inetvideo from NY, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $2.83 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

discountdvdwarehouse from OH, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $2.84 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

bargainmovies from TN, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $2.88 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

newbury_comics from MA, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $2.99 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

moviemars from NC, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $4.94 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

Books & things offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $4.95 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

--caiman-- from FL, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $4.99 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

--movieweb-- from NV, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $5.38 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

oddbanana from NV, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $5.40 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

smokymtnbooks from TN, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $5.45 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

What our customer's say!

"Enjoyable but shallow", Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine examines the infamous 1997 rematch between then world-champion Gary Kasparov and IBM's chess supercomputer, Deep Blue. Kasparov had defeated an earlier incarnation of Deep Blue the previous year, but in 1997 the new and improved computer defeated him in a six-game match: two wins to one with three draws.

Speculation was rampant that IBM had rigged the match by allowing a human player to override the computer on certain key moves. As evidence, conspiracy theorists pointed to moves wherein Kasparov offered the sacrifice of a pawn, and the computer turned it down. Pawn sacrifices, which strong players often use to garner positional advantages or to gain initiative, were long considered too abstract for a computer to understand. A machine, many argued, could not possibly see far enough ahead to truly appreciate the subtle positional edge that a good sacrifice can provide. Therefore, a human must have been helping the computer out. Who could expect a human player, even one as brilliant as Kasparov, to defeat the combination of human and computer?

The film makes frequent reference to "The Turk", a chess-playing automaton that was famous in the 18th century. Travelling around Europe, it impressed monarchs and noblemen with its astonishing ability. The Turk was a hoax; a human player, concealed beneath the machine, operated the arms and made the moves himself. Dramatizations of the historical episode, borrowed from black and white films, appear frequently throughout Game Over (in fact they constitute something of a thematic refrain). The analogy is obvious, and certainly compelling. Could Deep Blue have been a modern day Turk, an elaborate fraud perpetrated by IBM to garner publicity? It's hard not to be intrigued by the question, but unfortunately, the intrigue ends there. "Game Over" does not present a single shred of evidence to support its hypothesis. Instead, it relies esclusively (and I do mean exclusively) on innuendo.

Over and over, a shaky camera presents us with blurred visuals while a hushed voice wonders aloud about the supposedly "un-computer-like" moves that Deep Blue made during the match. One interviewee after another questions the machine's strangely profound understanding of the game. The film ends with a gradual interior tracking shot of the warehouse in which the de-commisioned supercomputer now resides (it's hard not think of the final shot from Raiders of the Lost Ark), while the narrator laments that the truth may never be known. All this is very mysterious, yes, but it's also utterly unconvincing.

It wasn't so long ago that otherwise rational people proclaimed with certainty that no computer would ever beat a human world champion. Chess, they said, is too full of pattern-recognition, of strategy and subtlety, for a computer to grasp in full. How could any person with even a basic knowledge of chess and computer science have legitimately believed this? While the number of possible positions in chess is astronomical, it is still finite, and a sufficiently powerful computer should, in theory, be able to "solve" the game (that is, determine the ideal move for every position). Even today, no computer is capable of this. But as processors grew more and more powerful, it was inevitable that they would come close enough to their lofty goal that they would surpass the limits of human chess ability. From then on, the world champion would never again be a human.

Should it really surprise us that an exceptionally powerful computer (which, at the time, Deep Blue was) would be able to look far enough ahead to see that a small material gain now would cost it dearly later on? "Game Over" sustains itself on nothing more than baseless insinuations about the IBM programming team. What is most offensive about this is the way that the programmers are demonized for crushing humanity's hopes of perpetual chess supremacy. Should it not be viewed as an equally great triumph of human ingenuity that a team of computer scientists was able to create a machine more skilled even than Kasparov, a genius who had devoted his life to the study of chess?

Compounding the absurdity is the fact that a year before this film was released, world champion Vladimir Kramnik drew an eight-game match against the chess program Fritz, which can be purchased for a small sum at your local Best Buy and installed on your home computer. One wonders if the producers of Game Over were aware of this.

"Not for Chess Players", A driveling film that should've had 2/3rds of it edited out.

The usual moronic style: Shaky cameras, five second soundbites from a whirlwind of talking heads, "spooky" music, anti-corporatist agitprop, conspiracy theorizing...

Hey, here's a conspiracy theory: Some fool we're supposed to take seriously states that IBM made "billions" out of the match. Maybe they gave the neurotic Kasparov a few million to lose?

Hey, players: read Pandolfini's book on the match. I'm not a great fan of Mr. P, but it's a move-by-move Chernev-style annotation of the six games. Quite interesting and taught me, at least, a bit more about the game.

Anyway, K lost the match, and serve him right. Deep Blue didn't win it.

Karpov would've crushed DB: Play the board, not the man/machine!





"IBM oligarchs win...", For persons of passing interest(even novice chess players)GAME OVER is rivetingly suspenseful documentary/odyssey of(1997)defeat of Master of Grand Masters,WIZARD of ICE,Gary Kasparov by HAL 9000-like IBM supercomputer,DEEP BLUE.Kasparov mauled DB the year before and IBM oligarchs wanted to put the ace-in-his-place.It's strongly implied(the film's bias)IBM not only tweeked-up its program(200 million moves/
second)DURING each respective game,but used a complement of hired/Top Gun Grand Masters to judge DB's evaluations and,if necessary,OVERRULE them with radical/creative "illogical" counter-moves(poison pawn plays;startling sacrificial gambits~the arsenal of Grand Masters...Imagine a whole team of Grand Masters"ganging-up"on you~then having DB to re-evaluate YOUR COUNTER before you play it).When IBM(out-psyched)GMGK and won game 6 and match,IBM stock purportedly rose 15%that day.I think IBM's HAL prototype...with cohort of GM's...did cheat. A chess genius like Kasparov should have gotten over-it.
Apparently,like Bobby Fisher,he didn't.Yet GK did come back as reigning WIZARD of ICE of all time(thus far)and IBM still has to outdo MICROSOFT...
This is fascinating film more about corporate power(wille zu Macht)than "chess". Chess,by the way,is"blood sport".Even mediocre players savor both(frequent)agony of defeat and(occasional)rapture of victory:I've seen kiddoes in our HS Chess club cheat;resorting to the imaging function on super cell phones to generate counter-moves against vastly superior players:ergo IBM is hardly above such "gambit"?)...
"Combat-like" tension(Man vs.Machine)is essence of GAME OVER~an unusual/
unique film.(5 stars~White opens:Pawn to King's Rook 4)

"Game Over-Kasparov and Politics", As a strong chess player myself, the movie was very interesting in finding out more about the world chess champion, how his mind works, and how he looks at the world from his point of view be it real or imagined.

No question about it. Garry is a very unique individual and appears to belong to a new breed of chess players, a breed that is idealistic but at the same time very engaged in world events with a willingness to change events and sometimes take extreme risks in doing so.

To truly appreciate the film and understand Garry's behaviour, one must first know the man, his background, how he got to where he is, and the tremendous pressure he has been subjected to in the chess world, right before taking the world championship from Anatoly Karpov. Unlike Bobby Fisher, Garry has the human element and he can express himself very well in English which incidentally is not his native tongue.

What impresses me most about this man is that unlike most world chess champions, he has his ego very much under control. His demonstration of frustration over IBM's very secretive tactics is understandable. IBM's failure to make "deep blue" transparent to the rest of the world and most particularly to the challenger, Garry Kasparov, has resulted in the "cheating" controversy. So IBM is also partly to blame because of their unwillingness to be "transparent" and to make the computer logs available to Garry's team. This behaviour makes IBM suspect because of their secretiveness and unwillingness to put the computer in front of Garry actually printing out the computers responses. He probably would have preferred to play "deep blue" face to face where he could actually see the computer print out or the suggested best move (similar to computer chess programs available in the market today) so that human intervention will not even be suspected. This is very similar to the USA GMAT exams under the new computer based testing format where the candidate get's their test scores immediately right after taking the exams eliminating the possibility of "lobbying or backroom negotiations" after the fact. The computerized exams insures that no human intervention will happen right after the exam is completed. In the paper based test completed in "pencil" which is not indelible, of course the answers can be erased and changed to favor a certain University or college who have influence, or certain interest groups for that matter. In Europe and Asia, board exams are conducted in "ink" and is indelible. The candidates for licensure also have a chance to question and dispute their score reports, and the government encourages the candidate to take a look at his/her examination sheet if he/she suspects any errors made by the evaluator. So the candidates are comfortable and are given a chance to question the body responsible for scoring the exams if cheating is suspected to have been initiated by the "test-administrator" and not by the "candidate."

Unlike the other great grandmasters who died penniless, like Alexander Alekhine, or became vagabonds or gypsies like Bobby Fisher who was exiled from the USA due to irresponsible political comments he made against the Bush administration, Garry Kasparov appears to live in a different and down to earth political reality. You see, Garry is a survivor. And not only that he is a folk hero back in Russia. He is the most normal world chess champion I have ever seen over the years. In his youth he used to date gorgeous women in New York City. In fact he was even given a plane to escape the USSR, where he grew up, to come to the USA years ago when he was a young man during the turmoil that was happening there. He has also worked at the New York Times, and has been invited to numerous talk shows in the USA and have been a guest of world leaders and business leaders all around the world.

But what fascinates me most about this man is that he continues his influence far beyond the chess world and into the political arena back in Russia after retirement from the game. In just 2 years since his retirement from the professional game of chess he has emerged as a leader of the political opposition in Russia, earning the world's admiration for his dogged and fearless campaign for free and fair elections in his homeland. Infact just last year, 2006-2007, he was arrested in Moscow together with a number of his followers for his involvement in public demonstrations against the "Putin" regime. He was eventually released. If he probably entered the political arena earlier we may see possibilities for him in the Russian Politburo. Or perhaps if he was a lawyer like Dr. Alekhine or an engineer like Jose Raoul Capablanca, then he would have secured political clout with the KGB or even with Putin himself because most Russian leaders are academically credentialed. But the Putin regime I think views him as a mere "chess player." And being the best "chess player" in the world does not necessarily qualify you for Putin's job. But it does help him influence the political process in various ways because of his popularity.

My take on the movie is that it was made to serve Garry's political ambitions beyond the chess world. He used it as a vehicle and platform to get his message across with the support of not only IBM but various multinational corporations behind the scenes. It is obvious that the USA is supporting him. Whether or not there is CIA involvement here remains to be seen. Perhaps, if he was an engineer, a lawyer, or a professional accountant in the USA, he could have taken Roberto Goizueta's job and would have spear headed the Coca-Cola corporation's recovery overtaking Pepsico once more. But one thing I do know, he is putting his life on the line today back in Russia. He could have just lived here in the USA, and enjoyed the good life. He has found his fortune in the USA, is rich and comfortable by USA standards, and yet he wants to go back. He could've gotten his USA MBA and run for governor of New York and may be the white house later on. But something, that is not clear, perhaps only he knows, has brought him back to Moscow. Whether this can be seen as a "political vendetta" or not, one thing is clear, he is no longer under the protection of the United States government. Putin is tolerating him because perhaps deep down Putin likes him for this man has truly brought glory to Russia.


"A Missed Opportunity", I went into this movie with high hopes. The subject of a grand chess master taking on a supercomputer is inherently fascinating, and could have been used as a jumping-off point to investigate a rich vein of interesting topics: what was the philosophical significance of this showdown between man and machine? What did it mean to the chess world, and to society at large? What defines a grand master-level chess player, and what goes through Kasparov's head as he contemplates his individual moves and overall strategies? How does this differ with the problem-solving programming that the computer is relying on? Just how do you program a computer to simulate the chess-playing style of a grand master? And how can a documentary movie creatively capture the essence of a complex chess match onscreen, making it real and involving for the average audience?

Sadly, "Kasparov and the Machine" does not address a single one of these questions -- especially not the last one. It is a plodding documentary that mostly consists of a film crew following Kasparov around the rather drab location where the match took place years earlier, as he reflects on his poor treatment by IBM. It also features some uninformative interviews with the computer programmers, and a lot of footage from a black and white silent movie about a chess machine from the 1800's that is terribly overused. A poorly substantiated conspiracy theory is advanced that IBM was somehow not playing fairly, and what might have been a good 30-minute PBS special is stretched out into a very thin feature length film.

This could have been a great, thought-provoking film exploring the ramifications of a man pitting his intellect against an artificial intelligence. It is tragic that the filmmakers missed such an opportunity to sweep us away with the complex consideration that this subject deserved.

Read this reviews before You buy...

"Heavy handed theatrical style detracts from interesting film", As someone interested in chess, and with a vague memory of the Kasparov-Big Blue match as it happened, I found this movie rather interesting. I'd read complaints that the film didn't provide "answers," but I don't feel it left an undue number of unanswered questions. IBM, Kasparov, and even third parties all present their sides, and there is a bit of history of the Deep Blue project and considerably more of Kasparov's history... all in all, it seems remarkably thorough. That said, people looking for some sort of smoking gun -- anything more conclusive than people's statements -- will indeed be disappointed. To me, this film's flaws are those of inclusion, rather than omission. By that, I mean this is a very short film drawn out to feature length with scads of unnecessary dramatic padding. The inclusion of "The Turk" -- the world's first chess playing "machine" -- made for interesting background, but the filmmaker tried to milk the connection. The constant shots of "The Turk" machine interspersed in the film for dramatic effect, along with the clips of some black and white movie grew very annoying. Stylistically, the sinister soundtrack and "documentary style" (jerky) camera work were unnecessarily distracting and sensationalistic, damaging the credibility of an otherwise well-researched film. The whispered narration at the beginning, which is inexplicably repeated verbatim later in the film, is tremendously frustrating and utterly pointless. The fact the filmmaker had access to so many key players and to the locations should have been enough to make this film superb, without resorting to the heavy-handed theatrics. As it is, however, the bad style may overwhelm the decent substance and leave a viewer less than satisfied. I'm glad I watched it, and if you've an interest in the subject, you will be, too. But I doubt I would watch it again... so it's a rental candidate, not a purchase.

"SPOILER Alert--press "Page Down" if you haven't seen the film", This following review will be a spoiler from start to finish, but I'd like to think I'm bringing in a different and worthwhile perspective. I'd like to try to refute some common assumptions about this film, assumptions which have turned most of the reviews on this page into a simplistic debate.

Did this film go into enough detail about chess to satisfy the truly initiated? Or was it "dumbed down" for an audience primarily consisting of people who don't live and breathe the game?

That's a question this film inevitably raises. But it's too shallow a basis for a review, particularly if it dominates the discussion.

[SPOILER alert again. If you haven't seen this film--and you don't want any details of the film to be revealed--then skip down the page to the next review. Otherwise, you'll see spoilers all over the place. In this instance, I'm not overly worried. After all the media coverage of Kasparov v. Deep Blue, much of what I'm saying is not going to be a surprise even to folks who've never heard of Game Over.]

In chess, you win or you lose. IBM doesn't play that game.

What we have here is a documentary which is painfully obvious in its bias: IBM must have cheated. This conclusion is never stated, but no one viewing the film could fail to get the message. There must have been some sort of conspiracy: even though the details of the conspiracy are never revealed, and no evidence is presented.

Oh, how unfair to impugn the ethics of IBM and the Deep Blue team.

The preceding was a synopsis of the majority of amazon.com reviews of Game Over.

Let me make a wild guess: most of these reviewers know a lot more about chess than about cinema.

Documentaries have a point-of-view. (Or, at least, this is true of all of the best documentaries ever made.)

Accusing a documentary of being biased is like accusing Garry Kasparov of having a big ego. No one will disagree with you, but then, it's not a front-page headline either.

Don't be misled by the ubiquity of complaints, among the reviews written by chess geeks: that the film doesn't ever get into the meaty details of what should be the film's subject: the great game of chess.

This is not a film about chess.

Suppose it were. Each and every chess geek alive would have paid to see Game Over in the theater, and a lot of them would have paid to see it ten times.

And this film--a low-budget film--wouldn't have made a penny in profit. Because no one but chess geeks would have been able to understand it.

Which is why this film is not about chess; it's about the intrigue behind the scenes of one of the most famous chess matches in history. That's what makes it a film with the potential to draw an audience. Few people are fluent in algebraic notation for chess moves. But the John Henry legend? Now, that is something we all know.

Why is there is no evidence?

Because IBM took great care--before, during, and after the match--to veil every aspect of their Deep Blue project with the same level of secrecy applied by the CIA when planning a covert operation.

"We can't reveal trade secrets." Not the most credible explanation, when you consider: of all the hardware and software IBM developed in association with Deep Blue, how much of it was later applied to IBM products in the marketplace?

None. After Deep Blue "won", everything was dismantled, locked away, shredded or incinerated.

Everything was weighted against Kasparov. In nanoseconds, Deep Blue could examine every move of every game Kasparov ever played. But Kasparov knew nothing of his opponent. The Deep Blue he'd once defeated had become a different player: its hardware more powerful, and its software radically updated. And because the rules allowed IBM to tweak Deep Blue between games, Kasparov (in effect) faced a new opponent with each successive game.

Finally, there's the ultimate human factor. Tournament chess is exhausting: not only mentally, but also emotionally and physically.

Computers never get tired.

So why did Kasparov agree to the match? (If you can call it a "match". No chess tournament between human players lasts only six games.)

Hubris, perhaps. Kasparov has plenty of that.

But as director Vikram Jayanti notes in his commentary on the DVD, one thing Kasparov lacks is "worthy opponents". Chess is his life. Yet, at times, he must feel a kind of boredom. No one in the world can give him the thrill of a true challenge. Not even Karpov (not consistently), or Fischer (unless he were younger, and sane).

Some say that's why Deep Blue won fair and square. Because until Kasparov faced the 1997 version of Deep Blue, he'd almost never been seriously worried about losing. So, when Kasparov lost Game Two, he also lost something he'd never lost before: his confidence.

Then there's the alternate explanation. That even if Kasparov didn't fully understand chess software, he has a better grasp of the "style" of individual players--their strengths and weaknesses, the patterns in their play--than anyone alive. After Deep Blue in Game Two played so differently than in Game One, Kasparov realized the odds were against him...to a greater degree than could be explained by the rules.

There was only one explanation.

IBM cheated.

In what way? Game Over, unfortunately, cannot answer this key question. There is no evidence.

Facing growing suspicion, the IBM team promised to begin making available more (and better) logs of Deep Blue's play.

But these logs were never forthcoming. The promises were not kept.

The "un-machinelike" moves which suddenly appeared in Game Two: where did they come from? IBM and their defenders say Deep Blue was destined to beat any human opponent. Computer technology would inevitably advance to the point when "look ahead" became fast enough, and there could be enough "plies", that a brute-force technique could overwhelm even the most intelligent strategy.

The retort of the dissenters: starting with Game Two, whenever Deep Blue chose a bad move, the grandmasters on the IBM team overruled the computer. If necessary, they substituted a human decision. That, anyway, is the most popular theory.

Remember, though, that the IBM team could reprogram Deep Blue after every game. Those members of the team who weren't consultants, who worked directly for IBM: if the computer lost the match, what about their jobs?

They were highly motivated. Suppose they decided to reprogram not only after games, but also after MOVES? So much more efficient. That would be only a slight bending of the rules...wouldn't it?

But that's the employees' point-of-view. What about the corporate view?

Kasparov vs. Deep Blue could be an historic marketing success. Compelling news stories with an angle favorable to IBM: that creates exposure, attention and credibility in ways that no amount of advertising can achieve.

It's often cited that shares of IBM stock rose in value after Deep Blue won. But what is a corporation's most valuable asset? Any executive today will tell you: brand image.

This is the REAL game.

A corporation has a "fiduciary responsibility" to put the next quarter's bottom-line ahead of all other considerations.

IBM was compelled to do everything possible to ensure a win for Deep Blue. It would be a violation of that responsibility if they didn't exploit every possible angle. If Deep Blue had lost, how many shareholders lawsuits would IBM have faced?

A corporation as powerful as IBM rarely loses civil cases. But think of all the additional attorneys to hire, and their billable hours...including overtime.

(Think, also, of the boardroom discussions which would have ensued: "How could we spend $XX million on this project and not have a plan: to make sure Big Blue couldn't possibly lose? Anyone who thinks it's more important to 'play fair' had better start updating their resume.")

Keeping all this in mind: imagine the "suggestions" to the Deep Blue team from IBM's executives.

But...it would be shockingly unethical for IBM to tell their employees to cheat. They would never do that.

"Good content - bad presentation", This is a good documentary film taken from the perspective of Kasparov. The film is made to make you believe that the game was conconcted in some way by some powerful corporations/individuals, that there were some unexplained mysterious things (reminds you of X-Files serial) going on behind the scene that led to Kasparov defeat. It is successful in portraying the image of a single man fighting the selfish big bad corporations. Was it the frailties of man that led to defeat ? Could deep blue win if Kasparov was at his best ? The film makes us a skeptic and question the outcome and its reasons - Did Deep Blue win the match or did Kasparov lost the match to Deep Blue ?
Check the film to find out the many unanswered questions. My biggest question is - Is the Man versus Machine challenge decided for Chess or do we need another rematch.
The film lacks in its editing and storyline. The wishpering dialog is bit annoying. The biography of kasparov, old black-and-white Turk movie takes the focus away from the main theme. The sequential narration of storyline with respect to events would have been better (especially for those who arent aware of the match) than the back-and-forth narration. Film failed to emphasize the key moments and thus lost to take advantage of the suspense. For a novice who dont know the controversy sorrounding the match, this movie will be hard to understand and look like a movie made by combining patches of shots from different sources.
So the 5 star is for the content of the film but it will be a 1 star for the way it is presented.



"Intriguing...", To start off, I am a chess fan and player. I have been putting off renting this video for a few months and finally broke down and rented it. I thought it was going to be boring and poorly done. I was surprised that it went beyond my expectations.

The film documents the recollections of Kasparov's journey during and after his encounter with Deep Blue. If you know about this match, then this movie would probably be worth your time just because it provides a lot of insight into what went on behind the scenes. The director does a great job of creating a workable theme throughout the film. The director uses the Turk, again if you don't know what this first "computer" program was, you just might not get the point of the theme.

Anyways, I enjoyed the emotion, the clever theme, and even the odd background whispering every so often. I have a strong feeling that people with no chess interest would give this film a 1 or 2, but I give it a 4 b/c I love chess and it is a solid documentary.

"Conspiracy Amid the Rooks. ", Just like another excellent documentary, Capturing the Friedmans, Game Over presents its evidence evenly and thereby creates uncertainty in the mind of the viewer as to what transpired and for whom one should sympathize. Initially, I regarded Gary Kasparov as being, yet another, in a long line of fantastically gifted individuals who happened to be slightly paranoid and lacking in social skills, yet, by the end, he won me over. I sided with him in regards to the unfairness of the bizarre and deceptive acts of IBM. Now that's not to infer in any way that he was a victim. Certainly, Kasparov was paid plenty of money, money that would change the average man's life forever, so we should not feel too sorry for him about being used by Big Technology, but, anyway, he was used by Big Technology-or Big Blue as it were. The result is that we empathize mightily with Kasparov who is a flawed human being facing a monster he cannot see or hear. One moment in the film was truly touching and it occurred when Kasparov strolled into the auditorium following a defeat. The fans responded by showering him with a standing ovation. The look of surprise and gratitude on his face was endearing. The story and plot of Game Over is very interesting and worth recommending on its own, but it is the affectational impact that was most redeeming. Kasparov, in person, is probably a most trying soul with tremendous expectations of others, but--compared to IBM, a corporation that lied to him, refused to give him the dignity of a rematch, and then dismantled Big Blue before anyone could find out the exact way in which the apparatus worked-makes Gary look like a man of the people. The morphing of a one in a million genius into an everyman may be the movie's greatest achievement.