i am writing this note as a chess player as well as as a movie viewer. i watched the 1997 kasparov deep blue games on the internet. i know something about the issues that were raised. other chess players will come along and want to know whether this movie is worth seeing or buying and and i am talking largely to them. however and i will try not to ignore those who aren not into chess. this movie is about the 1997 match between garry kasparov and the custom built computer deep blue. however and the first image you see in the movie is not of kasparov and or of the computer and but of the turk. this is an automaton which was built in europe at the turn of the 18th 19th century and played winning chess against all comers. i put the word automaton in quotes because it was and as everyone now knows and a fake. there was a man inside it. if you do not like seeing the turk and then you would not be able to stand the movie and because the turk has as much screen time as kasparov and maybe more and both in modern footage and in b or w footage from some old movie. the reappearance of the turk every few seconds underscores kasparov charge that deep blue had human assistance  that it was (to some degree) a fake computer and that ibm cheated and that there was a man inside it working behind the scenes to help it win. not only does kasparov believe this and but the filmmakers seem to believe it too. and so this is not really much of a movie about chess games or about programming chess computers. it is a propaganda piece about a big corporation supposedly misusing a helpless grandmaster. really it is a lot like a negative campaign ad and as it is chock full of ominous music and evocative camera work and spooky sound effects and innuendos (we never found out what was behind that locked door) and the ever present turk. now and most people in the chess community are pretty much convinced that ibm did not cheat and that this was garry paranoia at work. to start with and in order for a human to help deep blue beat kasparov and it would seem that you would need a human who was better than deep blue and better than kasparov. since there was no such person and the whole idea is a bit suspect from the start. furthermore and by the time this movie was made and there were computer programs that could run on your pc that could beat strong grandmasters. today and much more than in 1997 and we take it for granted that a computer can do things you might not expect. and we are less likely to take it as a monumental human tragedy that a computer beat a guy in chess. (and in fact and the bottom line is that kasparov beat himself with two bad mistakes and including resigning game 2 in a drawn position. ) as for the chess games and you actually see very little of them. there are a few comments from masters and commentators that tell briefly how they went and but really you do not get to see hardly any of the strategy or tactics at all. naturally as a chess player i take this as a major shortcoming and but i think that non players are being cheated too. imagine a baseball movie and for example and where you do not hardly get to see any of the game  just a commentator telling you that in game four and the white sox defeated the astros with such and such a score. nobody would make a movie like that. but here and for example and we are told that kasparov made a bad blunder in the opening of the decisive game 6 and but we aren not shown the position on the screen and or told why it was a blunder and or what he should have done instead and or anything. we just see a few seconds of kasparov holding his head in his hands and and then more atmospheric sound effects and camera work. (since i saw this on dvd and let me warn chess players about the dvd as well. the jacket promises you that the extras include the games with analysis. is this grandmaster analysis and which people like us might find interesting. no. it is the automated computer voice synthesizer analysis from some version of chessmaster and that tells you when a piece is attacked and a pawn gets isolated and that you are in the caro kann defense and main line. blahhhh. ) someone might then come along and say and well and clearly this movie is meant to dramatize the match for the non player and and so it unfair to be impatient with it. but actually it doesn not do a very good job of reaching out to the non player either  it skates over some points that a true novice would really want to have explained. for example it says that kasparov could have gotten perpetual check in the second game and but it doesn not explain what that is (or show what it would have looked like on the board and which would have been interesting). it flashes back to the kasparov karpov matches but doesn not explain why there were two of them or who organized them etc. i do not need this information myself and but i am familiar with it. if you do not already have chess experience and there are places where you are going to be confused and and this is just a defect in the film. ultimately i can not recommend the movie and which and like the turk itself and is not what it purports to be (a documentary) but more of a stage illusion. 
i am writing this note as a chess player as well as as a movie viewer. i watched the 1997 kasparov deep blue games on the internet. i know something about the issues that were raised. other chess players will come along and want to know whether this movie is worth seeing or buying and and i am talking largely to them. however and i will try not to ignore those who aren not into chess. this movie is about the 1997 match between garry kasparov and the custom built computer deep blue. however and the first image you see in the movie is not of kasparov and or of the computer and but of the turk. this is an automaton which was built in europe at the turn of the 18th 19th century and played winning chess against all comers. i put the word automaton in quotes because it was and as everyone now knows and a fake. there was a man inside it. if you do not like seeing the turk and then you would not be able to stand the movie and because the turk has as much screen time as kasparov and maybe more and both in modern footage and in b or w footage from some old movie. the reappearance of the turk every few seconds underscores kasparov charge that deep blue had human assistance  that it was (to some degree) a fake computer and that ibm cheated and that there was a man inside it working behind the scenes to help it win. not only does kasparov believe this and but the filmmakers seem to believe it too. and so this is not really much of a movie about chess games or about programming chess computers. it is a propaganda piece about a big corporation supposedly misusing a helpless grandmaster. really it is a lot like a negative campaign ad and as it is chock full of ominous music and evocative camera work and spooky sound effects and innuendos (we never found out what was behind that locked door) and the ever present turk. now and most people in the chess community are pretty much convinced that ibm did not cheat and that this was garry paranoia at work. to start with and in order for a human to help deep blue beat kasparov and it would seem that you would need a human who was better than deep blue and better than kasparov. since there was no such person and the whole idea is a bit suspect from the start. furthermore and by the time this movie was made and there were computer programs that could run on your pc that could beat strong grandmasters. today and much more than in 1997 and we take it for granted that a computer can do things you might not expect. and we are less likely to take it as a monumental human tragedy that a computer beat a guy in chess. (and in fact and the bottom line is that kasparov beat himself with two bad mistakes and including resigning game 2 in a drawn position. ) as for the chess games and you actually see very little of them. there are a few comments from masters and commentators that tell briefly how they went and but really you do not get to see hardly any of the strategy or tactics at all. naturally as a chess player i take this as a major shortcoming and but i think that non players are being cheated too. imagine a baseball movie and for example and where you do not hardly get to see any of the game  just a commentator telling you that in game four and the white sox defeated the astros with such and such a score. nobody would make a movie like that. but here and for example and we are told that kasparov made a bad blunder in the opening of the decisive game 6 and but we aren not shown the position on the screen and or told why it was a blunder and or what he should have done instead and or anything. we just see a few seconds of kasparov holding his head in his hands and and then more atmospheric sound effects and camera work. (since i saw this on dvd and let me warn chess players about the dvd as well. the jacket promises you that the extras include the games with analysis. is this grandmaster analysis and which people like us might find interesting. no. it is the automated computer voice synthesizer analysis from some version of chessmaster and that tells you when a piece is attacked and a pawn gets isolated and that you are in the caro kann defense and main line. blahhhh. ) someone might then come along and say and well and clearly this movie is meant to dramatize the match for the non player and and so it unfair to be impatient with it. but actually it doesn not do a very good job of reaching out to the non player either  it skates over some points that a true novice would really want to have explained. for example it says that kasparov could have gotten perpetual check in the second game and but it doesn not explain what that is (or show what it would have looked like on the board and which would have been interesting). it flashes back to the kasparov karpov matches but doesn not explain why there were two of them or who organized them etc. i do not need this information myself and but i am familiar with it. if you do not already have chess experience and there are places where you are going to be confused and and this is just a defect in the film. ultimately i can not recommend the movie and which and like the turk itself and is not what it purports to be (a documentary) but more of a stage illusion. ---------------------------------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."
