Queens Gambit

[brianr]

PPS If you would enjoy more chess and less period drama, you may like reading the book also.

[mwyoung]

I enjoyed it, as did my wife. It is a good engaging story. But I think it is not realistic about OTB chess in a lot of ways. For example:

1. You don't get to be a strong player by studying openings. Although later in the series she does talk about studying the middlegame/endgame.
2. Very few players get to be GM strength without having tutoring from an IM/GM level player. Her mentors in the series are at best FMs it appears.
3. She doesn't ever seem to do per-opponent opening prep or find novelties, although maybe that's just a level of detail they don't mention.
4. As noted upthread, draws scarcely seem to be part of her playing record.
5. Tranquilizers are not generally a performance-enhancing drug.

There are several parallels with Fischer's career though. Fischer became, at the time, the world's youngest GM as a teenager. And he was of course famous for his victories over the Russians, especially Spassky, although that was a hard road (he was in the Candidates as early as 1959, but did not qualify for the World Championship until 1971).

I disagree, it is more in parallel with the Cuban genius GM Capablanca. But she is a meld of many players. Both Fischer and Capablanca were great natural players of blitz chess. Were Harman had to learn to master the blitz game. It is a strange meld, as GM Capablanca was not a expert of openings. I guess they wanted to make a unique personality. And Fischer was more of a e4 player. Best by test. So maybe she is a meld of Morphy, Capablanca, and Fischer. The West greatest players. As Morphy was the father of opening play. And all referenced in the Queens Gambit mini series.

Now who is Borgov?

[gaard]

I enjoyed it, as did my wife. It is a good engaging story. But I think it is not realistic about OTB chess in a lot of ways. For example:

1. You don't get to be a strong player by studying openings. Although later in the series she does talk about studying the middlegame/endgame.
2. Very few players get to be GM strength without having tutoring from an IM/GM level player. Her mentors in the series are at best FMs it appears.
3. She doesn't ever seem to do per-opponent opening prep or find novelties, although maybe that's just a level of detail they don't mention.
4. As noted upthread, draws scarcely seem to be part of her playing record.
5. Tranquilizers are not generally a performance-enhancing drug.

There are several parallels with Fischer's career though. Fischer became, at the time, the world's youngest GM as a teenager. And he was of course famous for his victories over the Russians, especially Spassky, although that was a hard road (he was in the Candidates as early as 1959, but did not qualify for the World Championship until 1971).

I disagree, it is more in parallel with the Cuban genius GM Capablanca. But she is a meld of many players. Both Fischer and Capablanca were great natural players of blitz chess. Were Harman had to learn to master the blitz game. It is a strange meld, as GM Capablanca was not a expert of openings. I guess they wanted to make a unique personality. And Fischer was more of a e4 player. Best by test. So maybe she is a meld of Morphy, Capablanca, and Fischer. The West greatest players. As Morphy was the father of opening play. And all referenced in the Queens Gambit mini series.

Now who is Borgov?

In the series, she was renown for her intuitive play, unlike Fischer or any post-70s era player. Besides then that her most prominent games came from playing Soviets, I didn't see any other parallels with Fischer, which many people have likened her character to. On a side note, I also thought Benny was also the most miscast character in the bunch, with his leather ensemble and knife. Ridiculous. But other than that, A+. Would watch again.

[Ozymandias]

draws scarcely seem to be part of her playing record

At least as shown, and as far as I can recall, completely non-existent. No one has mentioned an occurrence, so I guess my memory serves me well in this instance and there's not a single draw depicted or referenced as part of her playing experience.

I take it to be an artistic license to increase drama but it gives a false image of chess, as draws are present at all levels and proliferate more at the top, yet she keeps winning/losing not matter what her level or that of her opponents is supposed to be.

[Pi4Chess]

draws scarcely seem to be part of her playing record

At least as shown, and as far as I can recall, completely non-existent. No one has mentioned an occurrence, so I guess my memory serves me well in this instance and there's not a single draw depicted or referenced as part of her playing experience.

I take it to be an artistic license to increase drama but it gives a false image of chess, as draws are present at all levels and proliferate more at the top, yet she keeps winning/losing not matter what her level or that of her opponents is supposed to be.

Of course, draw is not sexy. May be the book didn't included any draw aswell.

[Ovyron]

draws are present at all levels and proliferate more at the top, yet she keeps winning/losing not matter what her level or that of her opponents is supposed to be.

That's because the way she's represented. every single time the game would have been a draw she just kept pushing and pushing and swindling until she reached a position where draw wasn't possible anymore. And that caused her to lose. So it makes sense (either she's superior enough that she'll beat her opponent, or she reaches an equal position and then gets desperate to win and busts the game.)

As for me, I really loved the first episode, it was a very realistic depiction of a child prodigy, and with chess prodigies you never know, had she faced at that point the world champion and beaten him I'd have believed it! I gave it an A+ Rank, and it really got my hopes up for the show.

But then she aged way too fast and it was clear it wasn't a story about this child, but about her life in general. From the second episode on the series fell from top notch to... well, still great (mainly compared to what's currently around), and it felt to an A.

Then the mystery about her strength was gone, and her rating revealed, and she wasn't a prodigy or as chess-goddess as she appeared at first. So it wasn't either a prodigy or world champion potential, she was just very talented, and the show fell to a B+ Rank.

But then it happened, it became very clear that all the show was going to be about was about how she finally beat Borgov. This was the predictable point and it never reached the high points of drama that were at the beginning. By episode 6 I was frankly bored, the things happening on screen lacked significance, I already wanted it to be over with. Falling down to a C.

The last episode was the worst one, because everyone knew that it was about how she'd beat the 7 increasingly difficult opponents, finishing with Borgov. And it wouldn't even be for the world championship! And then it happened straight on without any twist or surprise. I'd have liked the show better if she lost to Borgov at the very end, at least it'd have surprised me.

Or what if she played the woman world champion in the park at the end and lost? It'd not have been about gender and it'd have showed that just because you beat the world champion you're not invincible.

Or what if they continued to show the game against the random old guy in the park? And he set up a trap she's never seen before, and he beat her?! Showing that chess is a game so complex that you'll never learn everything about it and someone can still teach you something?! (like, YOU can be like the guy in the park and beat anyone in a chess game no matter who they are?)

I don't know, give me something (sorry that I can only think of twists where Beth loses one way or another), this "she finally was able to play chess just for fun and forget about everything else" ending isn't satisfying because she was already free to do that anyway. Everyone is free to play chess for fun in the park already, you don't need to beat Borgov to attain it.

Knowing all this, I'd still recommend it to anyone, a definitive "must watch", my only problem is that it got less interesting over time, the drama curve went backwards (what with Beth feeling stronger when she was a child than when she was an adult?) and the pacing was wrong (specially when they show the best things the show had to offer right off the bat, then, BAM, she's suddenly a teenager because nothing interesting happened to her on the interim? And now we're going to be skipping several years of her life now and then?)

Perhaps it'd have been better as a 5 episode miniseries, where the 5th one had the last 3 packed together, because the only thing Beth had going for her was her chess, and nothing else. All the fluff about romance in there was just a waste of time, and the biggest irony is that you could edit out all the scenes related to drugs and it'd work the same, for real.

What I've read other people say over the internet is that they wanted more from her because they found the actress very attractive. I guess she's not my type...

[lithander]

draws scarcely seem to be part of her playing record

At least as shown, and as far as I can recall, completely non-existent.

She draws against Benny Watts.

Imo the show was so popular not because of the realistic and unusually exciting depiction of chess. Most viewers didn't care about chess. Instead it's a coming of age story about Beth who happens to be a chess genius but she could have just as well been a prodigy with a musical instrument or something.

Her story is interesting because of her abandonment issues, because of her addictions. Also how she navigates the male dominated world of chess in the 60s as a young girl is interesting - so there's also a bit of feminism in there. All that is interesting to the general audience and none of that story would have benefited from a few more lost games and more draws that are only meaningful to the chess enthusiasts.

Everyone is free to play chess for fun in the park already, you don't need to beat Borgov to attain it.

Not Beth, no. Her character arc came to a conclusion in Russia when she realized the power of the russian collective vs her own lone-wolf competitiveness. Only then she realized that she doesn't have to beat Borgov on her own and was ready to accept the love and friendship Benny and Harry had offered her for a long time already. She just wasn't ready before. In the first part of the series she attains independence and freedom through chess. In the second part she finally forms meaningful connection with other people and embraces friendship. And that story was just very well told.

The series is a very faithful adoption of the original book and I don't like it too much if TV people think they know better how to tell a story and add a few twists here and there in their book adaptions. Game of Thrones got shittier the more they deviated from the original and the last season was unbearable. So kudos to them for not "spicing it up" and the overwhelming success proves that the original story had enough going for it already.

What I've read other people say over the internet is that they wanted more from her because they found the actress very attractive. I guess she's not my type...

Lol, I don't think that applies to the female half of the audience. I thought she was cast a little too beautiful: That she might have gained the support of Harry and Benny because they had a crush on her because she's so cute is an interpretation that you wouldn't have from the book. Though the good looking actress fit well with the part of the story where she's frustrated of the media focusing more on her being a women than on the quality of her play.

P.S.: I'm only here because of Queens Gambit btw. It got me interested in chess!

[mvanthoor]

I've not read the thread for fear of spoiling the series for me. Yesterday and today I've watched episodes 1 and 2, and I enjoyed them, but for one thing: Many of the adults:

- are aloof / standoff-ish
- are irritated all the time
- speak in an unmotivated / flat tone
- act distrustful or suspicious when interacting with Elizabeth when she's a young child

Is that just the case in this series, or was that the general sentiment, or way of behaving, in the 1960's? Sorry, I wasn't around then... neither in the 1970's for that matter.

[supersharp77]

For those who have seen it, what did you think of the mini-series Queens Gambit? Personally I absolutely love it. It lit a fire for my love for chess that had somewhat gone out a few years ago. The acting is phenomenal, the story line is solid and the level of detail to the game was sharp.

Love to hear all your thoughts and reviews.
As always, stay safe and healthy everyone.

Queen Gambit is Literally EXPLODING on Social Media and Flaming Thru the Internet....Chess Popularity is at a All time HIGH among those young Millenials..QUEENS GAMBIT has been viewed favorably by many Young Women and it seems to be a Cause Celeb on Twitch and on Discord...People are talking about and learning and playing CHESS! (People are also indoors more because of Covid 19)...Now the Candidates Tournament and the Worlds Chess Championship Match are Approaching....WHAT AN AMAZING TIME FOR CHESS!!!!!

[Ovyron]

Also how she navigates the male dominated world of chess in the 60s as a young girl is interesting - so there's also a bit of feminism in there.

Completely unrealistic, by the way. Judit Polgar revealed in an interview that the male dominated world of chess isn't anything like what you see depicted. Men are mean towards women, they tease them, they mock them, they want to beat them psychologically before they beat them on the board. You see a bit of that at the start when she has to beat a bunch of guys simultaneously and they act realistically, but the rest of the show is fantasy land.

And that's because the book was written by a guy with no idea how's it like.

Women loved it because it kind of shows "the way it should be", in reality Beth would have needed to do it mostly alone and with help from other supporting women, not this Disney-esque "all guys that see her get infatuated" plot.

It works because it allows the audience to chill and know "everything is going to be alright" (you even get a glimpse before the show starts of adult Beth, so you know before hand "she'll make it there"), some people of the audience even got really worried when the little girl was left alone with the janitor and they feared some kind of abuse could happen, but then it was made clear this wasn't the kind of story being told, so you can sit back and relax watching it, even though the 60s' men were nothing like this (they all respect Beth).

In the first part of the series she attains independence and freedom through chess. In the second part she finally forms meaningful connection with other people and embraces friendship. And that story was just very well told.

I didn't see any of that on the screen? Sure it's implied, but left to the imagination, and in the end it still seems like Beth will choose chess over people.

The series is a very faithful adoption of the original book

Right, most of my complaints are about the source material.

Game of Thrones got shittier the more they deviated from the original and the last season was unbearable.

I don't want to spoil Game of Thrones to anyone else, but there's a certain epic fight that happens between a male character and a female character and it was MY FAVORITE in the entire show! And then I was made aware that the fight never happens on the original books, because one of the characters was already dead and their death on the show is a lot more epic than in the books.

The last two seasons are great, I've not seen better Fantasy Action before or after, and it leaves other series like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings looking like child's play.

It's only when you COMPARE them with the earlier seasons that they fail (like, characters don't act like themselves and dialogues have been gone to dumbo-land), but standing on their own, for what they are, they're unmatched.

(yeah, I also liked the "Skinner is not Skinner" twist of the Simpsons.)

Bottom line: Queen Gambit was a success because... what else was there? What was it competing against? Does anyone remember what was the second best show? No? I know it's the most successful of the year, but that only shows the quality of everything else currently. If Queen's Gambit was released on its current form 10 years ago against what was popular then I doubt it'd have made it to top 10. But now I don't even know what's the other Top 9 after it.

When everything is crap, "good" looks "excellent."