Queens Gambit and Netflix

[Andrew Zigmond]

My irritations with the Queen's Gambit were that I don't think there was anything like as much money in professional chess in the 1960s as the series implies and also that Beth Harmon encounters a relative lack of sexism and misogyny. That said you can allow for a few inaccuracies for the sake of a good story and ultimately the series did more to popularise chess than anything since Fischer vs Spassky (which in some ways wasn't the best advertisement either).

[MJMcCready]

I don't think I had any irritations. It was mostly disbelief, disappointment and the lament that it isn't written for chess players. That was bad enough but the lack of realism didn't help in parts. It Was all too cheap and cheerful with mediocre acting at best. Given that the player who inspired it was a total whack that jot imprisoned several times, I felt that given the aspirations of the funders and film crew, the happy ending they were after was not that happy. You were left with the feeling that the director/-producers wanted recreate the main characters, and that's okay but for non-chessplayers. For we chess players it was a load bxxxxxxx, wxxx, coddswhaloppe, claptrap, bxxs It obviously wouldn't have received so much attention if it hadnt been put in Netfix In sum massively overrated. Wittgenstein once pointed out that we sometimes fail to see what is right in front of our face. Fortunately some do, I met an Irish man named Seasmus, Liam, paddy, Darren Mohammed Mc O Grady who once told me like life itself, chess is a waste of time. Yes it's all true that we all die, so should you want to watch this over-hyped and somewhat bland and uncultured attempt to offer up an interpretation of Fischer then go ahead. You might want resider why it was so welcomed in the chess community, perhaps concluding most players only liked it because it was about chess.

You could argue the director achieved her aims, and to some degree that's inevitable but there is some pnashe here and ther but invariably, when you bylass the normative aspects of what something, you end up saying very little. But then what would you expect from a documentary, it is from Literature that we learnt. Quite well produced but won't teach you a bloody thing.

[Andy McCulloch]

So was your post. Chess players are such a small group that nothing would be successful if aimed at that audience only.

[MJMcCready]

So was your post. Chess players are such a small group that nothing would be successful if aimed at that audience only.

Depends on you define success. I think we can safely agree that online chess is flourishing and attracting interest outside chess. It could also be argued that Sam's have a very floushing life and live outside of chess too. Providing there has been media interest in a chess event the potential to make a good documentary is there, depending on your level of expertise

[MJMcCready]

I think,Liz Garbus's documentary was successful, it just was not written for chess players.

[Roger Lancaster]

I stand to be corrected if I have under-estimated the efforts of others but my impression is that those responsible for the Netflix version of "The Queen's Gambit", whatever its faults, did more for chess than the collective contributions of those who criticise it here.

[Reg Clucas]

I stand to be corrected if I have under-estimated the efforts of others but my impression is that those responsible for the Netflix version of "The Queen's Gambit", whatever its faults, did more for chess than the collective contributions of those who criticise it here.

You are probably right, but I don't think that invalidates Neville's review.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Technical errors in film/TV are ubiquitous, if frequently annoying. You must expect some artistic licence. I hope they at least got the board the right way round.