Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 20 Oct '17 21:00
    Has just begun on RTS, national TV of Serbia and I am watching.
  2. 20 Oct '17 21:48
    According to this crappy film, during Santa Monica Piatigorsky Cup, Lombardy the priest and Fischer are playing blitz match.
    Before that Fischer said no to a hooker to home he previously said "I am thinking of getting rid of my virginity".

    And - during blitz match - Fischer says:
    - I gave up sex for this.
    And priest Lombardy answers:
    - I have been without sex for 30 years.

    Oh, so funny. Oh what funny that was.

    They know a sheeet about chess.
  3. 20 Oct '17 22:46
    inaccuracies
    1 - It was Soviet delegation (Geller and Baturinski) who - following Brezhnes's order - ordered Schmidt and thereby Euwe to save the match. Not that Spassky himself decided it.
    2 - They let out quarell between Spassky and Fischer before 2nd game; it was crucial

    3- Spassky did not turn his chair upside down in front of millions of viewers. He did make ludicrious accusations but to his own delegation and in letters to Schmidt.

    4 - Fischer "lost his virginity" as early as in 1960 in Buenos Aires and even in Curacao 1962 he went to bordels several times and said "chess s better!"

    5 - Nixon did not call 3 times after 2nd game.

    6 - Fischer did not resigned in 1st game after 31. g3 (or 30. g3) and explanation is idiotic: filmmakers did not want to confuse audience with adjourned games since to-day it is not done any more!?

    Etc.
  4. 21 Oct '17 02:04
    There were quite a few errors in that film which is a pity because there
    was one good chess bit that proved some research had been done.

    I caught that bit here Blog Post 281

    Ignoring the errors the film was not too bad and I know a
    few non-players who enjoyed it.
  5. 21 Oct '17 11:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @greenpawn34
    There were quite a few errors in that film which is a pity because there
    was one good chess bit that proved some research had been done.

    I caught that bit here Blog Post 281

    Ignoring the errors the film was not too bad and I know a
    few non-players who enjoyed it.
    Well, I couldn't resist writing notes during the film.
    But let's follow so-called "non-linear" structure of the film with its quasiflasjbacks...😛

    When that scene came in which Fischer shows Lombardy how he [Lombardy, that is] could defeat Petrossian in Zurich, I rushed to Chessgames.com, where I still have a couple of months of sub (*unlike here
    I am now almost penniless so I am eagerly waiting for first fee to come to renew sub so I can compete in Hardcore and other tournaments.
    ) to see that game.

    I didn't know for the game before.
    It turned to be played in 1961. At first and third glance with my naked eye I couldn't see improvements for Black, it was typical snakelike strangling by Petrossian.

    I of course looked for Chessgames comments bellow the game, and - guess what?!

    I came across you, crossedressed as Mrs. S., you dirty old trangie!

    Do you have a custom to crossdress and frequent chess clubs and imitate Cockney accent and to offer blitz games to young boys?! Do you look like

    a) https://s1.postimg.org/868s23awf3/sally_simpson_1.jpg
    or
    b) https://s1.postimg.org/260lxd00fz/sally_simpson_2.jpg

    Shame on you. Your place is here, old chap!
    Here -
    https://s1.postimg.org/89sdzt2wjz/sah_sah_sah.jpg

    Ok, joke on the side, how on Earth could you reconstruct that analysis of Toby Mcguire in the movie?! It was impossible to see. It was your joke, wasn't it?

    At first glance, analysis looks genuine, it is long and convincing, like Fischer's analysises in Boys Life of for example obscure match between Dubois and Steinitz in London in 1862 or his analysis of King's gambit, Bishop's variation. I lost couple of games by slavishly following his long ending through King's gambit that way... Dang.

    Can you name a source for that analysis?
    Or it was your postmodern persiflage?


    And that wasn't all. Searching for that source, I saw that you planted your pastiche-analysis, on some UK chess forum, too! Under real name,this time. No one got fished on it, though, but one of the discutants forst warned all harshly not to post spoilers of the movie, and then mentioned something like this:

    There are three (3) kinds of people discussing this film:
    1) film freaks
    2) chess freaks
    3) Fischer's fans

    He gave you compliment that you're all of the three a bit, but I think you're "only: 1) and 2), not 3) and you had never been, I reckon.

    As a film freak, I can tell the film is full of clichés as a pomegranate is full of seeds, that worn out non-linear structure, with flashbacks is so predictable.
    First we see crysis in Rezkjavik, and then a telop "1951" and we see boy Fischer. Cliche! Good joke with Russian language and subtitles, but we saw that in "Letters From Cremlin" by John Huston. And they portraited Fischer with his "voices in his head" as Hitler in his bunker, so naive concept of a madman. Madman for children.

    As a chess freak I can even be happy - they set the board correctly, with black field on the left, all right, end even the moves of the games were genuine. Ironically, it looks like they actually counted on viewers knowledge of rules and games. Or they just thought nobody would care?!

    As a Fischer freak, I consider the movie to be sailing on main stream on fast rooted legend on a crazy paranoid Fischer, an Ice Queen who needed more sex to be more normal.

    They had such material to develop from his relationship with his mother, and father's non-existance.

    It looks like first draft of the script.
    They should have made another 27 versions after it.
    An they should have given it to Cristopher Nolan to direct it.
  6. Standard member vivify
    rain
    21 Oct '17 19:39
    Like I said before, I don't buy Toby McGuire as Bobby. I haven't seen the film, but I saw the trailer.

    Ryan Gosling would've made a great Bobby Fischer.
  7. 22 Oct '17 02:23
    Hi vandervelde,

    I was a paid up sub member at chessgames, chose the name sally simpson
    after one of my favourite Who songs. it was all in my bio which I deleted when I left.
    Most people there just called me Geoff.

    I've never seen a post saying I was a chess freak, film freak, Fischer freak,
    I don't mind. seen worse written about me. I just laugh it off.

    Certainly one and three. You can count on one hand the number of times
    I've been to the cinema in the past 40 years. Not a film freak.

    The source for the analysis is my own and what I gathered from the film.
    I attempted to plug the gaps that the film left out.

    That is the annoying thing about the film. That bit was excellent.
    Why they had to make as many mistakes as they did when a small
    piece of research would have cleaned it up. But facts and Hollywood
    have never gone hand in hand.
  8. 22 Oct '17 05:07
    Originally posted by @vandervelde
    inaccuracies
    1 - It was Soviet delegation (Geller and Baturinski) who - following Brezhnes's order - ordered Schmidt and thereby Euwe to save the match. Not that Spassky himself decided it.
    2 - They let out quarell between Spassky and Fischer before 2nd game; it was crucial

    3- Spassky did not turn his chair upside down in front of millions of vie ...[text shortened]... not want to confuse audience with adjourned games since to-day it is not done any more!?

    Etc.
    Yes. I am sorry to say this is a direct result of the world outside who holds (at best) a lukewarm attitude regarding the royal game we here respect. Facts take a backseat to ham handed attempts at drama, and to those few non chess players who bother to view this movie, most will look upon it with cold indifference.

    Look on the bright side vandervelde, you folks in Europe live in an area in which this beautiful and deadly game is somewhat respected. Over here, our local idiots will pay 2 weeks salary just to sit on their large rumps and watch race cars burn up massive amounts of fossil fuel, running in an oval for 2+ hours, and award a trophy to a 1st place driver who does less than 1% of the work, while the machine does the other 99.5% 😞
  9. 22 Oct '17 13:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @greenpawn34
    Hi vandervelde,
    I've never seen a post saying I was a chess freak, film freak, Fischer freak,
    .
    Here comes the link.
    Funny. like in a surreal film, I couldn't find the street I was walking on yesterday, and I thought "I could have sworn I'd read it, dang, where did this site disappear to?"

    First I found only this site:::: link is here
    https://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7986
    And there is no such thing as "film fan", "chess fan" etc.

    But then I found it. On the same chess forum there is another thread about the film, and you repeated your entry with some changes.

    link is here--->
    https://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=7986


    quote---->>>
    [The Flying Scotsman (made in England) streaks past on his way from RHP to C.c via ECf.]

    Geoff, there are three kinds of fan related to this topic - chess, film and Fischer.

    You, I think, tick all 3 boxes but in old-school fashion - fashions change.

    Thanks for the review and the reminder about Petrosian-Lombardy.

    Trivia question for you (or any kibitzers) -

    Who won a brilliancy prize playing against William Lombardy in 1974?
  10. 22 Oct '17 13:39
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Yes. I am sorry to say this is a direct result of the world outside who holds (at best) a lukewarm attitude regarding the royal game we here respect. Facts take a backseat to ham handed attempts at drama, and to those few non chess players who bother to view this movie, most will look upon it with cold indifference.

    Look on the bright side vandervelde, y ...[text shortened]... 1st place driver who does less than 1% of the work, while the machine does the other 99.5% 😞
    Chess has a magic attraction of mathematics. Chess players and scientists are often described as clumsy lunatics who forget to tie their shoelaces, with thick glasses, forgetful and so on.

    In Chess Encyclopaedia by Harry Golombeck from around 1979 it was said under entry Chess on film that "...chess was rarely used in proper way on the film. It was rather conventional way to say about the film character that they are clever and intellectual..." That's why most chess positions on film are inaccurate so that those few correct are studied in Phd's!

    Now that you mentioned car races, they had always lulled me into sleep, regardless I was sitting in the chair or lying on the sofa with TV turned on, listening zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzoooooom, zooooooom... 😀

    People still think chess is something exotic, they attribute chessists some features they don-t have, but today we miss fever! That fever from or example SSSR WC matches when Tal had beaten Botvinnik (*perhaps as subconscious resistant to the regime?!) or when Fischer threatened Spassky, then openly connected with politics.

    We need another chess fever, man!
  11. 25 Oct '17 11:41
    Hi vandervelde,

    I see it, thanks. Forgot all about it.