. Luntz: But people thought that Kerry was gonna win. They thought on Election Day that Kerry had the lead. So they were wondering, Why is this happening? It was the beginning of the divide. And then in 2007, 2008, our economy went to hell. A whole lot of people lost their homes, lost their jobs, lost their savings, and lost their future. And in the end, politics is a reflection of the economy, not the other way around. And when you're promised a better future, when you're promised that you're gonna have it better than your parents, and then it doesn't happen—and worse than that, all these life savings are destroyed—not only are you mad, that's where the word betrayed comes in. And people, and their future, their whole perspective on life, began to close in on them. And America wasn't the land of opportunity for them. America was a broken promise. And I'm afraid that we're back to the same way right now. Which is why this thing on tariffs has me so concerned, and why I'm reading again about the rise of anger. And this time it's coupled with complete distrust of our court system, of our health-care system, of our media, of our government and the people who are in it. All the institutions that keep America moving forward are disliked and distrusted, and the only one that's left is the military. Kasparov: Okay. This is, it's very, very important, because you said few times the word, the key word in my opinion: trust. Luntz: Yes. Kasparov: Trust. Luntz: Let's stop there. That is the key word. It's the No. 1 priority that Americans have: trust and truth. They're connected to it. Of all the values that are essential to democracy, none is more important than the truth. It's more important than participation. It's more important than anything else, because if you don't trust the information or the people providing it, how can you possibly govern yourselves when you have no idea what's right and what's wrong? Kasparov: So are you telling us now that, over 225 years, Americans never lost trust in the government or in government agencies and all other institutions created throughout this time period and in the various places in the country? Luntz: What was our worst economic calamity? 1929. And it took 10 years, 11 years, 12 years for us to come back from what happened in 1929. And eventually it was the war. Kasparov: So we had few other moments in American history. But something I remember:, So the late '70s, also, the mood was dark; the country was not doing well. Then we had Ronald Reagan. Luntz: Yes. At the very moment we were so upset, at the very moment that we were giving up, the malaise of Jimmy Carter gave us the hope and the passion of Ronald Reagan. Kasparov: Okay, now the question is, so why the Great Depression—and all the tragic consequence of Great Depression for millions and millions of Americans—gave us FDR as a leader? Why the malaise, in your words, of Jimmy Carter's rule brought Ronald Reagan to power and to the Oval Office? But why the relatively small crisis, on the surface visually, compared to these two periods of American history brought us not a new Reagan or new FDR, but Donald Trump? Luntz: For tens of millions of people, Donald Trump is Ronald Reagan, is FDR. For tens of millions of people, Donald Trump speaks the truth, and only Donald Trump does. And his graphic descriptions and language that is accessible to a high-school grad is exactly what FDR was to people back in 1932 and what Reagan was to people in 1980. That's exactly the point. I know how you feel about him, but there's a reason why he beat Vice President [Kamala] Harris. And they knew what he stood for, and they knew that he had been indicted, and they knew that he had been impeached, and they knew what kind of administration he would do. And they still voted for him. Because to half of America, Donald Trump is exactly the kinda leader that they're looking for. Kasparov: We'll be right back. [ Midroll ] Kasparov: Going back to people expected Trump and still expect Trump to do something—it's, you know, he's a doer. And he's already in power. So it's just, it's several months, and he did a lot of things. So are they still happy with what he's doing? Because you mentioned tariffs a few times. Luntz: They're happy with most of what he's doing. They're not happy with how he's doing it. They're happy with the agenda and the priorities, but they're not happy in the execution. Best example of this is DOGE and wasteful Washington spending. So they want to cut government spending. They wanna reduce the bureaucracy, but they don't want to do it haphazardly. And when Elon [Musk] took a chainsaw on stage and everyone saw this visual, that's not what they—that is what the hardcore Trump voter wanted: a chainsaw to Washington. But the people who put him over the top wanted a scalpel, not a chainsaw. And that's what's been happening—the idea that, yes, this is the right agenda, but this may not be the right approach. And this is definitely not the right communication. And I don't think Trump cares, because to him, the only—his priority are his voters. And we've never had that before either. Someone who says, I'm really not president of the whole country. I'm president of the people who voted for me, and I'm going to damn well ensure that they get what they voted for. You don't see, we don't see, and this is something that's important to this conversation: I hear from these people every day, but they're not obvious. They're not people we talk to. They're not gonna be listening to this podcast, I'll tell you that. Kasparov: I have no doubt about it. Luntz: Because they're struggling. Because they live paycheck to paycheck, because they're holding three jobs between two people, or four jobs between two people. And I sympathize with them. And they were promised that if they worked hard, played by the rules, paid their taxes, and raised their kids well, there would be something good at the end for them. And you know what they got? Nothing. They didn't get a raise. Some of them got fired. They were unable to save for the future. What does that mean? If they get into a car accident, they're done. They can't afford a new car. They can barely afford a used car. They truly are struggling. And I sympathize with them. I don't think that justifies their rudeness. I don't think that justifies how so many of them are mean. But they were promised something as they grew up: in their textbooks, in their history books. They were promised an America that would deliver for them a better future. And it didn't happen. Kasparov: It is not happening now. Luntz: Correct. Kasparov: So what will they do? Luntz: I think they tune out. Kasparov: They will just, you know, just drop dead. I mean, this is not, not physically, but just, you know, just politically. Luntz: They will cease to pay attention. They will cease to care. And that's just as dangerous. I'd rather hear from my enemy. I'd rather know where they are. I'd rather know what they think. Because it gives me a chance to talk to them. They will tell their kids that democracy doesn't work. Don't bother to vote. Don't participate. Kasparov: Democracy doesn't work? Luntz: For these people, it does not. No. And capitalism; you call it capitalism. I would like to use the phrase economic freedom. Capitalism is about the rich. Economic freedom is about everybody else. I need them to buy into the economic system, because that will help them buy into the political system without— Kasparov: But it's not going to happen. Luntz: There's a shot that that could happen. Kasparov: How? Luntz: If people once again see that the economy is not rigged against them, if they once again can save for the, to live the good life. Nobody wants the American dream anymore; they just want the good life. And the good life— Kasparov: But you said if. So what should happen for them to change their mind? Luntz: So they can afford to take a long weekend at a nice place. So they can afford to buy their children birthday gifts or Christmas gifts, or these things that they want in their life. So once again, they can afford to live the good life. Kasparov: But is it happening? Luntz: No. Kasparov: Okay. So that means, you know, it's the further, you know, distrust in politics. Luntz: That's why all the institutions are upside down in terms of public support, because they're not being protected. If they get sick, they can't afford the health-care bills. Kasparov: But are they going to blame Donald Trump, or the system that prevented him from delivering to them? Luntz: They're blaming the system at this moment. Kasparov: So if they are blaming the system and not the president, does that empower the president to work outside the system? So can you imagine the situation where the president will find himself above the law and will try to act on this belief? So does it mean that Donald Trump will be in unique position to be above the law? Luntz: Uh-huh. Kasparov: So the answer is yes. Luntz: Yeah. Kasparov: Okay. So what are the chances? Luntz: Maybe, maybe. Kasparov: Maybe. Do you think it's a real threat? That, at one point, he decides that, you know, he should not bother with the legal restrictions and will try to impose his direct rule? Luntz: When he made a comment about the Constitution, whether or not he has to follow it, I think that said it all. You know, at West Point, they don't defend America. They don't defend the president. They don't defend the people. You swear an oath to the Constitution. It is genuinely sacred, because it gave us our freedoms, and it protects us. And when you start to say, I'm not sure if I have to do something, if the Constitution mandates that I do it —that's a problem. That's a real problem. Kasparov: If we have another January 6 in some form or shape, will Kash Patel and Pam Bondi follow Trump or Constitution? Luntz: I don't know. Kasparov: You don't know. What about the cadets? Luntz: Oh, they follow the Constitution. Kasparov: Good. Good to know. Luntz: Without a doubt. Kasparov: Okay. That's good to know. Luntz: And they won't engage in politics. Kasparov: So if the president of the United States decides to go against the Constitution— Luntz: They will, they will follow a—they follow lawful orders, is the best way for me to answer it. Kasparov: Lawful orders—I don't know what it means. If the president of the United States, who is the commander in chief, you know, who goes against the Constitution. Again, if it's a choice between— Luntz: Now you're instigating. Kasparov: No; I'm not instigating. It's a logical, you know, set of questions, because I saw enough in my life. So that's why, you know, it's just being in the situation. Which I think, I all thought would be unheard in the United States—where we ask these questions. You know they're legitimate questions. You don't want to answer, because nobody wants to answer this question. But the fact is, we are in the position to ask these questions and to debate them seriously. What does it tell us about the current situation of America? Luntz: It tells us that we still have a democracy. It tells us that freedom of speech matters. Kasparov: So what can be done, if anything, to preserve the two-party system? Luntz: It's to take the priorities of the Trump administration and add to it a level of communication, which says, I hear you. I get you. We're gonna try to get this done, but we're gonna do so in a respectful way. Kasparov: But you're talking about Democrats; you are not talking about the magic rise of the third party. Luntz: I'm talking about those who can still be talked to. Because right now, MAGA Republicans don't want to hear any of this. They like what's happening. And Democrats don't want to hear any of this, because they want to stop what's happening. They want the resistance, and that's what they call it. That's not helpful for democracy. You several times have tried to get me to tell you, Here's a road map to restore our democracy. And I'm telling you that that is my source of my frustration. That's the source of who I am right now in 2025. Kasparov: There is no road map. Luntz: I don't have it. Kasparov: You don't have it, and no one else has it. Luntz: Correct. Do you know how that makes me feel? I'm old. I was the youngest person in the room. Now I'm the oldest person. Kasparov: No, that you're definitely the youngest in this room. Yeah. Okay. (Laughs.) Luntz: Okay. I have some serious people, some major CEOs, some cultural leaders, some politicians on both sides of the aisle. And they sit me down, and they say, Get us out of this. And I have to say, I don't know how. The system is set up to reward the most extreme, angry, vicious, disrespectful voices. The public is listening to the most awful videos and audio, and anyone who is thoughtful and considerate—okay, I'll give you the answer. I'll give you two answers. I'll give you two specific people: Joe Rogan and Stephen A. Smith. Both of them stretch beyond the traditional appeal of a populist in one case and a centrist Democrat on the other. Stephen A.—more and more people are listening to him for his political commentary, not just sports. In Joe Rogan's case, everybody wants to know what his podcast is gonna say. The guy has an audience that continues to grow. Kasparov: Continues to grow? Luntz: Yes, they can make a difference. They—by what guests they have, by what conversations they have, and how they have it—can instill a different set of priorities, but they have to want to do it. It can't just be us. Kasparov: But, okay. Is there room, just following what you said, for a new leader and a new organization to rise and to force traditional Republicans, Democrats, whatever the name they call themselves now—MAGA, far-left woke—push them aside, because it's happening in some of the European countries? We see this. [French President Emmanuel] Macron was a typical phenomenon. But it's, you know, it's, for instance, Romanian presidential elections— Luntz: I saw that. Kasparov: The response to the rise of the far-right populist was not a traditional candidate, but another outsider who rallied behind him, support of all people who were not ready to push Romania into the Russian camp. Luntz: So in addition to the two people I mentioned, another one is Mark Cuban, because Mark Cuban is a businessman. He's not a political guy, but he understands politics. And Mark Cuban could change the tenor of the debate on the Democratic side. Kasparov: So, is there room for somebody in the middle to rally? Okay, you talk about Army generals, that's the only institution that has trust. Luntz: McRaven. Kasparov: McRaven. So in a hypothetical run from the retired Admiral William McRaven, AOC, J. D. Vance, does McRaven have a chance? Luntz: At this moment? No. Kasparov: No, we're talking about 2028. Luntz: But the idea that that's that whole word, that whole principle, the idea that we've had enough— Kasparov: May work for him? Luntz: Could work for any of those people. Kasparov: So, and if people like Joe Rogan, you know, just support this, the idea that enough is enough, then you could end up with a new candidate who could win an election by opposing both parties? Luntz: And opposing the style and the substance. Kasparov: Okay. Do Democrats, with a capital D, have to look for a general, an admiral, just an officer, flag officer, to lead them in 2028? Luntz: They need to find someone who has not wedded to the past, someone who's not been responsible for the failures of government, someone who's outside the mainstream. And I'm gonna flip it on you before you end this podcast, which is: You chose to be here. You're not an American citizen. Kasparov: No, I'm not. My wife is; my kids are. Luntz: And you love this country. I know you do. Kasparov: Absolutely. Luntz: How do you feel when you see our democratic system, small- d democrat, in such pain? Kasparov: Awful. Awful. That's why I believe it's my duty to do whatever I can to communicate the nature of the threat to American democracy and to help those who are willing to fight back—not resistance, but those who are willing to restore democracy. Or just probably, more accurately, to adjust it to the challenges of the 21st century. Look, I saw a lot. And I have an advantage, because I grew up in a communist country. So I learned many things through my own experience, not just reading books. And I saw democracy rise in Russia and then collapse. And not only in Russia. So I saw the world celebrating the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, 1991, and then going back to the rules of autocrats. So we—it's almost two decades that we see these steady rise of autocratic regimes around the globe. Democracies in retreat. And America proved not to be immune as other democracies against the virus of authoritarianism and corruption and distortion and fake news. So, I'm here fighting the same battle I fought back in Russia. So in Russia, we lost. But here, I hope our chances of winning and helping America to recover its global prominence and leadership—our chances are not slim to none. I think that's a very good chance. And also, again, I believe that without America restoring its greatness—not MAGA, I'm sorry—but America restoring its historical greatness and returning to its founding values, that's the only chance for the world to actually reap the benefits of this technological revolution and to move us forward into the brighter future. We need America to recover its place in the world and to—it's not about 'make America great again.' It's about finding the right combination of these ingredients, magic ingredients that have been mixed magically by Founding Fathers. And to make sure that American democracy, the American Republic—built on these traditional American values that made America great in the past—would help America to adjust to the new challenges of the 21st century. Luntz: And if I could add to that, to me, and the positive campaign is freedom. Both kinds of freedom. Freedom to. Freedom to own a gun: Second Amendment. Freedom to speak your mind: First Amendment. Freedom to work and do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Freedom to, but also freedom from. Freedom from fear, freedom from poverty, freedom from despair. It has to be both. One of them is basically conservative. The other one's basically progressive. And a commitment against corruption, because I think government waste is corruption. I think what they do with our tax dollars is corruption. I think that lobbyists and loopholes and special interests, that is corruption. And I believe that if you combine the positive—the freedom—with a fight against corruption and a commitment to say what you mean, mean what you say, and do what you say, that that is the perfect candidate for 2028. [ Music ] Kasparov: Sounds encouraging, Frank. So, fingers crossed. Let's see if this message is being heard. And again, I am encouraging optimism by nature, and I believe that what you had just said here in the studio would become the road map. Road map for the future president of the United States. Luntz: And you should know that, actually, I will go back to my condo 30 minutes from now, and I'm writing that road map as we speak. So you just saw the initial structure of it. Kasparov: Okay. You definitely can count on me, and I'm sure many of those who are listening to this podcast will be more than happy to join this campaign to rebuild America. Luntz: Well, Garry Kasparov. Kasparov: Frank Luntz, thank you. Luntz: Thank you very much. Kasparov: This episode of Autocracy in America was produced by Arlene Arevalo and Natalie Brennan. Our editor is Dave Shaw. Original music and mix by Rob Smierciak. Fact-checking by Ena Alvarado. Special thanks to Polina Kasparova and Mig Greengard. Claudine Ebeid is the executive producer of Atlantic audio. Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. Next time on Autocracy in America: Masih Alinejad: Garry, this is very ironic. A girl who was forced to shout 'Death to America.' The country that I wish death for, the United States of America, gave me a second life. And that's why I love America. And I wanna dedicate my life to fight for America as well, to protect America from terrorists, from authoritarianism. And that's why I am full of hope and energy.
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Telegraph style book: Kk
K Kalashnikov karaoke Kasparov, Garry Kaye, Gorden: ('Allo 'Allo! star) KC, King's Counsel kd lang: Is how she stylises her name Kellogg's Kim Il-sung Kim Jong-il Kim Jong-un King's Speech is delivered at the State Opening of Parliament. King's Christmas message, every December 25. Kinski, Nastassja KitKat Knesset: The Israeli parliament; sits in Jerusalem. Initial cap Ku Klux Klan Kwik-Fit
Time of India
17-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Rematch Season 1 Review: A gripping and brilliantly staged battle of mind vs machine
Story: Set against the high-stakes world of chess, this gripping drama reimagines the iconic 1997 face-off between world champion Garry Kasparov and IBM's supercomputer Deep Blue. Review: 'Rematch' is a psychological thriller drama built around Garry Kasparov's iconic 1997 face-off with IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. The series walks a fine line between historical fiction and intense character study. Directed by Yan England, it doesn't merely chronicle chess games—it dissects the mind of a genius, slightly intimidated by something he can't fully comprehend. While the setting is the chessboard, the show unfolds like a thriller, complete with boardroom politics and cold ambition. The tone is dark, atmospheric, and unapologetically stylized, giving the narrative an edge that's as much about psychological warfare as it is about pawns and kings. Full credit must go to the director for making this a riveting watch, even for those uninitiated in the game of chess. The series opens with Garry Kasparov (Christian Cooke) comfortably defeating Deep Blue in a six-round match in 1996. But when IBM chief George Silverman (Donald Sage Mackay) calls a boardroom meeting to investigate the company's declining edge, VP Helen Brock (Sarah Bolger) suggests that the real threat is the rise of the internet. She sees an opportunity in the chess duel and persuades Kasparov for a rematch, promising that the machine is now better equipped and Kasparov will earn a $1 million paycheck. Once Kasparov agrees, IBM launches a marketing blitz, branding the duel as a once-in-a-lifetime event. After he wins the first round, panic sets in. Brock brings in grandmasters to secretly assist Deep Blue. The plot soon leans into paranoia—was IBM playing fair? Were humans aiding the machine mid-game? And despite the known outcome, the suspense remains gripping. Christian Cooke brings both intensity and quiet rage to Kasparov—equal parts brilliance and brittleness. He portrays a man long used to being the smartest in the room, now spiralling as his opponent remains eerily emotionless. Trine Dyrholm as Kasparov's mother provides emotional grounding through flashbacks, offering warmth amid the cold tech world. Bolger's fictional character adds dramatic tension, though her arc occasionally feels underwritten. The rest of the ensemble—largely techies and aides—help root the narrative in realism. But make no mistake, 'Rematch' is an out-and-out Cooke show; his performance anchors the emotional weight of the story. The series succeeds most in building mood—oppressive, cerebral, and haunting. The cinematography and sound design mirror the protagonist's inner chaos, and the use of real chess games lends authenticity. However, the pacing is uneven. Some episodes move briskly, while others loop around the same psychological terrain, offering little new insight. At times, the dramatization slips into melodrama, particularly in its attempt to paint Kasparov as a tragic, almost mythic figure. 'Rematch' is less about chess and more about what it means to be human in the shadow of looming, powerful, unstoppable technology. The show thrives on atmosphere and psychological nuance rather than plot twists. While it takes dramatic liberties, it remains anchored to its core theme—the fear of becoming obsolete. Even when it stumbles, it remains compelling. For viewers interested in history, AI, or the human psyche under pressure, it's a rewarding watch. With its layered drama, sharp performances, and thematic depth, the man-versus-machine battle feels deeply personal.
