For those who like chess, this is a fantastic analysis of the final game. (Obviously avoid if you haven't finished the series.)

Edit: Sorry, already posted on page 2.

Very well done show. I know next to nothing about chess but still found it interesting and suspenseful. A few small criticisms, but not enough to spoil it.

aTmAg said:

---

Head Ninja In Charge said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I finished last night. I wish they made it about the real Bobby Fischer. I realize he is not a hot woman and all (which answers why they didn't make it about Fischer), but at least basing it on a real person would make all the moments of genius believable.

Also the alcohol abuse story has been done 100 times. That was the least interesting part of the story.

---

I don't get this. It was a work of fiction and should be judged on its own merit. Plus, there have been multiple movies/docs made about Bobby Fischer.

---

I'm judging it on it's own merit: it was lame.

I've already said why.

---

Thanks for the warning. I guess I'll keep waiting for 8 Mile Part 2.

A couple 'that guy' takes

The chess outside of the tournaments was good but after making a scene of resigning for sportsmanship, they later had a bunch of laughably finished games being played to dramatic music.

The way they did pairings was straight up idiotic and speaking from experience, advanced 3rd graders wouldn't put up with it. The USCF has strict rules on how pairings are done and they've existed for a long time.

Watching it again, last time I just had it playing in the background...

Episode 2 - 25:08

Pause as she's searching the tournaments.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

but at least basing it on a real person would make all the moments of genius believable.

---

How so? What about the show made the Beth Harmon not believable?

---

It's not her, it's the lazy writing that annoys me. These types of movies are the intellectual equivalent of a super hero movie. In most superhero movies, all the writer has to do is have the good guy grit his teeth harder and out muscle or fight the bad guy(s). Anybody can write that. Well in this sort of movie, all they have to do is write them staring at the ceiling (maybe throw in some floating equations or chess pieces in this case), and have them do something that makes everybody else gasp at how smart they are. Anybody can write that as well.

What I like to see are movies/shows that give the viewer the same information as the characters and then have them solve a puzzle that we viewers could have solved if we thought hard enough. This is why I love Breaking Bad. They needed to somehow rob that train. They didn't want to kill the engineers, nor have them call the cops as soon as they got into cell phone range. How to solve that problem? Jesse's answer was smart, and any one of us could have thought of it too. And there are a bunch of examples like that in that show.

Now if you make a movie about a smart person and you can't do something like BB, then I think it should be about a real person. If Einstein didn't exist, and a movie came about a guy just like him, then it would be LAME. Because all it would be is him solving things that other people couldn't and having lots of people proclaim him as smart. If it was about a real guy then you know that person really existed and it's not just the writers "cheating". If Beautiful Mind was about a fictitious person, I would have hated it. The fact that it's about a real guy makes me like it.

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

This story had nothing at all to do with Bobby Fischer.

Why would making it about a deeply anti-Semitic a-hole have made it a better movie any way? That movie has been done.

---

I've seen Searching for Bobby Fischer, is that what you are talking about? I'm not aware of one where Bobby Fischer himself is the protagonist.

And him being an anti-Semitic a-hole is probably a great reason why a new movie about him will never happen. I'm fine with that. I'm just saying make it about a real person. Doesn't have to be him specifically.

aTmAg said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

but at least basing it on a real person would make all the moments of genius believable.

---

How so? What about the show made the Beth Harmon not believable?

---

It's not her, it's the lazy writing that annoys me. These types of movies are the intellectual equivalent of a super hero movie. In most superhero movies, all the writer has to do is have the good guy grit his teeth harder and out muscle or fight the bad guy(s). Anybody can write that. Well in this sort of movie, all they have to do is write them staring at the ceiling (maybe throw in some floating equations or chess pieces in this case), and have them do something that makes everybody else gasp at how smart they are. Anybody can write that as well.

What I like to see are movies/shows that give the viewer the same information as the characters and then have them solve a puzzle that we viewers could have solved if we thought hard enough. This is why I love Breaking Bad. They needed to somehow rob that train. They didn't want to kill the engineers, nor have them call the cops as soon as they got into cell phone range. How to solve that problem? Jesse's answer was smart, and any one of us could have thought of it too. And there are a bunch of examples like that in that show.

Now if you make a movie about a smart person and you can't do something like BB, then I think it should be about a real person. If Einstein didn't exist, and a movie came about a guy just like him, then it would be LAME. Because all it would be is him solving things that other people couldn't and having lots of people proclaim him as smart. If it was about a real guy then you know that person really existed and it's not just the writers "cheating". If Beautiful Mind was about a fictitious person, I would have hated it. The fact that it's about a real guy makes me like it.

---

I don't think we watched the same show. What I learned from it was that doing drugs makes you good at chess.

And also that they don't check for PEDs in chess.

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

A couple 'that guy' takes

The chess outside of the tournaments was good but after making a scene of resigning for sportsmanship, they later had a bunch of laughably finished games being played to dramatic music.

The way they did pairings was straight up idiotic and speaking from experience, advanced 3rd graders wouldn't put up with it. The USCF has strict rules on how pairings are done and they've existed for a long time.

Watching it again, last time I just had it playing in the background...

Episode 2 - 25:08

Pause as she's searching the tournaments.

---

The Brazos Open at the MSC.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

But that would've alienated everyone who doesn't play chess. Part of what made it great is that it wasn't really about the chess moves themselves. It's a character story after all.

---

Yeah, but that part was the least interesting part. I'd watch Leaving Las Vegas, 28 Days, or Nurse Jackie if I wanted to depress myself watching somebody go through dependency.

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

Pawn Sacrifice.

You'll hate it though, they spent a smaller portion of that movie on what made Bobby Fischer good at chess than this series did. Why you think this series should have been about him is still beyond me.

This was a character series that used chess, not a series about chess. I'm the kind of chess nerd that paused the show several times an episode to look at the positions and I didn't get turned off by the fact she was unrealistically good at chess.

---

Not necessarily about him, but a real llfe person. I liked Searching For Bobby Fischer because the boy in that movie was a real person. That way you know it (probably) wasn't unrealistic.

You know one part that I did find interesting is how the high level chess competitions work. I learned something there. Like how they would seal the next move in an envelope when they took a break for the day. And how the Russians treated it like a team sport vs the Americans. I'm not sure if that is true or not. I also liked the 50s period part of it.

I didn't really care for the characters others than the janitor.

Quote:

---

Now if you make a movie about a smart person and you can't do something like BB, then I think it should be about a real person. If Einstein didn't exist, and a movie came about a guy just like him, then it would be LAME. Because all it would be is him solving things that other people couldn't and having lots of people proclaim him as smart. If it was about a real guy then you know that person really existed and it's not just the writers "cheating". If Beautiful Mind was about a fictitious person, I would have hated it. The fact that it's about a real guy makes me like it.

---

What about Good Will Hunting?

I finished The Queens Gambit, it was decent, but pretty superficial overall. Felt like standard Netflix fare, they did a good job with the story when she was a little girl but it just felt like the story got weaker as she grew older. She was a more sympathetic character when she was young. The later episodes just seemed to be going through the paces.

Max Power said:

---

Quote:

---

Now if you make a movie about a smart person and you can't do something like BB, then I think it should be about a real person. If Einstein didn't exist, and a movie came about a guy just like him, then it would be LAME. Because all it would be is him solving things that other people couldn't and having lots of people proclaim him as smart. If it was about a real guy then you know that person really existed and it's not just the writers "cheating". If Beautiful Mind was about a fictitious person, I would have hated it. The fact that it's about a real guy makes me like it.

---

What about Good Will Hunting?

I finished The Queens Gambit, it was decent, but pretty superficial overall. Felt like standard Netflix fare, they did a good job with the story when she was a little girl but it just felt like the story got weaker as she grew older. She was a more sympathetic character when she was young. The later episodes just seemed to be going through the paces.

---

I don't like Good Will Hunting. Same reason. It's so easy to write a super smart character that even Matt Damon and Ben Affleck can do it. The only part I liked was Robin Williams.

aTmAg said:

---

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

Pawn Sacrifice.

You'll hate it though, they spent a smaller portion of that movie on what made Bobby Fischer good at chess than this series did. Why you think this series should have been about him is still beyond me.

This was a character series that used chess, not a series about chess. I'm the kind of chess nerd that paused the show several times an episode to look at the positions and I didn't get turned off by the fact she was unrealistically good at chess.

---

Not necessarily about him, but a real llfe person. I liked Searching For Bobby Fischer because the boy in that movie was a real person. That way you know it (probably) wasn't unrealistic.

You know one part that I did find interesting is how the high level chess competitions work. I learned something there. Like how they would seal the next move in an envelope when they took a break for the day. And how the Russians treated it like a team sport vs the Americans. I'm not sure if that is true or not. I also liked the 50s period part of it.

I didn't really care for the characters others than the janitor.

---

So you do realize and can admit that it doesnt matter if aspects of the story are actually factual or not...

The Milkman said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

Pawn Sacrifice.

You'll hate it though, they spent a smaller portion of that movie on what made Bobby Fischer good at chess than this series did. Why you think this series should have been about him is still beyond me.

This was a character series that used chess, not a series about chess. I'm the kind of chess nerd that paused the show several times an episode to look at the positions and I didn't get turned off by the fact she was unrealistically good at chess.

---

Not necessarily about him, but a real llfe person. I liked Searching For Bobby Fischer because the boy in that movie was a real person. That way you know it (probably) wasn't unrealistic.

You know one part that I did find interesting is how the high level chess competitions work. I learned something there. Like how they would seal the next move in an envelope when they took a break for the day. And how the Russians treated it like a team sport vs the Americans. I'm not sure if that is true or not. I also liked the 50s period part of it.

I didn't really care for the characters others than the janitor.

---

So you do realize and can admit that it doesnt matter if aspects of the story are actually factual or not...

---

Obviously. I think Breaking Bad is the best show ever and nothing about it is true. My point is that when a show is about a "super genius" it is as lame as a superhero movie when it's not true.

It sounds to me he has an issue with fictional characters being smarter than him, and him not understanding how their brain works.

aTm, let's be honest. Most of Walter White's schemes couldnt possibly have been thought up by anyone here no matter how much time they had. They needed a team of writers to figure out ways out of seemingly inescapable situations for him.

We'll never know how he went about poisoning Brock in such a short window of time. Did it bother you that we never saw him physically carry out his plan? Seems to me you could consider that "lazy" as well.

freecashflow said:

---

Benny is definitely the kid from Love Actually right?

---

I recognized him from Nanny McPhee

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

Oh, hey, "Gus Fring should have NDA's guy" is still smarter than everyone. Pretty great to be better at TV than Vince Gilligan. He also knew lots more about spycraft than the showrunners of The Americans.

---

I think Breaking bad and the Americans are in the top 3 shows of all time. I never said I would be better at TV than any of those people.

And you are mischaracterizing my NDA point, but of course, you probably know that.

Am I just a dolt for not going that far into character development?

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

It sounds to me he has an issue with fictional characters being smarter than him, and him not understanding how their brain works.

---

You are right. Chess pieces on the ceiling were so hard to understand. How could my feeble brain ever grasp such a intelligent concept?

Quote:

---

aTm, let's be honest. Most of Walter White's schemes couldnt possibly have been thought up by anyone here no matter how much time they had. They needed a team of writers to figure out ways out of seemingly inescapable situations for him.

---

This makes it even BETTER. That is why it that show was the antithesis of lazy writing. They had to actually be smart to write it, not just portray somebody who was smart.

Quote:

---

We'll never know how he went about poisoning Brock in such a short window of time. Did it bother you that we never saw him physically carry out his plan? Seems to me you could consider that "lazy" as well.

---

No, because the fact that WW did it was the twist ending of the episode. If they showed him poisoning Brock, it would have spoiled the whole thing. This is the first time I've heard anybody try to make the claim that Gilligan's team was lazy.

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

Weird how in your life you are never wrong, and are always mischaracterized. Seems like when that is ALWAYS happening, it means either you communicate very poorly, or you are the kind of pedantic person who argues every point and is incapable of admitting wrong.

---

I'm wrong on occasion and I admit it when I am.

This mischaracterization problem only seems to happen on this board and only by a few people. Not other boards or sites. Perhaps those few people who need to read harder?