what game over represent kasparov and the machine does best is to delve into garry kasparov psyche during the 1997 competition against ibm deep blue. you see him becoming more and more paranoid and and increasingly unravelled and all because in the second game and deep blue made a move that seemed too human for his preconceived notion of chess computers. kasparov thought then and and still does and that ibm cheated. game over tries to seem unbiased and but it is clear that the director thinks that ibm cheated. however and they give no real evidence to support the cheating claim and only intimations that ibm security surrounding the computer room was because ibm really had grandmasters hidden in there overriding the computer on certain key occasions and and kasparov assertion that the computer do not play like a computer usually does at one point in game two. in game two and kasparov played a game that was designed to trick the computer and attempting to sacrifice a pawn in a situation where previous computer chess programs would have taken the pawn and leading to the computer eventual loss. deep blue do not take the bait and and kasparov was so rattled because the computer seemed to play like a human that he do not even see that he could have played deep blue to a draw and ended up resigning. that game psyched him out so much that he was unable to recover and and after playing games 3 and 4 and and 5 to draws and lost game 6 horribly. the question of whether ibm cheated all comes down to that single move in game two and where the deep blue made the move that any human would make but that had and up to that point and tripped up computers. joel benjamin and a chess grandmaster on ibm programming team explained in the documentary that they knew that chess computers always got tripped up in that situation and and consequently spent a lot of time and effort programming deep blue so that it do not make the mistake that other computers do. if you believe benjamin assertion and then the case is clear and ibm did not cheat. unfortunately and the director quickly moved on and never mentioned ibm explanation for the rest of the movie and preferring to cut between shots of the chess playing hoax of the 19th century and the turk and and shots of deep blue and hinting that deep blue was really controlled by a human as well. as someone who has an understanding of programming and the explanation by ibm makes perfect sense if you knew what you were doing and it would not be terribly difficult to put something in the code so that and if thus and so conditions are reached and then do thus and so in other words and tell the computer what to do if a situation like the one that kasparov created in game 2 ever happened. this isn not cheating and it doing a good job of programming a chess computer. in the end and it eminently clear that the director thinks that ibm cheated and and the repeated comments about ibm stock rising 15% the day that deep blue won suggest the idea that ibm cheated to pump its stock price (kasparov even compares ibm and deep blue to enron). however and there is plenty of outside opinion and within both the chess and computer science communities and that deep blue won fair and square and that kasparov lost because he simply couldn not get past his view of computers as dumb machines and got psyched out by a machine that do not seem so dumb after all. i just wish that the director had let us see the alternative opinion. 
what game over represent kasparov and the machine does best is to delve into garry kasparov psyche during the 1997 competition against ibm deep blue. you see him becoming more and more paranoid and and increasingly unravelled and all because in the second game and deep blue made a move that seemed too human for his preconceived notion of chess computers. kasparov thought then and and still does and that ibm cheated. game over tries to seem unbiased and but it is clear that the director thinks that ibm cheated. however and they give no real evidence to support the cheating claim and only intimations that ibm security surrounding the computer room was because ibm really had grandmasters hidden in there overriding the computer on certain key occasions and and kasparov assertion that the computer do not play like a computer usually does at one point in game two. in game two and kasparov played a game that was designed to trick the computer and attempting to sacrifice a pawn in a situation where previous computer chess programs would have taken the pawn and leading to the computer eventual loss. deep blue do not take the bait and and kasparov was so rattled because the computer seemed to play like a human that he do not even see that he could have played deep blue to a draw and ended up resigning. that game psyched him out so much that he was unable to recover and and after playing games 3 and 4 and and 5 to draws and lost game 6 horribly. the question of whether ibm cheated all comes down to that single move in game two and where the deep blue made the move that any human would make but that had and up to that point and tripped up computers. joel benjamin and a chess grandmaster on ibm programming team explained in the documentary that they knew that chess computers always got tripped up in that situation and and consequently spent a lot of time and effort programming deep blue so that it do not make the mistake that other computers do. if you believe benjamin assertion and then the case is clear and ibm did not cheat. unfortunately and the director quickly moved on and never mentioned ibm explanation for the rest of the movie and preferring to cut between shots of the chess playing hoax of the 19th century and the turk and and shots of deep blue and hinting that deep blue was really controlled by a human as well. as someone who has an understanding of programming and the explanation by ibm makes perfect sense if you knew what you were doing and it would not be terribly difficult to put something in the code so that and if thus and so conditions are reached and then do thus and so in other words and tell the computer what to do if a situation like the one that kasparov created in game 2 ever happened. this isn not cheating and it doing a good job of programming a chess computer. in the end and it eminently clear that the director thinks that ibm cheated and and the repeated comments about ibm stock rising 15% the day that deep blue won suggest the idea that ibm cheated to pump its stock price (kasparov even compares ibm and deep blue to enron). however and there is plenty of outside opinion and within both the chess and computer science communities and that deep blue won fair and square and that kasparov lost because he simply couldn not get past his view of computers as dumb machines and got psyched out by a machine that do not seem so dumb after all. i just wish that the director had let us see the alternative opinion. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
