Queens Gambit and Netflix

[Gerard Killoran]

I can't help admiring how Mr McCready is prepared to stand alone - against both the chess and non-chess world - in his dislike for The Queen's Gambit. Perhaps he should create a drama which will 'look as though it was written for chess players' and take the treatment to Netflix.

I'm sure he holds his opinion honestly, can he accept that the rest of us hold our contrary opinions honestly too?

[MJMcCready]

Yes certainly but I just don't get it. It's so far removed from what we know competitive chess to be about, and to have her performing simuls within months of learning the moves, that's just downright ridiculous. It seems like most people are just happy to see chess being centre stage. I just find the whole thing to be glossy and superficial, and because of that I find it irksome but that's just me. It's good that the cast the role for a female but the whole thing is just a bit silly, it's an attempt at something more cultured for the masses to me and not much more.

[MJMcCready]

There was something shot in the 80s that appeared on BBC, something very English and more arty but I can't quite remember the name of it.

[MJMcCready]

Ah, perhaps this was it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ba8jZe ... e=emb_logo

[Paul Cooksey]

I can't help admiring how Mr McCready is prepared to stand alone - against both the chess and non-chess world - in his dislike for The Queen's Gambit.

I'm sort of with him. But since I suspect it would annoy me, I have taken the precaution of not watching it.

[Gerard Killoran]

I can't help admiring how Mr McCready is prepared to stand alone - against both the chess and non-chess world - in his dislike for The Queen's Gambit.

I'm sort of with him. But since I suspect it would annoy me, I have taken the precaution of not watching it.

Watch it. Most chess players would have only minor quibbles, but you have to sacrifice some of the details (e.g. writing down every move) to move the drama forward. It has that rare rating of 100% from TV and Film critics on Rotten Tomatoes. As for chess players, it has universal acclaim from both the GM fraternity, and more importantly, sorority. Check out Danny King's videos on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/pnYY1LNOGIo

https://youtu.be/GDnXAl4_Iw8

The book's really good too.

[Jon Mahony]

I can't help admiring how Mr McCready is prepared to stand alone - against both the chess and non-chess world - in his dislike for The Queen's Gambit.

I'm sort of with him. But since I suspect it would annoy me, I have taken the precaution of not watching it.

Perfectly fine with people not liking it myself, everyone is entitled to their opinion

I think I was guaranteed to like it as the book has been a favourite of mine for so long.

[Jon Mahony]

Check out Danny King's videos on YouTube.

I find those Danny King videos a bit straw-clutching myself "Judit Polgar is the Real Beth Harmon"

... Why Danny, cos she's a woman?

I don't see too many other similarities

But I know how much extra advertising revenue that title will get from all the clicks

[MJMcCready]

Touching on an important point. Social media is, to some degree, enslaving. I'm sure they must find the manner in which chess is played to be laughable but won't say that because that is unpopular, which is less profitable.

[MJMcCready]

Check out Danny King's videos on YouTube.

I find those Danny King videos a bit straw-clutching myself "Judit Polgar is the Real Beth Harmon"

... Why Danny, cos she's a woman?

I don't see too many other similarities

But I know how much extra advertising revenue that title will get from all the clicks

Well the process of learning and development is so drawn out, hence the reason her parents invested so much into yet The Queens Gambit makes a mockery of it. Who in their right mind would believe someone wins all her games in a simul within months of learning how to play at such a young age. They probably saw pictures of a young Sam Reshevsky and wanted to give a modern take on it but that doesn't mean you can just gloss over anything abstract just to make it look nice, yes the non-chess playing public probably would buy into it, and that is who it has been written for, but anyone who has coached juniors must surely find aspects of it nauseating, I know I certainly did. But I don't have to worry about getting likes, so I can say what I think. It's all rather sad. Even in the commentary to the Skilling Open last night, the amnount of times Twitter feeds took priority over chess itself was shocking.

[Wadih Khoury]

Who in their right mind would believe someone wins all her games in a simul within months of learning how to play at such a young age. They probably saw pictures of a young Sam Reshevsky and wanted to give a modern take on it but that doesn't mean you can just gloss over anything abstract just to make it look nice, yes the non-chess playing public probably would buy into it, and that is who it has been written for, but anyone who has coached juniors must surely find aspects of it nauseating, I know I certainly did.

It's probably because you lack imagination.
If you had a mix of Capablanca, Fisher and Kasparov, I am positive that after 6 months of intense training (bored to death in an orphanage, spending nights dreaming of chess, skipping classes to train), that child should be able to trash a simul, IF the other children were also of a lower level.

Imagine a 120 child (on the lows side for a child genius) doing a simul against a class of 60s. Would you expect a likely outcome to be a victory on all boards?

But you somehow assumed, in your legitimate dislike of the series, that she was somehow beating 150s or 200s.
Her opponents were school kids in the 50-60s, before Fisher, and probably only knew the rudiments of chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

Her opponents were school kids in the 50-60s, before Fisher, and probably only knew the rudiments of chess.

Weren't there opponents of Fischer in the Simuls whose opening knowledge seemingly ran out at move 2? So apart from the guy who did it deliberately to mislead Fischer as to his strength, games could start 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6.

Personally I thought the obvious weakness of the book as a depiction of how it might have been, also perpetuated in the film, was the absence of draws. Fischer's 11/11 in the US Championship was an outlier, although perhaps that and his two 6-0 results were the author's inspiration.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Personally I thought the obvious weakness of the book as a depiction of how it might have been, also perpetuated in the film, was the absence of draws."

I wondered if that were the American hatred of the draw. In Ice Hockey, baseball, or the game they are pleased to call "football", a level score at the end is followed by extra time. Why in the latter case, they feel the need to follow 80 minutes of playing time, 4 hours having meetings and 2 hours of adverts, by continuing I don't know. We quite happily accept that you can play five days of cricket and have a draw or even a tie (Australia - India 1986 ended in a tie after the 5th ball of the final over on the final day).

It could be the Fischer thing too, or the author looked at 19th Century tournaments.

[MJMcCready]

Who in their right mind would believe someone wins all her games in a simul within months of learning how to play at such a young age. They probably saw pictures of a young Sam Reshevsky and wanted to give a modern take on it but that doesn't mean you can just gloss over anything abstract just to make it look nice, yes the non-chess playing public probably would buy into it, and that is who it has been written for, but anyone who has coached juniors must surely find aspects of it nauseating, I know I certainly did.

It's probably because you lack imagination.
If you had a mix of Capablanca, Fisher and Kasparov, I am positive that after 6 months of intense training (bored to death in an orphanage, spending nights dreaming of chess, skipping classes to train), that child should be able to trash a simul, IF the other children were also of a lower level.

Imagine a 120 child (on the lows side for a child genius) doing a simul against a class of 60s. Would you expect a likely outcome to be a victory on all boards?

But you somehow assumed, in your legitimate dislike of the series, that she was somehow beating 150s or 200s.
Her opponents were school kids in the 50-60s, before Fisher, and probably only knew the rudiments of chess.

No assumptions being made on my part only yours. No such six months of intense training is ever referred to either. Think on.

[Roger Lancaster]

I have Tevis's book on my bookshelf and, having wondered how the film would compare, was impressed. However, what I or anyone else on this forum think is really neither here nor there. At a time when chess is having Covid-related problems, the film comes as a massive publicity boost.