Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine

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...

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.

Not sure why everyone is saying that this is biased. There was lots of screen time for IBM. Their reasoning for concealing everything was pretty weak in my opinion. Legal mumbo jumbo about private vs public matches, absurd excuses about concealing code and game logs. Not on the up and up in the least. The movie itself was a fascinating discussion about the nature of corporate PR and the possible taking advantage of a tightly controlled publicity campaign. They made it seem like everything was out in the open, but if you look a layer below, the signs of opaqueness are, at the least, concerning. Engineers being allowed to tinker in between games, putting the computer in a locked room, refusing to display code or log files, immediately abandoning a rematch and destroying the computer. The IBM engineer in the movie even seemed to be gaslighting and turning the screw deeper on film. He relished in the controversy and mind games. If that is the man behind deep blue, I would be very concerned. He seemed like a sociopath. But that's just my two cents. If they played it fair, they certainly didn't behave like they did after the fact. Let alone the suspicious mistakes mixed with brilliant moves in game 1 and 2. The movie is fascinating and less biased than people give credit for. The turk B Roll is a bit gratuitous, but overall, IBM got to march out their weak excuses for hiding and controlling everything. The upside for them was way too high to not make all the circumstantial evidence baseless. Its a must see if you are a chess fan.

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

Vikram Jayanti's documentary on the 1997 clash between IBM super-computer Deep Blue and Russian chess grand master Garry Kasparov is frustrating and fascinating in equal measure.

Kasparov's insistence that IBM cheated (by using one or more chess masters to influence the computer during the match) seems perfectly possible, but the computer manufacturers refusal to allow either a rematch or analysis of their data makes it impossible to substantiate the claims. Sadly that doesn't stop Jayanti, his subjective approach is unaffected by the apparent stalemate.

Fortunately the film has more to offer. The actual match becomes hugely dramatic and exciting in Jayanti's hands. Kasparov himself is an extremely enigmatic and passionate figure, the footage of him in the press conferences that took place after each of the six games is dynamite. In the second, he accuses IBM of cheating. In the last, after nine days of play, he appears on stage looking physically and mentally destroyed, the applause that greets him (and the boos for IBM) would seem to indicate a general feeling of suspicion of IBM's sportsmanship and honesty.

Too subjective to be a 'great' documentary, it is still a fascinating insight into a game and community that would seem to offer much potential for future study.