I'm not sure who this movie is targeting. There are interesting tidbits concerning the history of the challenge to make a chess machine. These might intrigue both chess fans and non-fans alike, though much more could be made of this, as the history is richer than even this film implies. More could also be made of the history between Kasparov and his arch-rival Karpov (two almost perfectly matched players, though you'd never guess from this movie). More could be made about the connection between chess champions and paranoia, or between chess and politics in the USSR (a connection which makes one understand better why chess players are so paranoid).
Instead, the makers of this film push the silly idea that IBM's Deep Blue beat Kasparov in '97 because of human intervention (ie, IBM cheated). The film bases this on one piece of evidence: Kasparov believes his loss in game two of the match was the result of a move that no computer would ever make. This is made all the sillier because a typical home chess program (Fritz 7) makes the very same move as Deep Blue after only a moment's thought. The film also claims that IBM never released the logs of Deep Blue's analysis after the game (just go to IBM's historical site concerning this match, and you will see this is not accurate).
Are documentaries getting lazier with their facts, or am I just finally wising up after years of taking them at their word?
