Talk:Poole versus HAL 9000

An alternate explanation
I have an interesting theory. I believe HAL's apparent errors in the chess analysis are in fact intentional and are a subtle means of testing Frank's awareness and state of mind, as HAL could very well be working up Frank's "crew psychology report." The adjacent scene with Dave seems to strongly support this. If the chess incident were excused as a psychological experiment, the precise moment that HAL first commits an error is the misdiagnosis of the AE-35 unit. Just before that moment, it would be HAL's turn to compose his own "crew psychology report." I wonder if the subroutines that were responsible for analyzing HAL's own "psychological state" were the same ones that prevented HAL from lying to the crew members or making certain logical errors; if those subroutines became stuck in an infinite loop during HAL's self-assessment, it would explain HAL's subsequent behavior quite nicely. And doesn't it sound EXACTLY like the beginning of some kind of infinite loop when HAL says, "Just a moment... Just a moment..."?

Well, that's my theory. Any reason it could not be true?

Xylune (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

HAL's mistake

 * HAL's analysis from the movie is 16.Bxf3 Nxf3#. While it is true that White has lost the game, it is not a mate in two, as HAL claims. This is a very subtle foreshadowing of either HAL's breakdown or of his deception of the crew. Poole resigns without questioning HAL's analysis.

I have not seen the movie, so I'll ask... do we know if HAL's error was actually intended by Kubrick (or whoever is responsible), or could he have just overlooked it himself? Unless it was explicitly noted in the movie, I think a source is needed if we are to take this error as intentional. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Kubrick was a chess genius, so I doubt it was a mistake on his part. --Closedmouth 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Kubrick was enthusiastic about chess and played well, but a chess genius is definitely an overstatement. He very well could have missed the combination, since it's not actually improving the position for white at all. Secondly, I think all evidence to whether the mistake was intentional goes against the theory. The explanation is simple. When writing the script there was no need to delve deep into how a computer would think about the chess game. Their futuristic world saw HAL playing chess like the smartest of all men. Not like the smartest of all computers. They wouldn't have wanted him to mention a computer-like queen sacrifice to stave off mate for 1 or 2 moves. They wanted him to seem human. Secondly, they probably weren't aware of the now well-known aspect of computers playing ridiculous suicide chess to avoid mate when they're about to lose. Computer chess being a somewhat new technology, and computers not even playing at a high level yet. I'm going to remove the foreshadowing reference from the article. It looks as if there's many who agree with me. --Schonert 14:20, 4 Jan 2009


 * "Kubrick was enthusiastic about chess and played well, but a chess genius is definitely an overstatement." Seriously?  This is a guy who funded most of his first movie hustling chess.  More, the move is correct if Hal is describing the board from Poole's point of view.  And what HAL does is precisely the kind of trick a chess hustler does - he describes a non-mandatory capture as mandatory, and describes mate as immediate where it isn't. 67.0.129.122 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. A hustler might distract attention from a move if the move could be a threat. The desperate sac of a Q to stave off immediate mate, is no threat. Kubrick was a good player, not "genius" player. He funded his lunches winning quarters in the park, not his first movie. IHTS (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is HAL's mistake?
I humbly suggest that this enitre Wiki entry is off on the wrong foot. What exactly is being called "HAL's mistake"? Here, we seem to be saying it involves the number of moves until Mate. However, most other sources referring to "the mistake" think it's a notational one, in that HAL says "Queen to Bishop Three" instead of "Queen to Bishop Six". See:


 * http://www.underview.com/2001/viewshal.html
 * http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0095.html
 * http://pages.prodigy.net/pam.orman/joe2001/Joe2001HAL.html

All this aside, it is REALLY reaching to think that Kubrick intended for a 'mistake' by HAL during this game to telegraph to the audience that something was up with HAL. The entire scene comes and goes too quickly, and the board is not so easy to see, even on the big screen. Even an astute, Chess-knowledgable viewer could not be expected to notice the mistake -and- draw this conclusion.

Incidentally, there are glaring editing errors in scenes adjacent to the chess game -- segments of the physical film were apparently flipped during editing, resulting in the centrifuge cabin 'flipping' during Poole's jog. I bring this up only to point out that Kubrick himself was not infallible. Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the chess game error is Kubrick's, not HAL's. -- Sailorlula 23:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As mentioned previously, a very good chess player would not be likely to let such an obvious mistake about chess through. It appears to be intentional, considering all of HAL's later 'mistakes' or 'deceptions'. All the evidence, except for the other mistakes Kubrick made, points towards it being intentional. Think about it. If I, an expert in chess, made a movie that had a person who was a habitual liar (or a person that made many mistakes) make a mistake in a chess game, it would be considered to be intentional. Also, how obvious it is is irrelevent. 2001 is full of little details that the vast majority of people will miss or not have enough time to look at. ~ChocoboFreak


 * ChocoboFreak, I think you're wrong, but that aside, as I asked previously, what is the mistake -- the number of moves until mate, or the notational mistake? Before we can discuss whether the mistake is in the film intentionally or not, we have to agree on exactly what we think the mistake is!
 * Sailorlula 04:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I, personally, can't understand why people think that there was something wrong with HAL? Because it killed the entire crew? What I think is that HAL made the optimal decision to make the expedition successful, just like he ought to do. Remember when he said "it's always a people error"? I think this is the point. HAL was absolutely OK when he made that decision and I can't understand why many people say that there was something wrong with HAL, that it was in error or anything else like that. ~POKRISHKA


 * Well, I don't think that anyone intended it to be possible for HAL to kill anyone in any situation. At least I would expect my shipboard computer to follow the Three Laws of Robotics. So HAL may have been working correctly but in a way that was viewed as erroneous by desing. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a mistake. The rank number is from the point of the mover not that of the recorder (or in this case, the speaker). You can simply check out any scoresheet or indeed book in descriptive notation and see. HAL is correct! 195.158.124.217 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is an error in the way you describe, because HAL is playing the Black side. But I don't consider these errors on Kubrik's part, just more HAL behavior mimicing human. A computer wouldn't make that notational change, but a human might speak the move from the opponent's point of view, since he is explaining it. Computers love to delay the inevitable, by throwing away pieces, such as 16.Qa6-h6 g7xh6 17.h2-h3 Nf4xh3+ 18.Kg1-h2 Ne5-g4#, which is the longest mate can be postponed here. Humans tend to dismiss such irrelevant lines, as HAL did. This is consistent with the scene where HAL speculates that he may be projecting his concerns, an absurdity for a computer.


 * Btw, I say this as a programmer and former chess master. Back then, my friends and I laughed heartily at the idea that computers would beat humans by 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.207.149 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Queen to bishop three" is not a mistake, if HAL is speaking from Poole's point of view.--81.174.47.20 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But that's simply not how descriptive notation works. If you're describing a move that black makes, it is described from black's point of view, which in this case is Q-B6. The fact that this is slightly confusing is incidentally part of the reason why algebraic notation has largely superceded descriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruthra (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Flip
Incidentally, there are glaring editing errors in scenes adjacent to the chess game -- segments of the physical film were apparently flipped during editing, resulting in the centrifuge cabin 'flipping' during Poole's jog. I bring this up only to point out that Kubrick himself was not infallible. Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the chess game error is Kubrick's, not HAL's. -- Sailorlula 23:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Flipping? What are you talking about?  Jason Palpatine 03:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "flip" is just one of four errors I've caught adjacent to the chess game (not counting the game itself):

Watch Poole's jog in the centrifuge closely. It consists of three pieces of film.


 * 1) Fixed camera pans left and right as Poole jogs
 * 2) Camera follows Poole jogging, from behind
 * 3) Camera leads Poole jogging, facing him

It appears that the film for 2) was flipped during splicing. What should be on the right is on the left and vice versa. Everything is mirror image. The hard way to spot this is to pay attention to the relative positions of the three occupied hibernaculae, the two empty ones (watch pillows) and the UV tanning bed. The easy wasy is to watch for the hub ladder during Poole's jog and notice that the "hub hatch closed" control, a big square red light, is to the left of the ladder. A bit later when Dave comes down the ladder, the red light is to the right of the ladder. FLIPPED!

Next REALLY glaring error: while Poole is lying on the tanning bed beginning to watch his birthday greeting, the hibernaculum above his head is clearly empty. Then, as we continue to hear the greeting, the same hibernaculum is suddenly occupied by a sleeping Dave, but meanwhile the UV tanning bed that Frank should still be lying on is empty! (Yes, there is only one UV tanning bed in the centrifuge.) A moment later, Dave is again gone from the hibernaculum and Frank is back on the tanning bed. Startlingly poor editing once you notice it.


 * "once you notice it"? I noticed that particular one the fist time I saw the film.  The one I didn't notice untilsomeone pointed it out was Bowman's unsealed glove when he entered HAL's vault. -- Jason Palpatine 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I never noticed the glove either until I read about it, it's a great catch. -- Sailorlula 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Some wouldn't consider this an error, but I think it's a big one: the birthday cake is clearly British, not American. American birthday cakes tend to be round and I have never ever seen one with a satin ribbon around it, meanwhile in Britain square beribboned cakes are a norm. The prop guy wasn't paying attention.

Finally, during the BBC interview, watch Dave and Frank's flat panels simultaneously. You can tell at at least one point that they're not really watching a feed, because the images on the panels do not change at exactly the same moment. You can verify this by freeze-framing thru the DVD; at one point the images on the panels are completely different.

Like I've said before, Kubrick's meticulousness is overstated. In my judgment, to think he let these biggies slip by but simultaneously inserted an infinitesimally small error in the chess game to signal HAL trouble to us viewers is just silly.

Sailorlula 05:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Chess-related mistake in earlier Kubrick flm
I just stumbled across this, from this webpage: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/kubrick.htm

[In Kubrick's 1956 film The Killing,] a mistake in the chess scene is when Maurice is kibitizing the game, he mentions a bishop move. That's impossible since both of White's bishops and both of Black's bishops have been captured and are off to one side. It seems that these are the only pieces, including pawns, that have been captured (very rare). I'm not intimately familiar with the film, but I thought it was mighty interesting that not only was a chess game depicted but that there a dialog mistake related to it.

Sailorlula 08:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Algebraic long-hand
I see the gamescore is in algebraic long-hand ("1. e2-e4"). Does anyone object if I convert all moves to abbreviated algebraic ("1. e4")? (I've never seen long-hand in any WP article before, this is first one!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone did that in the Feb 19, 2011 edit. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thx for pointing out. I'm reverting back to short-hand, I think if Scholar's mate and Fool's mate and other beginner articles use short-hand, then it's appropriate also in this article.  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Two lesser known masters
Or so they are called in the article. But while Schlage is one, Roesch does not appear too often in literature (understatement). Any suggestions for an alternative phrasing? --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How about changing the sentence simply to: "The actual game seems to come from the tournament game Roesch–Schlage, Hamburg 1910." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dont you have anything to do?
English wikipedia is full, for some reason with useless articles like this one. Who cares about the chess mach between 2 charecters in a book/film? I love the film 2001 and Ive read all 4 books, but why would anybody write about just a little chess match that took just a few seconds in the movie and in the book it was even less important? I recoment delating this article as well as every one of thease useles articles. --91.200.65.138 (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename
I think this article should be renamed to Poole versus HAL 9000 chess game or Poole versus HAL 9000 (chess). The current title is probably not clear to many readers. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. I prefer the latter: Poole versus HAL 9000 (chess). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality of this article
This article seems to have quite a few "issues". It is supported by a single reference, which does not appear to be a particularly authoritative source, and which does not support most of the claims made in the article. This makes the article look very much like original research - and perhaps not very well argued OR at that.

In particular, it is claimed in the article, that Kubrick was a passionate chess player, and therefore the positions and analysis make sense. However, this is not supported by the reference. Furthermore, it is later contradicted by some quite clear examples in which the analysis is incorrect, both in it's use of notation, and of the conclusions drawn about the position by HAL.

I realise there has been some extensive debate above about the reasons for this. I fully admit that the reasons given are at least plausible. I do not want to re-open this debate, as it's irrelevant. Regardless of what we (WP editors) think, we need to find external, reliable sources that make these claims. Our opinions on the matter isn't enough for Wikipedia.

Ideally, we need to find:
 * A biographical reference supporting the claim that Kubrick was a passionate chess player. This at least should be easy.
 * A chess book or analysis from a reputable expert supporting the analysis of the game.
 * Something from a reputable film expert supporting the idea that the "mistakes" were deliberately made by Kubrick, as clues about HAL's state.

If we can't find these, it seems pretty clear that this article is insufficently noteable and insufficiently referenced, and should therefore either be deleted, or merged into the main article about the film. (Which saddens me slightly - as a scifi and Chess geek, I this article is interesting to me personally - it just doesn't doesn't belong in Wikipedia) 62.252.237.97 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just one point I'd like to make. Your third-listed Something from a reputable film expert supporting the idea that the "mistakes" were deliberately made by Kubrick, as clues about HAL's state. cannot be a requirement, because the article makes no such claim or even innuendo. It only states the facts. (HAL's technically incorrect use of descriptive notation, and HAL's omission of mentioning that White can play a few moves longer before mate.) (The article used to contain those claims or innuendos, but recently ago I removed them. They were clear WP:OR, and for me, didn't even make sense.) Regarding your other point re analysis references, what part of the game analysis do you specifically want to see referenced? (It seems to me the analysis after 13...Bh3 and after 14.Qxa6 might be what you mean. And perhaps also after 12...Qd3. Please be specific though, thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Forced?
The article asserts "Also, while HAL describes a forced checkmate in two moves [...]". It is clear he is offering a variation, plausible or implausible, good, bad or otherwise, for both himself and Poole. When and where in the movie does HAL assert he is citing a forced variation? I think a mistake here by the Wiki editors is consistent with mistakes made by the characters in the movie and by viewers in the theater watching it.

There are a great many other problems in the article. It is amazing there could be so many in such a short article. ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * When HAL said "Sorry Frank, I think you missed it", the "it" refers to the mating combination he then rattles off. The variation HAL offers wins--it isn't "implausible", "bad", or "or otherwise". IHTS (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I thank you for the response. But it does not address or answer my question.  Much of what follows is unavoidable POV, OR, SYNTH.  Much of this deals with openended or ambiguous nuances.  And I do not discuss all of the relevant nuances I am aware of here because of how long this already long comment would become.


 * I state from the position I see in the movie that HAL will win no matter what Poole plays. But that is not the issue.  I state the variation HAL cites is a good variation--for HAL.  That too is not the issue.  There are two issues: is the line forced; does HAL assert the line is forced?


 * The answer to the first issue is: no. Poole does not have to play the move which HAL cites, 16. BxQ.  The line is not forced.  E.g. Poole could play e.g. 16. P-KR3 or 16. P-KR4. This does not mean Poole would win by playing a move other than 16. BxQ.  He will lose no matter what he plays.  Do we agree?


 * The answer to the second issue is the one under consideration. HAL does not assert e.g. "This variation is forced."  He does not say "Every variation I can cite is forced."  He cites a variation.  Yes, the variation wins for HAL.  A number of other variations he could have cited would also have won for him.  That he wins at the end of any variation is not equivalent to the variation being forced.  HAL and Poole may replay a real game, but do we agree fictional HAL is a better chess player than fictional Poole?  HAL doesn't need a forced variation to win, right?  Isn't Poole capable of making bad and losing moves all by himself?  From what I see in the movie I infer, reasonably or not, that HAL invariably wins every game he plays.  This tool is better at something than this human.  This tool does not need to be a perfect chessplayer to be a better chessplayer than this human.  (E.g. Kasparov isn't perfect and doesn't need to be perfect to beat me every time.  He can beat me every time without ever needing to find a forced variation.  But doubtless his moves would be "lovely".  It would be my moves, just like Poole's, which would be ugly.)  Yes, HAL asserts the 9000 series is foolproof and incapable of error, that it does not distort information, etc., but that does not imply every chess variation HAL cites or plays must be forced.  (I do not doubt every variation he might cite would end in his victory but that is not the same as asserting they are forced.)  Were that true, then, using a reductio ad absurdum, after HAL moves or states "1. ... P-K4", he could then assert "I think you missed it: I have a forced mate in fifteen more moves."  He certainly could have said "missed it" after e.g. 12. QxR, which is also a "non-optimal" move.  By what I infer is your logic, he could say it after EVERY move he makes.  Do you see the force of the argument?  If one of HAL's variations, played or stated, is forced, then why aren't all of them if he is foolproof, etc.?  If I am not mistaken, you are implying every variation he plays or cites must be (perhaps that he is incapable of doing otherwise).  Why then would Poole even bother to play?  "Missed it" is not equivalent to "forced".  (I think the key word is Poole's "lovely".)  Further--and a big point in other contexts too--HAL may assert he is foolproof, etc., but that does not mean he is.  Of course in Clarke's novel HAL is programmed to lose half the time and I would think that would make the situation between HAL and humans worse, not better.


 * That "missed it" implies "forced" is an interpretation of the viewer.  It is not a fact. Your comment confirms that.  That "missed it" does not imply "forced" is also an interpretation.  These comments of mine confirm it.  I.e. your interpretation is not the only interpretation and may not even be a particularly good one as it is not in accord with the facts in the movie.  (I.e. it is a fact the variation is not forced.  It is a fact(?) the 9000 series is [or is at least claimed to be] foolproof.  Why then would foolproof HAL claim or imply the unforced line was forced?  Something is out of whack here.)  You interpret "it" to mean something which is not explicitly stated in the movie, something which can be interpreted meaningfully and just as simply in other ways (which are ALSO not stated in the movie--POV, OR, SYNTH). E.g. I can easily interpret "missed it" to mean "You are not aware of the consequences of your moves on the chess board for you have once again made a bad move and I shall now make another good move which will allow me to win even faster, whether or not it is a forced variation.  You missed your last chance to not lose so deplorably, whether or not it was forced.  Yes, you thought 14. ... BxP was a lovely move, you missed your opportunity to stop me from making it too; but all my moves are lovely.  You are also obviously unaware of the loveliness of my next move, whether or not it leads to a forced variation--you missed your chance to stop me from playing it."  (I.e. HAL's "Thank you for a very enjoyable game" I can easily interpret as irony or condescension.  I can easily interpret it parallels HAL's later comment about Bowman's sketches,  "I think you've improved a great deal."  I.e. "You are a terrible chessplayer" and "You are a lousy artist".)  If a viewer insists HAL is citing a forced variation, all of those obvious and meaningful interpretive possibilities and parallelisms (and much else) melt away because they are inconsistent with it.


 * I again ask, per the article: when and where does HAL assert he is citing a forced variation? I do not ask for interpretation; I ask for facts. I guess we agree to disagree.  Thank you. ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think we disagree. You're correct re it shouldn't say in the article HAL describes a "forced mate in two". (That article text was wrong & therefore confusing, so I've changed it. What do you think?) Re one of your other points, how much HAL sees perfectly and at what point it's meaningful for him to see/say there's a forced win, we don't need to think in that direction, because it's obvious HAL's "I think you missed it" was just HAL letting Frank know it was "game over" at that point, since it was clear Frank wasn't seeing the mating combination. Re one more thing, after HAL's 14...Bxg2, I'm not sure what Frank says because his hand covers his mouth making him mumble. (Sounds to me he says something like "Huh, that was a good move." But the English subtitle reports him as saying: "Lousy move."! [If the subtitle is correct, then it was a kibitz on his own 14.Qxa6 of course.]) Okay, IHTS (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not think we ever disagreed the end was near for Poole in the chess game. Whether or not I succeeded, I intended my comments to be narrowly about "forced or unforced".


 * I think "lovely move" is consistent with what I see and hear: I see Poole stare at the board; I hear HAL speak his move; I see the move appear on the board; and I hear Poole say something with the word "move" in it. I infer he is commenting upon a chess move and not on something else (e.g. something outside the game).  OK, so which move might he have been commenting upon?  As HAL's move is a nice move, I think that is consistent with "lovely".  In my opinion for Poole to say "lousy move" in reference to HAL's move would be, as you point out, inexplicably sarcastic, a non sequitur.  It might even imply he is a worse chessplayer than he already seems--that he doesn't understand what HAL's move accomplishes, etc.  On the other hand, in my opinion for Poole to comment upon his own prior move with "lousy" once he sees HAL's move (as if he realizes he has made a fingerfehler, an error, a move he now regrets), is certainly possible.  I don't think he was happy with 14. QxP but his other options are not really any better.  (Would 14. QxR or 14. Q-R2 or ... have led to a different outcome?)  That implies he might have said "lousy move" after 14. ... BxP as a description of his last move no matter what he did as an alternative to 14. QxP.  But if he would have said it in any and all circumstances, I think that might lessen the force of this possibility.  Does that imply he does not realize all of HAL's moves are good?  I.e. why wouldn't he say "Lovely move" after every one of HAL's moves; why wouldn't he say "Lousy move" after every one of his own moves?  I cannot resolve it but is the issue clear?  (I think it has to do with Poole's awareness, our awareness, etc.)  Watch Poole's body language carefully when he says the phrase.  He does not shudder or wince--as though he realizes he's blundered; he remains calm, as if in awe of a wonderful move by his opponent.  (Good acting or poor acting by Lockwood?)  He does suddenly look up when HAL says "Q-B3", as though he cannot believe his eyes and ears.


 * All of the above is standard opinion, conjecture. I spent a rainy day going through some of the more troublesome dialogue in the movie with software to try to make it more discernible, to try to move from opinion to fact.  I am confident but not absolutely certain the audio here is "Lovely move".  I think the subtitle here is wrong.  Subtitles may be better than nothing for the hearing impaired but they are not a good substitute for the audio portion of a movie when the audio itself is available.


 * I know the subtitles are inaccurate in other instances too. I think the inaccuracies are generally irrelevant and inconsequential (and that most exist for the obvious reasons of time and space constraints), e.g. I distinctly hear Poole's mother say: "Oh, we were thrilled about Elaine and Bill, dear" but the subtitles have: "We're thrilled about Elaine and Bill".  In a few instances I think the inaccuracy is consequential, e.g. I distinctly hear Halvorsen say on the moon bus: "It seems to have been deliberately buried" but the subtitles have: "It's been deliberately buried".  This goes to Halvorsen's (and my) understanding of the discovery: regardless of the state of affairs of the burial, the first statement sounds tentative and scientific; the second sounds definitive and dogmatic.  I think "Lousy move" is a consequential subtitling error.  I think it misrepresents or misses several important nuances in the relationship between HAL and the crew, etc.


 * Yes, I think I know this movie pretty well. I do not think the shot with the chess game is a key shot in the movie; I do think the chess game is very interesting in and of itself; I think what happens on and off the board during this one shot echoes in many fascinating and meaningful ways throughout the movie--which is to say: I think just about every shot in this movie is amazing and generally in many ways.  (This shot rhymes with all the others; they all rhyme with it and themselves.)  I have never thought of Wikipedia as being the appropriate forum to discuss this movie in its entirety or any of its themes, ideas, or specific shots; or just about anything else under the sun; but it does permit a quick glance at stuff. Maybe the article, as short as it is, permits too long and detailed a glance at something others are not interested in or think is irrelevant?  (If you discuss this one shot, why not discuss all the others?  All of them are interesting.)  I wouldn't want to insult the people running the fiefdom here.  That explains why I did not remove the reference to a forced mate from the article and hoped you would do it.  They like you. ConfusedButNotDazed (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We agree the subtitle is a likely transcription error made by the subtitle writer(s), and that Frank is instead complimenting HAL's 14...Bxg2. (But if you watch the scene more closely I think you'll agree your assessment "He does not shudder or wince--as though he realizes he's blundered; he remains calm, as if in awe of a wonderful move" is incorrrect -- he actually looks up at HAL in some surprise after HAL's move -- similar to how he looks up at HAL in surprise after HAL's 15...Qf3!) Re "forced mate" -- that text was introduced more than once by other editors (not me; in fact I've removed it before). Re why this article exists at all, it was created in 2005 (before my time); criteria for article existence is located at WP:GNG. (This article was proposed for deletion once -- see Articles for deletion/Poole versus HAL 9000 -- however the basis for that proposal wasn't about GNG, even tho there's some discussion there re the article's positive merits re WP:Notability). Re who controls this article, that "fiefdom" consists of editors like you & me (& anyone else). (The theory is WP:Consensus rules. Also see WP:Be bold and WP:JUSTFIXIT.) Cheers, IHTS (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI: I've done transcription work, and what is said in subtitles should probably never be considered in any discussion of the original creator's intent. Transcribers are given hundreds of short sound clips to listen to and then note all dialogue and time information. The clips may come from half a dozen different movies or TV shows being worked on that day, and generally no information is given about the context behind what is being said, unless the listener can infer that context from their own experience. An example would be the English subtitles from my copy of Kelly's Heroes, in which an army general remarks, "I'm breaking through along an entire front," which ended up being transcribed as, "breaking through a long and entire front," by a transcriber who obviously had no understanding that they were working on a war movie, or familiarity with military terms. So they wrote down what they heard on that 10 second clip and moved on. Sometimes the editor whose job it is to fit the text properly in the frame, and to rephrase it if it won't fit, can catch these errors, but as you have probably noted subtitling errors are rampant.


 * One reason for this is that no one involved in the process really cares much about the quality of the work, which is generally an afterthought, done by the distributor as a cheap way to add a bit of extra value to a DVD release. The languages chosen for translation are picked either by market considerations, or by the availability of previous translated titles that can be licensed cheaply. The work is contracted out, nowadays often to companies who simply post the clips via Amazon's Mechanical Turk, where amateur transcribers from around the world get paid pennies a clip to write down their best guess at what is being said, in a language they may not speak very well. So the subtitles on your DVD may be different from mine, depending on where and when they were made. One editor hears 'lovely move', another hears 'lousy move', another hears 'leopard move' and the editor catches the mistake at the last second. Or doesn't... Since subtitles for the hearing impaired weren't even a consideration when the original film or VHS releases were made, it's likely the subs on your copy of 2001 were made after Kubrick's death in 1999, and that no one who actually cares about the film on an artistic level had anything to do with them. 23.242.135.196 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fascinating, thx. (I wonder tho if there are exceptions, films w/ big budgets & high quality targets, e.g. Avatar, The Force Awakens, that allocate some $ to ensure their subtitles are flawless!?) Ok, IHTS (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Kotelnikov vs. Geller, 1979
The relevance of this seems insufficient for inclusion. The game roughly resembles Roesch vs Schlage, but as the the article states none of the board positions shown in 2001 occurred in the later game. Considering Roesch vs Schlage itself is not a notable game, only the game in the movie is (and that is only just independently notable), this seems too dissociated from 2001 to be included in this article. --LukeSurlt c 14:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm. There are several fair points being made here, but I disagree that the article's main subject, the fictional 2001 game (as opposed to the Kotelnikov-Geller section) is only just independently notable—it's cropped up often enough in various (already cited) sources related to the two topics of the article, chess and 2001.  You are correctly distinguishing the fictional movie game from the (corresponding) real Roesch-Schlage game, an important distinction that I had in mind while editing the article over the past year-plus.  While looking at the sources, I was unable to find any indication that Kubrick or anyone on the film's crew stated that the movie-game was taken from the Roesch-Schlage game, much less the Chernev book on same.  Rather, this connection has only been made by chess authors, and this is why I rephrased the article along those lines.


 * The thing is that chess games, especially in their early stages, are often alike-many games may include the same board positions. This fact was what made me a little queasy about attributing the film's game to Roesch-Schlage, but enough chess authors have done so that we can reasonably do so with "according to" clauses and citation.  This consideration led me to the very similar Kotelnikov-Geller, which Andrew Soltis explicitly connected to Roesch-Schlage.  I think this is enough to keep the section, because the article is two things at the same time: a chess article, and an article related to the 2001 film.  Throughout Wikipedia's chess articles, the norm I've observed is that it's appropriate to include related example games as long as they're pertinent, and with citation, of course.


 * I get it. The article's subject has a certain nerd-triviality (but it withstood an old deletion process), but then we do have the sources.  The Kotelnikov-Geller section can be construed as tenuous, despite having citation. I don't think it would be a big loss if the section were deleted, but I go on record with the inclusionist view that it should be kept. MinnesotanUser (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree w/, the sec is just too fussy and WP:UNDUE. May I suggest, though, that the line beginning 12...Ne2+ be relocated to a new comment/analysis at 12...Qd3! in the text, including that it comes from the Kotelnikov–Geller game via transposition, per Soltis. --IHTS (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove this. --LukeSurlt c 22:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)