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.

In 1997 the world of flesh suffered a major body blow when it was announced that chess Grandmaster Gary Kasparov, perhaps the greatest player in the history of the game, had been trounced by a tool shed. A rather advanced variation, granted; IBM's supercomputer Deep Blue – designed especially, it seemed, to tip latent paranoiacs over the edge. Had we genuinely inched that much closer to Jimmy Cameron's dystopian vision of a machine-run planet? Or were there cruder, more political ramifications at work? (i.e. were Deep Blue's programmers a bunch of cheating brigands?). Kasparov, who compared IBM to Enron, and the outcome with Maradona's 'hand of God' goal certainly thinks so and, superficially, the evidence appears compelling: with Apple taking the market lead, IBM were desperate to win at any price, and thus raise their profile. Whatever, it worked; the next day their stock share jumped 15%. IBM refused to allow anyone to inspect Deep Blue or its printouts, and dismantled it as soon as the game was over. But the real controversy centred on Round 2, during which Deep Blue made a risky – and suspiciously 'human' move – having hitherto played with number-crunching logic. Ranged against all this is the fact that Kasparov has an ego the size of the Matterhorn, and more chips on his shoulders than a tree surgeon. For Gary's been here before: in 1985, he claimed the Soviets, who'd looked down on him as an Armenian Jew, had used dirty tricks during his match with their champion Anatoly Karpov… For a documentary about such a cerebral, closeted subject, Game Over progresses like a taut little thriller, ultimately yielding more questions than answers, to leave you wondering long after the credits.

I saw the documentary, and saw the actual games in 1997.

Kasparov could surely be a fine actor, since the guy is very expressive and charismatic.

Whenever he felt good and winning, you could see it. And when he was losing and crumbling, you could see it too. Was way obvious. Like the documentary say, Kasparov would be the worst poker player in the world.

Now, did IBM cheat?

Who knows. Anything is possible

Arguments against it: Kasparov could've taken for granted Deep Blue's playing antics as the one of a normal computer, and since IBM had a grandmaster chess player advising the programmers, it's not so wild to conceive that they managed to program Deep Blue to be able to spot traps like the one Kasparov set up that wouldv'e nailed any other computer. And he's a paranoid (coming from the U.R.S.S. no one can blame him), since chess is also psychologic warfare, IBM surely did it's best to psyche out Kasparov and play his paranoid assumptions.

Arguments for it: Kasparov won fist game easy, but lost second when Deep Blue didn't take a bait a compute would've taken. Maybe losing the first game was intended to lower Kasparov's defenses so he would try a play like that, and there Deep Blue would surprise him, psyche him out and steamroll. But that's a human strategy, not a machine's (the computer only knows the game in front of it, doesn't know there are six games total, so it would NEVER sacrifice one to try to surprise Kasparov in the next one).

Also IBM,s attitude, while could be attributed to psyching out Kasparov (fueling his paranoia), looked totally like a cheater's conduct. Also when they won (no rematch, no further research, dismantling of Deep Blue) doesn't look like honest behavior (first truly artificial intelligence? Who would NOT follow through with research?), but like a cheater who won and now has to skip town before he's discovered.

And, the final nail: Why shouldn't IBM cheat? To IBM, it's nothing but a marketing stunt, nothing else. The whole point was not to beat Kasparov or improve artificial intelligence (or they would've continued the work on Deep Blue, published the groundbreaking work, patented programming code, etc), but only to improve stock value and reposition themselves on the market. So why not cheat if necessary? Like a company would be above that (Enron, etc.) or anything for that matter to increase profit.

But since there's no way to verify what Deep Blue did (thanks to IBM, like e-voting paperless machines, "trust us"), we'll never know...

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.