Latest news with #LionsgatePlay
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
When chess legend Garry Kasparov tried to make the machine blink… and failed
Over the last couple of years, the world has been gripped by a Y2K-esque paranoia of a different kind: wondering if artificial intelligence will become all-conquering. Garry Kasparov, former world champion and one of the greatest chess players in history, was possibly among the earliest humans to mull this question — will AI take over my job? — sometime back in the 90s. 'I am not unsympathetic to those whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by disruptive new technology. Few people in the world know better than I do what it's like to have your life's work threatened by a machine,' Kasparov once wrote in his book Deep Thinking, which chronicles his famous battles with machines. An early evangelist of man versus machine contests, Kasparov added: 'No one was sure what would happen if and when a chess machine beat the world champion. Would there still be professional chess tournaments? Would there be sponsorship and media coverage of my world championship matches if people thought the best chess player in the world was a machine? Would people still play chess at all?' Ironically, Kasparov was thinking this in an era where his powers were at their peak. He was the undisputed world champion. And having brushed aside the challenge of every man that faced off against him on the chess board, Kasparov started to seek battles against supercomputers, with minds made out of silicon, nerves of wires and bodies held together in large metal cupboards. Among his many duels with electronic foes, the two battles with a supercomputer created by IBM, called Deep Blue, became the most famous. It is this Kasparov vs Deep Blue battle — famously called 'The Brain's Last Stand' by Newsweek magazine on its cover back then — that forms the setting of 'Rematch', a six-part miniseries released on Lionsgate Play late last week. Starring Christian Cooke with a pitch-perfect accent and a voice with a gravitas befitting the intimidating Kasparov, 'Rematch' uses the first Kasparov vs Deep Blue battle in Philadelphia in 1996 (which Kasparov won easily) to set the backdrop of the actual battle: the second contest in 1997, which Kasparov lost in New York. As Kasparov once pointed out, the first battle was a science experiment. The second one was war with a machine. 'Rematch' captures the drama of both these duels, with a few creative liberties to spice up an already intriguing battle between the greatest general on the battlefield of 64 squares and a large cupboard that could think faster than anyone had thought before. The man behind the machine, Feng-hsiung Hsu, called it a battle between 'man as a performer and man as a toolmaker'. It was a war that made global headlines back in the 90s. 'How do you make a computer blink?' ran the catchphrase across giant posters advertising the 1997 chess match. Kasparov's duels with computers started even before he became a world champion. In one particularly enjoyable one for the Russian, in Hamburg in June 1985, he played a simultaneous exhibition game (called simul) against 32 computers created by four chess computer manufacturers. 'One of the organisers warned me that playing against machines was different. Because they would never get tired or resign in dejection the way a human opponent would; they would play to the bitter end,' wrote Kasparov in Deep Thinking. Kasparov won each of the 32 games. 'These were the good ol' days of human versus machine chess. But this golden age would be brutally short,' he noted. So short, that in 1997, just 12 years after he had defeated 32 computers in a row in a span of five hours, Kasparov was handed defeat in New York by IBM's $10 billion supercomputer, Deep Blue. 'Chess computers went from being laughably weak to being nearly unbeatable during my 20 years as the world's top player,' Kasparov wrote. For those interested in computer speak on how Deep Blue ended up making Kasparov blink instead of the other way round (Kasparov won one game out of six while the machine won two games), the second machine which took down the Russian used '32 processors to perform a set of coordinated, high-speed computations in parallel. Deep Blue was able to evaluate 200 million chess positions per second, achieving a processing speed of 11.38 billion floating-point operations per second, or flops', notes the IBM website. 'They improved the databases dealing with chess endgames, created a more powerful evaluation function for chess positions, hired additional chess grandmasters to advise the team, and developed methods to disguise the computer's strategy.' In 'Rematch', before the second man vs machine battle, Kasparov is doing an interview where he is asked by a reporter: 'In a factory, when a machine outperforms an employee, the employee will often lose their job.' An introspective Kasparov/Cooke opts not to answer the question. This question is the elephant in the room of the whole battle. In one of the earliest scenes of 'Rematch', the man behind the Deep Blue asks Kasparov/Cooke: 'Aren't you even a little concerned you might lose?' A belligerent Kasparov responds: 'Why would I be concerned? It's a science experiment and computers are the future. I want to see what Deep Blue is capable of more than anyone else. But of course I will win.' Machines did become much stronger. Much stronger than humans will ever be on the board. But yet, the world does not spend time watching two machines fight each other while being tended to by human handlers. It would rather watch humans test themselves, even with flaws in their game play, against other humans. Why? The answer lies in what transpired after Kasparov's defeat in New York. Even though the Russian was deeply livid at his defeat — at the press conference afterward, he is said to have 'personally guaranteed' that he would 'tear Deep Blue into pieces' in games if it started playing competitive chess tournaments — Kasparov lent himself to plenty more 'science experiments'. One of them, in 1998 in Leon, saw Kasparov team up with a computer running his preferred chess program (German chess program Fritz 5) while taking on Veselin Topalov using ChessBase 7.0. They didn't just use the computers in the background for their prep as every professional chess player does now. They were allowed to use them during the game. The result was a 3-3 tie. And therein lies the problem with computer perfection. If two of the world's best computers played against each other, the result would inevitably be a dead draw. Who would want to watch that? Amit Kamath is Assistant Editor at The Indian Express and is based in Mumbai. ... Read More
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- First Post
Christian Cooke on playing chess legend Garry Kasparov in ‘Rematch': ‘He was a very aggressive player…'
In an interview with Firstpost's Lachmi Deb Roy, for 'Not Just Bollywood', English actor Christian Cooke shares how he prepared to play Garry Kasparov in 'Rematch'. He talks about the process that went behind approaching the part and how he tried hard not to mimic him. read more In 1997, the world watched as chess legend Garry Kasparov took on IBM's Deep Blue in a battle that blurred the line between man and machine. Christian Cooke captures Kasparov's brilliance and inner turmoil, while Sarah Bolger brings heart to the emotional storm behind the scenes. This was more than just a match; it was a test of pride, intelligence, and what it means to be human. As pressure mounts and trust falters, the game turns into something far bigger. Rematch dives deep into a defining moment where logic met legacy, and the clock never stopped ticking. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In an EXCLUSIVE interview with Firstpost, Christian Cooke talks about Rematch now showing on Lionsgate Play and how it was a challenge to him playing a real person. Edited excerpts from the interview: How much pressure was there to play the role; since you are playing a real person? I guess there's always pressure when it's you're playing a real person, a real historical figure. And it's an event, a lot of people know about, though it happened 30 years ago. If it was an event that happened five or ten-years ago, then it would be fresh in people's minds. I don't really look a lot like Garry, so I think that helps because obviously a lot of the audience maybe don't know what exactly Garry Kasparov looks like, so they can sort of get lost in the character a bit more. I didn't really want to imitate him, his voice or, you know, like, try and mimic him. I just wanted to sort of capture the essence of who he was as a person, the spirit of Garry Kasparov, which was someone who's very focused, single-minded and driven. If I did any sort of mimicry, it was how he was at the chessboard. When he was at the chessboard, it was his sort of posture, the way he moved the pieces, the way he leaned over the board. People used to say that he was a very aggressive player which I didn't know much about. Well, I find it quite odd that someone could be an aggressive chess player. Because it's you we see it as such a civilized game where people are just using their hands to move pieces. But I think it would I think, obviously, it's his style of play, how sort of, the speed at which he advances. There's always pressure, but I think we need that to thrive sometimes. For me that pressure is very important to do a good job. Christian Cooke on playing chess legend Garry Kasparov in 'Rematch': 'He was a very aggressive player…' How pro did you get with the game? To be honest, I'm probably not much better at all than when I started, I think, because a lot of what I was doing is playing. I was actually learning the actual chess moves that he played as opposed to sort of, like, learning to become a better chess player myself. It was more like we know, the chess games in the show are exact games and moves that were played in real life. It was another learning exercise, really. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD You would sort of have to learn your dialogue and whatever, but then also learn these moves. And the way that Yan shot the chess games, he would do these long continuous takes where he would want to shoot sort of 30 moves at a time. So, we would be meeting up in each other's hotel rooms on an evening to practice the chess games, just so that we really remembered where the pieces went. I am not sure my chess actually improved that much at all, really. Since he's a Russian, just wanting to know from you, he has an accent which is very Russian, so his English was very different right. How did you learn that accent and his mannerisms? He spoke with a Russian accent. Garry studied English at university. He travelled a lot. He spent a lot of time in America. I think he's lived in New York now and since the eighties, I believe. He is now anglicised or Americanised. So, the Russian accent was tough. I worked with a dialect coach. I just wanted to sort of have a convincing Russian accent, but one that wasn't sort of insanely strong. Because I think that can be quite distracting. And as I mentioned, I didn't want it to sound like I am mimicking him. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD I think anytime you're doing a strong accent, but you're still using the English language, it's like if you were doing well, if you were speaking with an Indian accent or if you were speaking with a French accent, they're very strong accents in the English language. And I think that sometimes that can be, you know, when the audience might know that the actor is not from that place, that can be sometimes quite distracting. So, I wanted it to flow and be sort of believable, but not be too pronounced. I think that was true to Garry as well because Gary was so sort of Americanised, he didn't he, you know, he didn't sound like a Bond villain. A still from 'Rematch' How difficult was it to get inside the mind of this chess grandmaster? I think one of the things was he was quite like an athlete, I think. He approached the match like an athlete. I'm into boxing, and I watch a lot of boxing, and I used to train in boxing. I think when you have these disciplines and these sports like boxing, tennis, chess, there's a huge psychological element to it. It's not a skill playing the game, but also getting into the mind of the opponent and the mentality when you're on the back foot being able to bring yourself back and stay in the present. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Pink Villa
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Pink Villa
Ram Gopal Varma on Deepika Padukone vs Sandeep Reddy Vanga row: ‘Actor can say I want to work only for 1 hour'
Deepika Padukone created quite a stir in the industry and became a topic of discussion after she walked out of the much-talked-about Sandeep Reddy Vanga project, Spirit. It was said that they had a disagreement over the actress's demand for an 8-hour working shift, which led to her exit. Many celebrities have spoken about the matter now, and the latest one is Ram Gopal Varma, who feels this whole thing was very exaggerated. Ram Gopal Varma on Deepika Padukone and Sandeep Reddy Vanga controversy Talking to Hindustan Times, Ram Gopal Varma quipped that the discussion about fixed shift timings for actors is an agreement between two people. Each of them has the right to say what they want, and the other one can refuse if they wish to. The filmmaker further added that the whole thing between Deepika Padukone and Sandeep Reddy Vanga was a very exaggerated thing, in his opinion. "Because I can say, I want to work for 23 hours, and the actor can say I want to work only for one hour. That's their call. But how can one human being force another human being to do something? And they can agree to work or not work with each other… But that thing was just kind of blown up in the media," RGV concluded. Sandeep Reddy Vanga-Deepika Padukone controversy For the unversed, Deepika Padukone had agreed to be a part of Sandeep Reddy Vanga's film after she loved the way her part was written. However, just a matter of days after the news of her inclusion sank in, it was reported that Deepika had walked out of the project. According to sources, the Bajirao Mastani actress decided to part ways from the venture due to the failure of the producers and directors to meet her demands. The details that came out revealed that Deepika had apparently quoted a remuneration of Rs 40 crore from the makers, whereas they were only interested in paying her Rs 20 crore. Additionally, the actress wanted her schedule fixed, providing her adequate time for personal life. About Ram Gopal Varma's OTT thriller Ram Gopal Varma's thriller Saree just released on Lionsgate Play on June 27. It is written and presented by him and directed by Giri Krishna Kamal. The film stars Satya Yadau and Aaradhya Devi. The story revolves around a photographer who becomes obsessed with a woman whom he sees in a saree.
Hindustan Times
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
Ram Gopal Varma talks about Deepika Padukone and Sandeep Reddy Vanga's Spirit row: ‘It was very exaggerated'
The stir surrounding Deepika Padukone's reported exit from Sandeep Reddy Vanga's Spirit due to her demand for an 8-hour shift ignited a heated debate about work-life balance in the film industry. Now, filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has weighed in on the discussion, stating that the issue has been blown out of proportion. Ram Gopal Varma spoke up about the much discussed conflict between actor Deepika Padukone and director Sandeep Reddy Vanga. RGV on Sandeep-Deepika's Spirit row Some time back, it was said that Deepika is in talks to star opposite Prabhas in Spirit, the upcoming action film directed by Sandeep Reddy Vanga. However, earlier this year, it was reported that she left the project, with many claiming that she had demanded an 8-hour workday, a share in the film's profits, and requested not to deliver her dialogues in Telugu – conditions which allegedly did not sit well with the filmmaker. The whole stir led to a debate around an8-hour shift for actors. During a conversation with Hindustan Times, Ram Gopal Varma spoke about the controversy and the demand for fixed shift hours. 'When it comes to having fixed shift timings for actors, I really think that it is an agreement between two people. Each of them has a right to say what they want, and the other one has a right to refuse,' says RGV, whose thriller Saaree was released on Lionsgate Play recently. The filmmaker continues, 'The whole thing (between Deepika and Sandeep) was a very exaggerated thing in my opinion. Because I can say, I want to work for 23 hours, and the actor can say I want to work only for one hour. That's their call. But how can one human being force another human being to do something? And they can agree to work or not work with each other… But that thing was just kind of blown up in the media.' On demand for fixed shift hours The filmmaker, who is known for making projects such as Satya, Shool, Bhoot and Killing Veerappan, believes that having fixed shift hours for actors isn't practical due to the unpredictable nature of filmmaking, which relies on various external factors. 'That's because it depends on so many factors. The director might need a particular light. He might want some combination of another actor, or maybe the location is not available. There are too many factors which can factor in,' he explains his thought. On his project coming on OTT Written and presented by Ram Gopal Varma and directed by Giri Krishna Kamal, Saaree premiered on Lionsgate Play on June 27. The film follows the story of Kittu, played by Satya Yadu, a photographer who becomes obsessed with a woman played by Aaradhya Devi, whom he sees in a saree, an image that consumes him completely. Talking about the response to the film, RGV shares, 'The film deals with the issue around how social media can influence. How people get in touch with each other without knowing any backgrounds, and they get into relationships… And what dangers it can cause.' Is the audience on OTT any different from the people going to the theatres? 'Both are two different mediums. We have this habit of generalising the audience. Some people like to see some films in the theatre and some like to watch them at home. One can't generalise it because every platform and every avenue has its own audience,' he ends.
Hindustan Times
11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
Four Years Later review: Shahana Goswami and Akshay Ajit Singh elevate this cross-continent relationship drama
Four Years Later review Cast: Shahana Goswami, Akshay Ajit Singh, Kate Box, Roy Joseph Creator: Mithila Gupta Star rating: ★★★.5 Mainstream movies and shows are so obsessed with the cutesy idea of first romance and love at first sight that rarely do we get a look at what happens after two people decide to spend their lives together. In the Indian set-up, the chaos is infinite and inexcusable. Four Years Later, the new Indo-Australian show streaming on Lionsgate Play, takes a mature and patient look at this very idea- where two people give their love a chance, and try to make their marriage work. Spread over eight episodes, Four Years Later is beautiful, resonant and occasionally exhausting- but that's exactly the point. The premise {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} It starts off wonderfully. In Jaipur, Sridevi (Shahana Goswami) has given in to her mother's pestering for marriage for once, and meets Yash Agarwal (Akshay Ajit Singh) with both families in one room. After an awkward introduction, the two of them realize they are completely opposite from each other. She is free-spirited; he is more shy and reserved. But there is an undeniable mutual attraction, and the two get married in a few months. But as Indian families go, it is never just about two people. There are family expectations, an overload of patriarchal standards seeping into trivial matters and on top of that, Yash gets the opportunity to move to Australia for his medical traineeship. He leaves Sridevi at home, who now has to deal with the achingly real-life problems of living with a conservative family. Four Years Later takes another narrative leap forward, as we see Sridevi taking matters into her own hand and heading to Australia on her own. Why did she do so, and how will that affect their relationship? What begins as a relationship drama then soaks in themes of migrant experience, cultural alienation. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} Read More {{^usCountry}} Mithila Gupta and Shakthidharan co-wrote Four Years Later, which is nuanced and patient with these two deeply flawed individuals. Sridevi can be volatile, impulsive, and angry, and her grief pours over in the microaggressions. Choices are that Yash will never know these emotions, because he is so far away. But he is also hurting in ways he cannot express. These adults make mistakes, and thank god there's no moral compass etched in the writing that punishes these characters too much. One particular scene involving a confrontation where Sridevi finds out that Yash might have lied a little too far for them to stay together is excellently staged and shot. Special mention to the beautifully shot intimate scenes by cinematographer Emma Paine, which leave two adults sharing a level of physical proximity as it is: there is no voyeurism here. What works {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} Mithila Gupta and Shakthidharan co-wrote Four Years Later, which is nuanced and patient with these two deeply flawed individuals. Sridevi can be volatile, impulsive, and angry, and her grief pours over in the microaggressions. Choices are that Yash will never know these emotions, because he is so far away. But he is also hurting in ways he cannot express. These adults make mistakes, and thank god there's no moral compass etched in the writing that punishes these characters too much. One particular scene involving a confrontation where Sridevi finds out that Yash might have lied a little too far for them to stay together is excellently staged and shot. Special mention to the beautifully shot intimate scenes by cinematographer Emma Paine, which leave two adults sharing a level of physical proximity as it is: there is no voyeurism here. What works {{/usCountry}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} The show expands when Shahana Goswami occupies the frame. The actor gives a wonderfully nuanced performance as a woman trying to make sense of her life and circumstances, navigating the emotional shifts with striking depth. She shares terrific chemistry with Akshay Ajit Singh; an actor whose presence grows as the show moves ahead. The fragility he imbues into this shy and resolute man, going through a turbulent time in his career and personal life, makes the character all the more memorable. As mature and sensitive as this relationship drama is, my only gripe is that it moves ahead a little too hastily for its own good. The actors bring a lot of emotional depth to the scenes that feel rushed towards a certain resolution, but do all adult relationships wind up in the next chapter so quickly? The flashes of casual racism that come with the immigrant experience are somehow conveniently avoided, almost sidelined. These are but minor inconveniences that pile up in an otherwise heartfelt and quietly powerful drama that ultimately demands your attention. At the end of the day, you trust Sridevi and Yash to take care, of each other as well as themselves, a little more fiercely. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}}
