Game Over: Kasparov And The Machine (DVD)

...could tell you how great Game Over is. Unfortunately, if I did, I'd be lying. As documentaries go, it's somewhat dull. As a film, it's actually quite awful.

Game Over tells the story of a 1997 chess match between chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov and the IBM developed super-computer, Deep Blue. Kasparov is widely accepted as the worlds greatest player of the game, so it was surprising when he lost the match. However, in the years since ...
...a loss.

Game Over had the potential to be a fascinating piece of investigative journalism that sets out to find out whether IBM really did conspire against Kasparov or not. This would have been a far more interesting tale than a man, whom despite being undoubtably intelligent, comes across as the kind of raving man you might find in the pub complaining about how the referee was against his football team. Seeing as the filmmakers don't ... more

One may not expect a documentary about chess to be the most entertaining of films. It's not as if chess is the most exciting sport in the world, and so a film that delves into one particular match doesn't seem like an enticing prospect. I was curious to see the film myself as I enjoy chess, and I also seem to enjoy the most mundane of topics covered in film. As such, I really wish I could tell you how great Game Over is. Unfortunately, if I did, I'd be lying. As documentaries go, it's somewhat dull. As a film, it's actually quite awful.

Game Over tells the story of a 1997 chess match between chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov and the IBM developed super-computer, Deep Blue. Kasparov is widely accepted as the worlds greatest player of the game, so it was surprising when he lost the match. However, in the years since the match, suspicions have been aroused about exactly how he lost the match, with Kasparov seemingly becoming increasingly paranoid that a conspiracy to defeat him was involved. The film largely tells the story from his point of view, but also takes in accounts from others surrounding the game, including many of the IBM developers of Deep Blue.

From that, the idea of the film might not actually seem that bad. It may even seem appealing. I know that it did to me. However, with the way in which the film is presented, it becomes more and more difficult to enjoy the film. By focusing the film on Kasparov, and giving him the majority of the narrative, the film comes across about as neutral as a Michael Moore film. A neutral voiceover would have aided this film greatly, and quite why there isn't one to link the sections together is entirely baffling to me. While Kasparov's story is interesting, it isn't enough to sustain an entire film. When you look below what is being presented, it essentially comes down to a ninety minute "I was screwed" rant. Whether or not he was seems to be irrelevant to the filmmakers, and quite why they didn't want to investigate the exact circumstances fully leaves me at a loss.

Game Over had the potential to be a fascinating piece of investigative journalism that sets out to find out whether IBM really did conspire against Kasparov or not. This would have been a far more interesting tale than a man, whom despite being undoubtably intelligent, comes across as the kind of raving man you might find in the pub complaining about how the referee was against his football team. Seeing as the filmmakers don't seem to care about whether it's true or not (just that they are pushing a controversial view), neither do we as the viewer. Was Kasparov screwed over by IBM? In all honesty, there is a good chance that he was. There is certainly evidence to support it, most notably in the computer suddenly changing playing styles between the first and second game, and the way in which Deep Blue was destroyed, with all logs, immediately after the match. There was a number of other shady events that impacted the match as well, but most of these are just given passing references in the smallest amount of time possible so the camera can get back to Kasparov.

The few alternative viewpoints that we are given, largely from the IBM programmers who helped develop Deep Blue, raises further questions about how feasible it was for there to be a grand conspiracy. Most of the developers seem normal and honest enough, there is certainly no sinister "boo-hiss" enemy here. It's a shame that no one in the higher echelons of IBM was involved in this, or the important people on the Deep Blue team at the time of the match. A few developers claiming their innocence may be legitimate enough, but that doesn't mean there wasn't people above them abusing what was available.

It's most likely that we'll never find out exactly what did occur behind the scenes of the match. It's a shame, as there is certainly an excellent story to be told here, and one that someone who actually knows what they are doing needs to investigate. It's just a shame that this half-hearted attempt chooses to focus almost all of it's energies as being a platform for Kasparov to complain from rather than trying to be a serious documentary. 

...less