Rematch

Rematch brings history to life by presenting pivotal moments in chess and AI development without relying on excessive drama.

The characters are carefully crafted, making the series accessible even to viewers unfamiliar with chess history, while also providing a treasure trove of details for enthusiasts.

The storyline delves into the intense pressures and relationships entwined with success, highlighting both IBM's and Kasparov's struggles and aspirations. It's a compelling portrayal of the human and technological tensions at play.

The surprising low ratings don't reflect the quality and historical importance this show brings, as it captures one of AI's landmark moments with both respect and realism.

Yan England!!!!!!!!. Seriously I am not a chess player. I mean I appreciate it. But this is high class series. This is where artificial intelligence all started and look where we are at today. Technology overtaking jobs, space, duties, internet and most of our daily chores. Had we known IBM would have gone the same route anyways I'm sure. Sadly humans invent and may soon be bypassed by their own inventions. Have fun warching it is breathtaking all along the 6 episodes. Interesting high class. Worth a 9/10 and up for those who like or don't like chess you will appreciate it. I watched the 6 in a row!!!

A well-made TV series. We are living in an age where A. I is playing an important role in our day-to-day lives and it's always good to learn more about the beginnings of A. I. There comes the relevance of this TV series. This series is co-funded by the European Union.

Garry Kasparov is my favourite chess player of all time and it's good to see a raw Kasparov on the screen, portrayed by the English actor, Christian Cooke, he has executed this role perfectly. The supporting actors have also performed well.

Another highlight is the production design and the creators have tried their level best to give us that original 90s experience and I think that has worked well.

I don't think everyone is going to enjoy this TV series, but if you are into chess and would like to learn more about the history of A. I., then definitely go for it.

Acting: 3.

Dialogue: 4.

Camera work: 6.

Editing: 6.

Budget: 6.

Story: 5.

Theme: 4.

Pure entertainment factor: 6.

Pacing: 5.

Suspension of disbelief: 6.

Non-cringe factor: 3.

Lack of flashbacks: 1.

Special effects: NA.

Video quality: 7.

Rematch depicts the 1997 rematch where IBM is extremely eager to beat Kasparov any way they can and then dismantle Deep Blue right afterwards so that no one can see how they did it. The first time a computer beat a world champion in a match.

Chess players specifically will be interested in checking it out. Yet I'm not quite sure who this is for. We do see the board in rapid cuts and IM level players would be able to spot the position and get some enjoyment from that. Regular online players will not be able to think fast enough to understand any of the positions. It's like watching GM openings with no engine. I really don't know what is what. Similarly it's not quite for newcomers as there are faster ways to learn about this match. Like the 2 hour long Deep Blue by Down the Rabbit Hole Youtube video. It goes over all this in good enough detail. This show is then needed to bring it to life yet it doesn't quite feel like real life.

Mainly if the structure was great and acting strong one could recommend it to anyone. Even if they hate chess. Unfortunately Europe has 2 gigantic issues film wise. Firstly the writing is way behind Hollywood to a degree where everything feels like forced exposition. Actors even repeat lines and statements in the same scene just seconds later as if the writers don't trust the viewers to understand anything. Maybe because Europe is making films for people who barely speak English so they try to dumb it down. Secondly, the acting is also 10 steps behind USA. Writing and acting is always quite awful in Europe. Then there are smaller issues like budget.

The guy playing Kasparov is quite decent as he gets fewer response lines so less feels forced. The IBM programmer is great as he's underplaying his character. The IBM manager woman is quite awful. Her lines are extremely forced and she either cries or screams. Neither at any point feels realistic. At times the TV show feels like it was made for teens in the 60's with how basic it all is. Kasparov's mother here is all over the place initially having strong scenes until her character too starts fake shouting matches. The European cringe is definitely felt quite a bit here intermixed with proper scenes the otherwise feel decent. If you have watched small country regional TV in Europe you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's a soap opera type flair to filmmaking.

The plot is unstructured. We get flashbacks to his childhood and world championship match vs. Karpov quite often making the whole thing feel messy. Weird that the first episode was not just his childhood. Queen's Gambit did it cleanly with strong focus on realistic scenes. Here all scenes end on a high note. Everything is a shock, everything is very emotional, all scenes have the camera moving all about and fast cuts. Not trusting the actors or writing to carry anything. Which again is a thing in European media where the writing is quite often awful. From there all parts become worse trying to make up for too predictable and dull scenes. The dialogue is on the nose meaning the character never just say stuff, they explain it to each other clearly talking to the viewer. Something you only see in absolute amateur first time writing not in professional productions. Again, unless it's made extremely simplified on purpose. But 99% of viewers rather see technical lines they don't always get than child friendly stuff like this. Especially as the on the nose dialogue doesn't really deliver any needed info. If you don't understand the details you won't understand them here either. Rather on the nose dialogue is used to explain singular statements like when they talk about soccer they have to explain exactly what they mean. Go watch any American comedy show. You'll see them talk about sports and media without ever explaining it. They just talk about it naturally. This show meanwhile is made for stupid people who already understand chess. Which is who exactly?

It's just hard to recommend to any specific viewer and so it seems like it's made for no one. Maybe some project made fast just to sell to a studio? If you want to remake such a story either go on the nose when explaining chess step by step or just go full technical. These half measures are lazy and make no sense. Also, the acting ... oh my god the acting. Just ... no.

Ok, it's clear that if you don't know anything about chess, it will be harder to you understand the biggest moments in this mini series, but if you do, it's a sure bet, also after you finish seeing it, you remember how cool really chess is and you want to play asap 😍.

Also, for me how only read in the news at the time (was a teenager), it was very cool as I didn't knew what happened back then, so my advice is if you don't remember what happened, don't google il until the end.

The actors do a amazing job on recreating the 90s atmosphere and how much was important for them the victory in this historical match.