Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 10:19:46 AM

Login with username, password and session length

The Queen's Gambit

Started by cacciaguida, October 25, 2020, 10:17:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

touchingcloth

Quote from: cacciaguida on October 31, 2020, 02:14:04 PM
All the chess games that are in the show (either featuring prominently or just a move here and there) are based off real games.

With the exception of the fact that they move far too quickly, the chess is extremely accurate

I've started watching this now, and am enjoying it two episodes in.

I agree with the comments about the accuracy of the chess, but also that the speed of it, especially in the state tournament in the second episode, is wayyy too speedy.

I didn't like how unrealistically naïve of the state of chess at the time she's portrayed as. She must have spent years with Modern Chess Openings, then when she moves to her new school and asks if they has any chess book and the librarian says "maybe something about Capablanca tucked over on that shelf", and she says "who?" Bullshit had she not heard of him at any point. Ditto that she seemed unaware of ratings systems.

It's also odd given the time it's set in that there hasn't been a single mention of Fischer yet. I don't know where the rest of the series is going - I imagine they're going to mention Fischer at some point because the timeline is a little too late for it to be a sort of alternative history where she follows Bobby's trajectory, and I can see what they're trying to do in presenting her as a raw self-taught talent in the manner of Fischer himself, it just feels like they're dialled up her untaught nature to a point which stretches credulity, especially as at this point we haven't heard her say a word about openings or famous games.

It seems to me the speeded up chess is just a representation of the actual game and you aren't meant to take the game speed shown literally. We're told games are taking longer than is shown on screen.

touchingcloth

Quote from: Wentworth Smith on November 10, 2020, 12:36:22 PM
It seems to me the speeded up chess is just a representation of the actual game and you aren't meant to take the game speed shown literally. We're told games are taking longer than is shown on screen.

That's true up to a point, but there are bits where they show, say, 30 seconds of chess action on screen but with each player making 4 moves. They could show things equally less literally but more in the spirit of things if they showed fewer moves with the players agonising over them a bit more, but it feels a bit too much like watching highly-rated players in a familiar endgame.

amputeeporn

Quote from: SteveDave on November 02, 2020, 11:32:59 AM
There was a door handle in the first episode that looked far too modern so I turned it off.

Literally had this thought! (Though kept watching)

brat-sampson

Have read that this is basically a live-action Sports Anime with some amusingly overdone melodrama, so I'm in for a larf.

SteveDave



QuoteThe two leads in Queens Gambit have identical faces and I couldn't unsee it the entire time

Neville Chamberlain

I know nothing about chess (apart from how all the bits move and what-not) yet am still thoroughly enjoying this.

But I've got one question for all you chess people that's been bugging me. What with all this talk about 'opening moves' and all the elaborate names they have, what if you're opponent does something that doesn't fit in with the sequence of opening moves? So if you intend to open the game with, say, I dunno, the 'Ruy Lopez', your opponent would spot this immediately and just move a completely different piece to mess things up for you, wouldn't they? Can what you do in the next couple of moves still be called the 'Ruy Lopez' opening, or has it just been broken by your opponent?

sevendaughters

Quote from: Neville Chamberlain on November 13, 2020, 01:47:43 PM
I know nothing about chess (apart from how all the bits move and what-not) yet am still thoroughly enjoying this.

But I've got one question for all you chess people that's been bugging me. What with all this talk about 'opening moves' and all the elaborate names they have, what if you're opponent does something that doesn't fit in with the sequence of opening moves? So if you intend to open the game with, say, I dunno, the 'Ruy Lopez', your opponent would spot this immediately and just move a completely different piece to mess things up for you, wouldn't they? Can what you do in the next couple of moves still be called the 'Ruy Lopez' opening, or has it just been broken by your opponent?

The actual Ruy Lopez is just the name given to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5. That is the Ruy Lopez, anything else isn't it.

The opening is setting up a particular line of attack that you have to defend. If you try and do some kind of presto-changeo magic (ie. not follow one of the several prescribed 'lines') you will get smushed into a little ball of dirt.

A grandmaster would typically play his or her favourite line and the game would progress down a fairly well-trodden course until the point the game becomes a novelty - that is an original - or at least unrecorded - variation.

Some openings become novelty quite quickly, others have fairly prescribed moves for about 10-12 moves each.

Mr_Simnock

Quote from: Neville Chamberlain on November 13, 2020, 01:47:43 PM
I know nothing about chess (apart from how all the bits move and what-not) yet am still thoroughly enjoying this.

But I've got one question for all you chess people that's been bugging me. What with all this talk about 'opening moves' and all the elaborate names they have, what if you're opponent does something that doesn't fit in with the sequence of opening moves? So if you intend to open the game with, say, I dunno, the 'Ruy Lopez', your opponent would spot this immediately and just move a completely different piece to mess things up for you, wouldn't they? Can what you do in the next couple of moves still be called the 'Ruy Lopez' opening, or has it just been broken by your opponent?

If this is done by a titled player in a tournament and appears to have some merit they are sometimes referred to as a 'novelties' and can lead to new opening theory. As for the second point some openings for both white and black offer ways to transition the opening from one to another, e.g. if you play the Sicilian Taimanov as black you can quite easily move the positional nature (transpose is the word) of the game to that of the Scheveningen or Paulsen, but you have to really know what your doing for that to be effective. Also some lines for both white and black offer flexibility within the opening to avoid one line of attack or another from your opponent and force the game down a route you might know well.

Gulftastic

Gosh, she's very pretty.

Got through it in two days. Enjoyed it lots, but I agree about the 'smash the commies!' ending being a bit hmmm.

The two things that surprised me most were that the kindly janitor wasn't revealed to have a dark past, and that her adopted Dad wasn't a nonce.

And she should have gone back to that French lass at the end.

Oh, and Dudsley Dursley!


Neomod

Just finished this and it was enjoyable enough. Nice art direction and the actress who played the young Beth was superb, like a kid out of a Diane Arbus/Vivian Maier photo.

Oh and Gillian Hills's Tut Tut Tut Tut is a banger.

Nobody Soup

Quote from: touchingcloth on November 10, 2020, 12:14:21 PM
I've started watching this now, and am enjoying it two episodes in.

I agree with the comments about the accuracy of the chess, but also that the speed of it, especially in the state tournament in the second episode, is wayyy too speedy.

I didn't like how unrealistically naïve of the state of chess at the time she's portrayed as. She must have spent years with Modern Chess Openings, then when she moves to her new school and asks if they has any chess book and the librarian says "maybe something about Capablanca tucked over on that shelf", and she says "who?" Bullshit had she not heard of him at any point. Ditto that she seemed unaware of ratings systems.

It's also odd given the time it's set in that there hasn't been a single mention of Fischer yet. I don't know where the rest of the series is going - I imagine they're going to mention Fischer at some point because the timeline is a little too late for it to be a sort of alternative history where she follows Bobby's trajectory, and I can see what they're trying to do in presenting her as a raw self-taught talent in the manner of Fischer himself, it just feels like they're dialled up her untaught nature to a point which stretches credulity, especially as at this point we haven't heard her say a word about openings or famous games.

The reason Fischer isn't, and won't be, mentioned is that although the chess world prior to the timeline of the series is real the actual chess world at the time is fictionalised. None of the players currently active in the series actually existed and Harmon herself is loosely based on Fischer.

Indeed given they actively avoid mentioning most real players active in the 60s (Tal and Petrosian were both champions in this time period and are not mentioned I don't think) it was a little jarring when they mentioned Spassky who would have been the real current world champion in 1968 but doesn't feature at all.


SteveDave

Quote from: Nobody Soup on November 16, 2020, 12:23:16 AM
Indeed given they actively avoid mentioning most real players active in the 60s (Tal and Petrosian were both champions in this time period and are not mentioned I don't think) it was a little jarring when they mentioned Spassky who would have been the real current world champion in 1968 but doesn't feature at all.


the science eel

Quote from: Gulftastic on November 15, 2020, 08:18:45 PM
Gosh, she's very pretty.

Oh God, she's absolutely beautiful. They clearly wanted to make a thing of it too - lingering close-ups from above, eyes wide. And that dance scene...

It's probably a coincidence but I'd rate Normal People just as highly out of TV I've watched from this year, and there's a similar kind of focus on the female lead there. It's a selling point, maybe.

Non Stop Dancer

Definitely a boon for the horny casual/non chess fan viewer.


touchingcloth

Quote from: Nobody Soup on November 16, 2020, 12:23:16 AM
The reason Fischer isn't, and won't be, mentioned is that although the chess world prior to the timeline of the series is real the actual chess world at the time is fictionalised. None of the players currently active in the series actually existed and Harmon herself is loosely based on Fischer.

Indeed given they actively avoid mentioning most real players active in the 60s (Tal and Petrosian were both champions in this time period and are not mentioned I don't think) it was a little jarring when they mentioned Spassky who would have been the real current world champion in 1968 but doesn't feature at all.

Yeah, I guessed as much, it's just weird that they dropped some names but not others. I was fine with the way it was made and probably better that they kept it as an original story rather than turning it into an alternative history with, I dunno, a young Harmon facing down Byrne in the game of the century, but there were a couple of bits which slipped through.

Is anyone familiar with watching/listening to broadcast games of chess? I'm reasonably used to following algebraic notation, but not with how commentary is usually done on games. I found it a bit jarring when the commentator gave the opening move in the final game as "Harmon - queen 4. Borgov - queen 4".

touchingcloth

Quote from: Neville Chamberlain on November 13, 2020, 01:47:43 PM
I know nothing about chess (apart from how all the bits move and what-not) yet am still thoroughly enjoying this.

But I've got one question for all you chess people that's been bugging me. What with all this talk about 'opening moves' and all the elaborate names they have, what if you're opponent does something that doesn't fit in with the sequence of opening moves? So if you intend to open the game with, say, I dunno, the 'Ruy Lopez', your opponent would spot this immediately and just move a completely different piece to mess things up for you, wouldn't they? Can what you do in the next couple of moves still be called the 'Ruy Lopez' opening, or has it just been broken by your opponent?

The thing is, most openings aren't a religiously defined sets of moves, but once the first 2-4 moves have been played they will have morphed into a variation of the "classic" opener. Ruy Lopez itself has tens of well-studied variants, each with their own sub-names.

Even if your opponent has realised that you're a renowned master in playing Ruy Lopez and all its variants and so they try and shift you off the path of the "pure" opening, and because of how forensically all of the possible opening lines have been analysed they'll almost certainly end up taking you to another form of opening with its own name rather than a never-before-seen set of moves.


touchingcloth

I liked how crap her American watcher was on her trip abroad. "Walking? To the airport? You'll miss the flight! Right, I'd best get going, need to catch my flight on time so I can report back that I lost you. Cheers."

Nobody Soup

Quote from: touchingcloth on November 16, 2020, 04:16:02 PM
Yeah, I guessed as much, it's just weird that they dropped some names but not others. I was fine with the way it was made and probably better that they kept it as an original story rather than turning it into an alternative history with, I dunno, a young Harmon facing down Byrne in the game of the century, but there were a couple of bits which slipped through.

Is anyone familiar with watching/listening to broadcast games of chess? I'm reasonably used to following algebraic notation, but not with how commentary is usually done on games. I found it a bit jarring when the commentator gave the opening move in the final game as "Harmon - queen 4. Borgov - queen 4".

this was actually a spot on piece of accuracy, that was descriptive notation, and if you ever purchase old chess books it's worth checking they don't use it as it's much less obvious than algebraic. It's a kind of metric vs imperial system sort of thing that happened with recording chess moves and the descriptive notation was used by english speaking players and commentators up until the 80s.

however, algebraic was already being used in Russia at that time and I'm pretty sure they always correctly had the right camp use the correct notation in the show.

I listen to a lot of commentary (all chess competitions are covered live on youtube) and no, no one would use that notation now, it's completely obsolete. FIDE don't even recognise it as official notation now and every engligh chess book published prior to the 1980s has been re-published with algebraic notation.

El Unicornio, mang

Halfway through and loving this. The 60s America setting a big bonus. I imagine a lot of people will be getting chess sets this Xmas.

Quote from: Wet Blanket on October 29, 2020, 12:37:55 PM
even if that world is portrayed as much more glamorous and populated by people who are way too good looking;

Probably true but I did automatically think of Alexandra Botez


the science eel


chveik


Andy147

Quote from: Nobody Soup on November 16, 2020, 12:23:16 AM
Indeed given they actively avoid mentioning most real players active in the 60s (Tal and Petrosian were both champions in this time period and are not mentioned I don't think) it was a little jarring when they mentioned Spassky who would have been the real current world champion in 1968 but doesn't feature at all.

Would have been - if he'd beaten Petrosian in 1966. (He actually became champion in 1969).

Haven't seen the series; the least realistic aspect of the chess in the original novel was the lack of drawn games. For instance: in the final big tournament, after 4 rounds, 3 players (Beth, Borgov and Luchenko) have won all 4 games, and Beth and Borgov win their next 2 games as well. In the real world, even one player reaching 4/4 is very unusual, but here the author just seems to assume that that's what happens; the world champion just wins every game he plays.

touchingcloth

Quote from: Nobody Soup on November 17, 2020, 02:28:18 AM
this was actually a spot on piece of accuracy, that was descriptive notation, and if you ever purchase old chess books it's worth checking they don't use it as it's much less obvious than algebraic. It's a kind of metric vs imperial system sort of thing that happened with recording chess moves and the descriptive notation was used by english speaking players and commentators up until the 80s.

however, algebraic was already being used in Russia at that time and I'm pretty sure they always correctly had the right camp use the correct notation in the show.

I listen to a lot of commentary (all chess competitions are covered live on youtube) and no, no one would use that notation now, it's completely obsolete. FIDE don't even recognise it as official notation now and every engligh chess book published prior to the 1980s has been re-published with algebraic notation.

I'd heard of things like "queen 4" before, but always assumed it was a colloquial thing, with the algebraic being standard, as aged about ten in the nineties I had a chess for beginners book which used it all over the place. There's an episode of Red Dwarf where Holly plays a round of chess and says one line which has stuck in my memory of "knight to king bish three", so that's why the line jumped out from this series, I think.

Quote from: Andy147 on November 17, 2020, 07:19:18 PM
Would have been - if he'd beaten Petrosian in 1966. (He actually became champion in 1969).

Haven't seen the series; the least realistic aspect of the chess in the original novel was the lack of drawn games. For instance: in the final big tournament, after 4 rounds, 3 players (Beth, Borgov and Luchenko) have won all 4 games, and Beth and Borgov win their next 2 games as well. In the real world, even one player reaching 4/4 is very unusual, but here the author just seems to assume that that's what happens; the world champion just wins every game he plays.

When I was a stoner at university I went through a phase of learning to play using Chessmaster, which was fucking great with lessons narrated by Josh Waitzkin from off of Searching for Bobby Fischer. Part of what stopped me from learning more is that I didn't enjoy getting to the stage where it was clear that so much of advanced play is based on learning openings and endgame strategy, but also from learning more about the best players and realising just how many matches end with "1/2-1/2", and that most world champions' records against their peers are essentially 50/50. So yeah, it was relatively odd that actual draws didn't feature much in the series, but I can see why it was that way because it doesn't make the best telly. The draws which were mentioned were always people offering them hopefully before being refused and smushed.

Nobody Soup

Lads, might be the time to ask if anyone plays on lichess. Pm me for my profile

Like the musical Chess, but with a better soundtrack.

olliebean

Quote from: thecuriousorange on November 18, 2020, 01:03:03 AM
Like the musical Chess, but with a better soundtrack.
The soundtrack is the only good thing about the musical Chess.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: Gulftastic on November 15, 2020, 08:18:45 PM
Gosh, she's very pretty.


Although apparently she doesn't think so. "I still don't spend a lot of time in front of mirrors so I don't have to deal with my face"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkK3GVQqGQc&ab_channel=WMagazine

Kids can be so cruel.