Garry Kasparov is arguably the greatest chess player who has ever lived. In 1997 he played a chess match against IBM's computer Deep Blue. Kasparov lost the match. This film shows the match...
See full summary »
'Bobby Fischer Against the World' is a documentary feature exploring the tragic and bizarre life of the late chess master Bobby Fischer. The drama of Bobby Fischer's career was undeniable, ... See full summary »
The movie is based on the life & times of David MacEnulty who taught schoolchildren of the Bronx Community Elementary School 70 to play at competition level, eventually winning New York ... See full summary »
Malcolm David Kelley,
Middle-aged chambermaid Hélène's newfound obsession with the game of chess leads her to seek the tutelage of a reclusive American expat, transforming both of their ho-hum lives in the ... See full summary »
Two masters of chess duel each other not only in their game but also in their different ideologies. The veteran Akiva is a Soviet Jew and ferocious Communist, master of his game but also ... See full summary »
A chess grandmaster is in a big tournament, and when his lover is found painted up and the blood drained out of her body he becomes a chief suspect. After he gets a call from the killer ... See full summary »
Garry Kasparov is arguably the greatest chess player who has ever lived. In 1997 he played a chess match against IBM's computer Deep Blue. Kasparov lost the match. This film shows the match and the events surrounding it from Kasparov's perspective. It delves into the psychological aspects of the game, paranoia surrounding it and suspicions that have arisen around IBM's true tactics. It consists of interviews with Kasparov, his manager, chess experts, and members of the IBM Deep Blue team, as well as original footage of the match itself. Written by
Kasparov may have lost, but IBM surely could've cheated as well...
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...
11 of 15 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?