Checkmate the Future of Strategy | Magnus Carlsen with Veteran technology entrepreneur Yat Siu

Well, I think first, chess is highly strategic. It's also very human. When you look at AI, I don't know when was the last time I would imagine you'd be using AI to train a lot, but I think the point is that it's not as fun to see two AIs play each other because it misses out on this entire human nature, the psychology. I think it's the beauty of watching the game in and of itself because there is drama and human life, there's emotions. And I think that in a way, you have such a highly technically capable and intelligent game that at this age where we have super intelligence coming to us, what is the part about that game that actually preserves the humanity and all the other side of the interaction? I think that's kind of part of that. That's actually why I remember as a child going into games, my parents would look at the video games almost like, 'Oh, you're playing with machines, you're looking at a screen, it doesn't mean anything.' But for me, it was about the human interaction on the other side. But most people who don't play games probably don't know that. 80% of people who play games play it because of friendship, because of social. And I think that to me is the real power. The oldest game in the world is a great representation for that, and the complexity goes well with that. That's what drew us to chess and why, by the way, it's a very touching talk, very special, and I think they all connect very beautifully.

Well, we invested in a lot of games, so it's kind of like picking out your favorite child. I'm not sure, but I would say one of the games that I did appreciate a lot from my childhood was Minecraft because that was the game that actually brought people together. It was about building. And I think today the two biggest games in the world are Roblox and Minecraft. Both of those games have nothing to do with graphics. Their graphics are frankly quite primitive in comparison to Fortnite or Call of Duty, but it's the fact that people can build their own environments and their satisfaction comes from other people experiencing that environment. So, it's like you create your own game, almost like your own variant of a board game or chess game, where you have fun with it. And the validation comes from other people experiencing that fun, which again is human because it's about sharing. I look at the world: why do people invite people to their homes and have dinners, gatherings, get-togethers? For the younger generation, that is the world in the virtual world. That is their gathering. That's where they come together, not just in the social setting, but they share photos. It's more around, 'Hey, let's do something together. Let's go on a quest. Let's do a mission.' That actually binds people together, and I think that's also a social thing. But I do have a question for Fortnite as well, if I may. When you talk about how technology tunes machines better, like car engines and so on, I'm actually interested to understand what you and your peers think: to what degree does technology and AI tune you? And do you use it that way? Is it common? Or is it frowned upon? So, if you know, is there a world you see in the future where those that have the better technology would have an edge in the mastery of chess, or you think that is some element? What part is human and what is technology?

But I think one of the things that we see in this tournament, chess in particular, is that as humans we're wired to learn, and really what it comes down to is how do you get information the quickest possible way? And you can argue that TikTok and Instagram have hacked the system in a way because it is information, even if you're just scrolling through your phone while you're getting information. But do you think that in half an hour of scrolling through your feed, you're actually getting 30, 40, 50 pieces of information as opposed to one or two from the traditional news cycle? And our brain with the dopamine starts to respond to that because it's learning something and it gets excitement around that. That's part of the criticism why social media companies are saying, 'Do that with your children, you know, how do you have to control that aspect of it better?' because patience isn't a great virtue of many of the kids that are out there. I think there are a lot of people in the audience that remember when you went to the movies, the introduction of the sort of introducing the movie with all the names of the actors was probably 5 minutes before the movie even started. And of course today you can't start a movie this way. You have to go straight into it. Someone dies, someone falls off a cliff, something happens and then you're hooked. And that constant pressure opened up and I think that culture has permeated through everything, but it comes down to that we want the quickest access to information as efficiently as possible. And I think it just feeds into that.

Well, first, education is a parent of three older kids, so you kind of see where the system's going. Quick shout out to the Dalton School over there. So, I think it's part of the reason why that vision and mission is so important. You mentioned earlier about creativity. I think that is one of the most important skills that we need to maintain as a human. You may have heard the anecdote I spoke about earlier, but there's a study by George Land back in the '60s. He did the divergent thinking test for NASA scientists. In the '60s, they needed to hire really creative and divergent people because if they were going to send someone up to the moon, there was no rule book. He took a version of that test and followed children from the age of 5 to 15 and then gave the same test to people who were 21. Children who were 5 years old were able to solve problems in a divergent and creative manner 98% of the time. And that flew in the face of his entire argument, which is more accepted today: creativity isn't taught, you're born with it. Every human is born with creative innate abilities. By the time they were 8, then 10, by the time they were 15, it dropped to 8%. And of course it's because of schooling, rules, and systems that constrain you. And then adults at 21, 2%. What's interesting about that stat is there's another thing that correlates with it: the entrepreneurial index. People who build companies, who are outside thinkers, not just the Elon Musks, but everyone building businesses, is roughly 2% as well. So, it's like the round hole square peg quote by Steve Jobs. If you're creative enough to change the world, people think you're crazy enough to change the world, you likely will. But in that percentage of people, it's very small because we engineer it out of people because we need to make machines in the classic Victorian age. But now, in this world, the computer, the AI, does all of that for you. You don't need to be the machine. So, what is it that's left that makes you human? It's the ability to feel, emotions, creativity, and build problems and see the solutions. And I think that's the only way education ought to be: focused on this. If you can preserve the creative index so that the adult population is not 2% creative but 4% creative, it seems a small number but it effectively doubles the creative GDP output. Just by starting at a young age. So, take that number to 4%, take it to 10%, take it to 20%. That means, in my generation, to be an entrepreneur was because you were unemployed. An entrepreneur was equivalent to unemployment. My mother would never be okay with me not having a job because that was not the world we grew up in. You had to be a job person. Today, if you're an entrepreneur, it's kind of cool. And in the future, I think everyone will just be an entrepreneur. It'll be the first class that you go to because everyone will sort of go there. And I think that's the part that we have to let our children be unconstrained on.

Maybe I could live with that in this one. Because I think first of all, I'm very happy where I am. I'm happily married to my wife Michelle here. Three kids. It's all good. I think the main thing for me is that if I had known something differently, the trajectory would change because I would act on that. The moment someone tells you something, it impacts and influences you. It's not just a butterfly effect; it's just how you are. And I think many of the lessons that we as humans have to learn, we have to learn emotionally. I don't think you can learn just by reading it in a book or having a theory. And maybe you could call it a waste of time, but I think that's quality of ours. How many people have read something they shouldn't have done but they did it anyway? Or someone told you you should not do that, but they did it anyway because of a feeling they had or an intuition. I don't think you can lose that. The lessons I've learned from the mistakes are more valuable than necessarily the successes. I wouldn't have experienced them if someone told me, 'These are the 10 things you shouldn't have done.'