Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine

Game Over chronicles the infamous chess rematch between world champion Gary Kasparov and Deep Blue, an IBM supercomputer specially designed for the game that took over 30 man-years to create. The film itself is a mere 85 minutes and wastes no time making its assault on IBM, starting off with a damning reference to "The Turk," a famous hoax which purported to be a chess automaton. Roughly half of the film continues this bare-knuckle attack, with the director using creepy fade shots interspersed with interviews with IBM employees and an annoying whisper voice commentary to clearly inform the audience of who the "bad guys" are. This blatant taking of sides from early on is somewhat distracting to the viewer, as the facts presented later seem questionable due to the overwhelming bias of the filmmaker. For example, the film notably does not mention one of the programmer's attempts to stage another rematch between Kasparov and Deep Blue. Seeing as one of the primary arguments used to discredit Deep Blue's win is the refusal of a rematch on IBM's part, it seems outright irresponsible to ignore this important fact completely.

The other, and much better, half of the film is the story of Gary Kasprov and the trials and tribulations he faced during his match against Deep Blue in 1997. The film shows a side of Kasparov many may be unfamiliar with. While the mainstream media at the time seemed bent on selling him as an arrogant, flustered, and tactless mad scientist of sorts, Kasparov proves the contrary with his charisma and wit. He acts as a kind of tour guide throughout the film, taking the viewer everywhere from the headquarters of the Soviet chess program to the site of the match in New York. Not surprisingly, most viewers will find themselves rooting for a considerably humanized Kasparov and feeling the sting of defeat as the overwhelming pressure of the press, the matches and the future of chess all wreak havoc on his concentration.

Unfortunately for chess buffs, the film itself pays little attention to the actual match itself. It gives a brief description of how each side did in each game and briefly points out the move Kasparov thought was too "uncomputer-like" to have been made by a machine. The DVD, however, does have a fairly detailed reenactment of the matches done in Chessmaster, complete with commentary. The unbalanced and frankly boring and repetitive slam on IBM earns a 3, but the compelling story of Gary Kasparov earns a 9, making this film a 6 over all. If you are interested in the subject, it's worth the rent but the attack on IBM seems too vicious considering the hazy circumstances.

I'm not sure who this movie is targeting. There are interesting tidbits concerning the history of the challenge to make a chess machine. These might intrigue both chess fans and non-fans alike, though much more could be made of this, as the history is richer than even this film implies. More could also be made of the history between Kasparov and his arch-rival Karpov (two almost perfectly matched players, though you'd never guess from this movie). More could be made about the connection between chess champions and paranoia, or between chess and politics in the USSR (a connection which makes one understand better why chess players are so paranoid).

Instead, the makers of this film push the silly idea that IBM's Deep Blue beat Kasparov in '97 because of human intervention (ie, IBM cheated). The film bases this on one piece of evidence: Kasparov believes his loss in game two of the match was the result of a move that no computer would ever make. This is made all the sillier because a typical home chess program (Fritz 7) makes the very same move as Deep Blue after only a moment's thought. The film also claims that IBM never released the logs of Deep Blue's analysis after the game (just go to IBM's historical site concerning this match, and you will see this is not accurate).

Are documentaries getting lazier with their facts, or am I just finally wising up after years of taking them at their word?

When James Cameron released The Terminator back in 1984 with its mythology of a future robot-human war that would lead to the planet's possible destruction, I doubt he would have envisaged a similar battle taking place thirteen years later. But there would be no time-travelling cyborg, no unborn future saviour, no battle-scarred landscapes full of human skulls, and certainly no Michael Biehn. This one was much more low-key. It consisted of one genius chess player, one super-computer, and a small band of smug computer nerds.

After beating IBM's Deep Blue computer in a chess match in 1996, world champion chess master Garry Kasparov, widely regarded as the best player in history, agreed to take up a re-match a year later. This time, IBM believed it had something up his sleeve, recruiting former chess champions to 'teach' Deep Blue how to play like a human. It was to be a fun experiment, pitting man against machine. After demolishing Deep Blue in the first round, IBM came back in the second to beat Kasparov. Sending Kasparov into a paranoid decline as Deep Blue's power became apparent, he starts to wonder about the legitimacy of IBM's claims, the goings-on behind closed doors, and why the IBM corporation are refusing to show the computer match logs.

First of all, for a documentary about chess, this is purely riveting stuff. The psychological torment that can be experienced by chess players engulfs Kasparov. As the experts say, chess is a game where you must be expectant and suspicious of your opponent, making it an ultimately paranoid game. The mind games that Kasparov accuses IBM of playing on him just destroys him, and his deterioration is played out in the fantastic stock footage of the match. The film eventually becomes not only a study of what it means to be human, but also a commentary on the corruption of corporations - I must say, although nothing is proved, it is clear where director Vikram Jayanti's beliefs lie.

The film begins with title cards explaining how an 18th-century chess- playing machine called 'The Turk' managed to beat a number of players, including Napoleon Bonaparte. It was apparently a well-constructed machine, but was in fact a hoax, and tricks and construction allowed for a person to fit inside it, but create the illusion that only cogs and mechanics lay inside. It is used as an obvious metaphor for the accusation faced by IBM of cheating and playing the man in the machine. In fairness, the film offers the men behind Deep Blue the chance to have their say, and they do themselves no favours. They come across as arrogant and smarmy. Yet the film's obvious siding with Kasparov seems unfair given that the accusations made against IBM are unproven, and no evidence is offered in the film.

That flaw aside, this is undoubtedly a gripping documentary, and Kasparov makes for a warm host and narrator. The match seemed to have its effect on Kasparov, as he soon lost his world title afterwards, and the mental strain and bitterness is still there to see. It did actually make me want to play chess too, although I'm crap.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

In 1997, one of the world's greatest chess players, Garry Kasparov played a match against an IBM machine called Deep Blue. After easily winning the first game of six, Kasparov is astonished when, in game two, the computer refuses to take a trap that he has set – a trap that commonly sees computers fall. With his composure lost, he concedes the game to Deep Blue. However, Kasparov insisted that the computer was being backed up by a human player – helping it spot the mistakes that computer logic would make. In this film he recalls the games and tries to back up his claims.

For those of us who remember this tournament between man and machine, this is a fascinating film for the chance to find out more about the specifics of the match. At the time I was only vaguely aware that the games were taking place and was certainly not aware of the sheer amount of controversy that seems to have surrounded the games. The film starts very badly and shows its main weakness immediately by setting up an absurdly conspiratorial tone that it happily tones down later. The whispery narration and the use of sinister music at key moments seems to be pushing the idea that IBM did it all to ensure victory and boost stock prices in the world market. This is all fine and good but I would have greatly preferred if the film had let me draw my own conclusions rather than pushing this idea as the only show in town.

Aside from this the film does well by allowing each side to speak for themselves as well as showing footage from the matches and it is difficult not to feel that the matches were not totally as clean an experiment as they were billed. However the film never answers all the questions that well and I doubt it will ever be clear but it is still very interesting. The chance to hear all those involved speak is good and Kasparov makes for a very human subject and it is easy to feel for him as he relates how increasingly difficult the whole affair was for him. In contrast the IBM guys do come across as rather distant, with some just not providing any real answers – particularly about why the project was taken away after the game and not followed up – like one commentator says 'it's like going to the moon but just coming back without exploring'. Whether or not it was all a plan to boost stock I don't know but the way everything was handled seems a little suspect and this film highlights that.

When it focuses on the people involved and the facts, the film is very enjoyable and interesting. However, when it goes into X-Files mode and starts seeing monsters in every shadow, it gets a bit tiresome and I couldn't help but wish that it would let me judge for myself rather than forcing its own agenda but happily the subject is interesting enough to overcome the faults of the producers.

In the May 1997, Gary Kasparov, the reigning Chess World Champion and by the opinion of many, the greatest chess player ever played Deep Blue, an IMB Supercomputer. At its best scenes, the film is an entertaining look at the never ending competition of human intellect against artificial. The greatest player on Earth does not like and does not know how to lose, and his account of the match and its result is quite bitter. He can't believe that the computer program, the combination of 0s and 1s may appear to think like a human. It was sad and nostalgic for me to see Gary like that. I remember him back in 1985, 22 years old World Champion after his victorious match with Anatoly Karpov. In his (and former mine) country millions of people that knew nothing or next to nothing about ancient game of chess (All I know that the first move e2 – e4 will not bring me any problems, at least for a little while) passionately wished him to win. Gary was not just a brilliant chess genius, a wonder-boy – he was also a symbol of hope, of changes not only in the chess politics but in the life of the whole country that was ready for changes.