Closing Gambit

[Matt Mackenzie]

The other two would be superfluous

I haven't seen it yet, but It's got Ray Keene in it and I imagine it's critical of Communism and the Soviet Union.

I'm wondering if it had the telling interview with Tal. The interview was in English but a "translator" was present. So Tal would listen to the question in English and reply presumably in Russian. The translator would then give an English translation presumably the idea being to make sure Tal didn't say anything incorrect. At one stage Tal took exception to the translator's English and corrected him.

Due to his almost film star levels of popularity, Tal was freer to say what he thought than many of his contemporaries in the pre-Gorby USSR. Even so, there is speculation he was pressed into signing that infamous post-Korchnoi defection letter (something he soon regretted)

[ben.graff]

I really enjoyed it. Definitely worth people watching and seeing what they think. It's also available on Amazon's platform.

The archive footage is fascinating. Whenever Karpov won a game, his entourage would organise a party. Seeing "independent" match organiser Campomanes not only in attendance at the first such event, but also toasting Karpov and expressing his hope for the five more victories that Karpov needed, is somewhat jaw-dropping. (Incidentally, Karpov was presented with a cake which had the final position on it after every game that he won!)

As the film explains, in some ways Karpov - Korchnoi 1978 was an even bigger deal for the Soviet authorities than Fischer - Spassky. Having lost the title once to an American, losing it to a defector would have been even worse. This was an era where chess had a symbolic power (for good or ill) that it never will again.

The interviews with Kasparov, Karpov, Keene, Sosonko, Stean, Short, King et al are all very interesting and well thought out. I was quite moved by Karpov's reflections on the reconciliation (of sorts) that ultimately came about between himself and Korchnoi.

For me this was an enjoyable watch and an important contribution, in terms of preserving and sharing some pivotal moments in the history of the game.

[JustinHorton]

The interviews with Kasparov, Karpov, Keene, Sosonko, Stean, Short, King et al are all very interesting and well thought out.

They are very definitely not all very interesting and well thought out.

As the film explains, in some ways Karpov - Korchnoi 1978 was an even bigger deal for the Soviet authorities than Fischer - Spassky. Having lost the title once to an American, losing it to a defector would have been even worse.

One of the many annoyances of the film (and one I didnt really want to go through again, because by God it is tiresome to say so) to anybody with the slightest interest in proper historical standards is that it entirely invents a sub-plot by which Korchnoi was going to be assassinated if he won, something for which actual archive evidence is absent. Quite a few of these "very interesting" interviews are dedicated to discussing this non-existent plot, which is among the reasons why the last part of the film drags like somebody tied an anvil to the back of your car. (It's far from the only thing which is annoying about the interviews - I recall wondering on a number of occasions why somebody's opinion had been sought in the first place, or why it hadn't just been cut.)

I mean i guess if we're operating on the usual guidelines of "this is about chess, so anything will do" then fill your boots, but perhaps better to fill them with something more substantial.

I also seem to remember that the use of music is incredibly annoying.

(Searching for "soundtrack" I discover that my previous verdict was "outstandingly pedestrian". Closing Gambit would be far from the only outstandingly pedestrian work on chess that I've seen praised like it was something special, a habit which is as dispiriting as it is common.)

[Kevin Thurlow]

"entirely invents a sub-plot by which Korchnoi was going to be assassinated if he won, something for which actual archive evidence is absent."

Korchnoi claimed to have evidence, but sadly he appears not to have shown it to anyone...

I doubt anyone would have been surprised if he had won and then died in mysterious circumstances. But that's more suspicion of Governments, than genuine information.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I doubt anyone would have been surprised if he had won and then died in mysterious circumstances.

Like Fischer did?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Like Fischer did?"

That would not have been surprising either... but why bother? It did become clear quite quickly, that even if he started the 1975 match, he probably wouldn't have finished it. Karpov would not have been so charitable after Game 2. Also, Korchnoi was a defector - they would regard him as a traitor, much worse than a foreign opponent.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Yes, personally I have always seen Karpov winning that game 32 in 1978 as maybe *the* biggest single achievement of his career. Especially given how he had collapsed previously to that, and the magnitude of what was at stake.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, personally I have always seen Karpov winning that game 32 in 1978 as maybe *the* biggest single achievement of his career.

There was the Korchnoi allegation that the choice of opening in that game had been leaked. It isn't known whether the Karpov team had assembled the collected writings of RDK as an attempt to predict what might come up. If they had done so they would have found the idea of .. Na6 in the Pirc transposing to a semi-Benoni mentioned in the Batsford book on the Pirc written with George Botterill.

[ben.graff]

Yes, personally I have always seen Karpov winning that game 32 in 1978 as maybe *the* biggest single achievement of his career. Especially given how he had collapsed previously to that, and the magnitude of what was at stake.

I don't disagree. The film is very interesting though on Korchnoi's choice of opening in game 32. Korchnoi chose to speculate with the Pirc, when no risks, grinding chess might have improved his chances - given how exhausted Karpov was.

[JustinHorton]

I doubt anyone would have been surprised if he had won and then died in mysterious circumstances.

Like Fischer did?

Well quite

There was the Korchnoi allegation that the choice of opening in that game had been leaked. It isn't known whether the Karpov team had assembled the collected writings of RDK as an attempt to predict what might come up. If they had done so they would have found the idea of .. Na6 in the Pirc transposing to a semi-Benoni mentioned in the Batsford book on the Pirc written with George Botterill.

This is the sort of question a properly inquisitive film might have asked, instead of the guff it actually came out with. It might also have discussed the question of why Korchnoi might have developed paranoid views about one of his seconds.

[John Moore]

What was mysterious about Fischer's death? I though he died of kidney failure after many years of refusing to have a urinary tract problem properly treated.

[JustinHorton]

For what it's worth I think the leaking allegation is false, but it's a lot less wild than the assassination nonsense and it's true that Ray was, in fact, cheating Korchnoi at the time, which can't have done much for the latter's state of mind. It's one of the many frustrations of the film that it has a really interesting and tragic narrative available to it, and instead it opts for the load of old cobblers at the end.

My favourite sporting event ever, that match. Deserves a lot better.

[David Sedgwick]

What was mysterious about Fischer's death? I though he died of kidney failure after many years of refusing to have a urinary tract problem properly treated.

I think that that is exactly the point being made. Fischer didn't come to any harm in the aftermath of the 1972 match.

[John Moore]

Thank you, David. I wasn't paying proper attention to the thread - not the first time that's happened.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I wasn't paying proper attention to the thread"

Don't worry - you're obviously not alone!