Watch Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine For Free

Sadly Over-hyped

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

i was disappointed in this documentary.i thought it would be about the second chess match between Grandmaster Garry Kasporov and Deep Blue the supercomputer designed by IBM computer experts to beat any human chess player.Kasparov was and still is,considered the greatest chess player ever.the movie takes us back to 1997 where Kasporov had agreed to have a rematch with "deep Blue" after defeating it 1 year earlier.but instead of focusing on the game,it focuses more on what happens before and after.there are snippets of the game,but not very many.much of the film centers around Kasporov's paranoid obsession that the match was rigged as part of some conspiracy theory and that he lost the match unfairly.the movie also includes interviews with people who are not interesting in any way.they even chat with the manager of the building where the match took place.who cares?i also found it very dry and slow.ultimately this movie was unsatisfying.this is just my opinion,of course.if you like conspiracy theories,this movie might interest you.for people not into chess or conspiracy theories,this movie would probably have no value.i am a chess fan,and i only stuck it out because of that.i give"Game Over:Kasparov and the Machine" 4/10

a convincingly slanted take on the events surrounding deep blue vs kasparov.well put together and presented (except the whispery narration).many negative reactions on here, but they seem to be based on expectations that the film would be something its not. sort of silly to blast a movie for that, but hey.certainly an editorial rather than a documentary. pretty even handed, but ultimately agenda driven.not that that is a bad thing by any means. leave your expectations at the door, and just accept it for what it is.

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 possibleArguments 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, 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.