As this moved dragged on, it became more and more apparent that the makers of this movie wanted it to be really deep and trippy but had no idea what exactly they wanted to say. There was a bunch of disconnected, half-developed story ideas that never really went anywhere.I was very disappointed because this movie came highly recommended and I thought for sure I would like it. But I can't imagine anyone thinking this was a "good movie". If this was produced by high-school students, I can see giving them an "A" for effort, but other than that, it should have never seen the light of day.

This low key mockumentary is so dry in it's humor that it's more likely to produce a nostalgic or rueful smile than a belly laugh. Set at a 1980s man vs. computer chess competition, and shot on what looks like a video camera from the time, it certainly succeeds in capturing a time, place and atmosphere. On the other hand, some of it starts to get a bit repetitive and meandering. Unlike Christopher Guest's hysterical mockumentaries, this is so close to 'real' for much of it's length that it started to wear down a bit. And then when it switches to a more 'over-the-top' tone, as when one of the young leads is hit on by a pair of middle- aged swingers, it suddenly feels like a scene from another film. None-the-less, this is an impressive accomplishment, using it's lack of budget as a plus to create the feel of a truly home made documentary of the time. It may not be brilliant, but it's sweet, inventive, and fun, which puts it well ahead of most of what's out there.

The film takes place in 1983? at a lousy hotel during a little computer vs computer chess tournament with the participation from major technical universities of US of A and a not so major chess grandmaster as an end game boss. Most of the time camera stays indoors hence the direct orders from the grandmaster who is also the host and splunge of the show restricts the cameraman who is making the documentary of the tournament to shoot outdoors while the early model video camera is sensitive to light. Stick in the hotel, camera discovers which can be put as colliding worlds of eccentric characters of a spiritual action-therapy convention group and bunch of the tournament.The first interesting move that film makes is to split the stance of camera in two, almost as son as it is restricted to outdoors. Without trumpets celebrating the move film slowly slides from being a mockumentary to a conventional drama. Yet the second personality of the camera protects the cinema verite understanding of the first personality of the camera that is still inside the film. This is one of the key elements of the film since one of the main subjects of the film is the deus-ex machina, referring to 'the turk' several times, the chess playing automaton which is a mixture of a device of illusion and a simple puppet, film settles to its ground to ask one simple question to all the elements in the movie which is 'who are you'. This is the question digitally been asked to one of the computers, who is the more extrovert one in the group, and been answered in a more certain manner and quickly than the human characters.Except other values that film has, by dealing with this matter of subject film becomes -what i can put with my narrow English- a provincial science fiction film, science fiction in its purest form. Science fiction of an era, a world, which has gone beyond or reached the borders of the genre. This is a funny feeling which i felt just the opposite of during 'gravity', at that experience, and still is, it is clearly visible that the film is not a science fiction but an ordinary series of events happening but in space plus the Hollywood exaggeration quite similar to 'die hard'. For me it is almost inevitable to write a few words on 'gravity' when writing about 'computer chess' not only because they occurred almost at the same period and culture, standing at the two extreme points of contemporary film making but also because of this mind blanking shift in the understanding.

We live in a world where there is a lot of technology. And by a lot, I mean an excessive, never-ending amount of technology that just continues to progress every second. Pieces of information are flowing on the internet at every single moment. Computer Chess is trying to emphasis on that aspect but also doing much more than that. A 1980s period piece shot on old-school digital cameras in which it gives the look of amateur, badly produced film and is in a 4:3 ratio, gives the film a unique look that only helps the film portray the themes it wants to. It takes place over a single weekend and tells the story of multiple different characters during a computer chess tournament which essentially entails computers facing off each in chess made by programmers. There are many different characters in this film, we don't follow a specific one, rather many. Patrick Riester as Peter Bishton, a shy, socially awkward young college student is one of the most important characters who has some of the most important scenes throughout the film. Another notable character is Michael Papageorge played by Myles Paige which his character leads to most of the surrealism and complete and utter strangeness this movie has. It starts off as a only slightly strange film, which mostly came from the look of the movie, but it still seemed like it was going to play out like an interesting but straightforward period piece that only explored certain themes in a minor sense. Mostly involving the fear of A.I. and what it could potentially do in the future. But, the movie is much more than that. Throughout the film, we have strange glitches in the visual imagery, it could be intentional or it could be the old equipment causing it but regardless, it is a foreshadowing of the strangeness to come. We have another group of people at this hotel where the tournament is happening, a group of strange post-60s hippies who do weird group exercises that at first make you laugh but you also question why the hell they are in this movie. To me, this movie portrays two extremes: The meaninglessness that may come from ones work (the programmers) and the false sense of freedom that comes from a strange mindset (hippies). Both aren't very ideal, one leads to alienation, loneliness, and confusion. The other leads to a false sense of actual happiness. The movie is also quite funny at times, mostly in a dry sense. It doesn't portrays it's comedy in a big way but in very subtle ways with it's complete strangeness. To me, I haven't seen a movie this unique in a long time. It's a risky period piece that does many different things and will not leave you after seeing. Portrays two extremes, displays the fear of eventual overbearing technology, and asks extensional questions we all wish maybe we had an answer to. In conclusion, this is one of the best movies of 2013, I haven't seen anything like it.