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
Shame on you. Your place is here, old chap!
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.