"Pawn Sacrifice"

[VinegarBob]

I absolutely despised Searching for Bobby Fischer, and as leery as I am of Pawn Sacrifice[i], it doesn't sound one tenth as imbecilic, fake, and painfully stupid as the former picture. To compare it to another sport, [i]Searching for Bobby Fischer would be the equivalent of a 5 foot tall white kid who had played basketball for 3 months dominating everyone in the NBA by shooting three pointers from mid-court and making 90 percent of them. That's about how accurately they depict the game, Josh Waitzkin, etc.

lol...It's always more amusing reading scathing comments than praise. Yeah, it is a bit cliched at times, but there are so few films that focus on chess that I was willing to forgive it most of its faults. Honestly though, I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you're suggesting. I actually think it's a very good film, all things considered. I would disagree with your sports analogy, as Waitzkin was only shown to be dominating (most) other kids around the same age as he, and adults who didn't really play chess. And he was shown losing quite a bit too. I agree they should probably have toned down the scenes where he does abnormally well against actual adult chess players, but that's just artistic license. These are always scenes in places where the games weren't recorded, and I can understand the temptation to exaggerate his talent here for dramatic purposes. Also, you have to remember that this film is based on the book that Josh's father Fred wrote (which I have read), and much of the film is seen through his eyes, so some of the exaggeration of Josh's talent for chess is partly a reflection of a lack of understanding of the game on the part of Fred, and partly pride in the (not inconsiderable) talent Josh did have - and there's no denying Waitzkin was very good for his age. Whether he was as saintly and Serwar as devilish as depicted is debatable.

I think the film's quite clever in that it's very chess-centric, but because it focuses on children, some of whom are learning, it's much more relatable and easier to digest for most people than it would have been were it about adults. And by focusing further on one child discovering he has a talent that his parents don't understand the film, while ostensibly about chess - a dry and cerebral subject - becomes much more human and approachable. It's an engrossing drama about the interesting family dynamics that arise because of this child's unusual talent. It's more a coming of age film than a chess film, really, and approached in that fashion is quite rewarding imo. Yes, names and details will have been changed (the final match result while technically accurate was not arrived at in quite the way it was depicted in the film for example), but considering the real kids involved at the time were kids and wouldn't necessarily be comfortable with their pre-pubescent chess failures being immortalised in a Hollywood film this is understandable. All things considered I think it's about as good of a film as it could realistically be, given the subject matter. The direction is solid and most of the performances are great: Joe Mantegna, William H. Macy, Laurence Fishburne etc.

Interestingly, the kid Josh ends up facing off against in the championship at the end of the film (Jonathan Poe in the film - Jeff Sarwer was the kid the character was based on) sounds like he would have been a much more suitable candidate to be compared favourably to a young Bobby Fischer than Waitzkin, and has had a fascinating life that would make for a great film to boot. But whereas one parent wrote a book about his kid's talent, the other abused his and went to great lengths to stop him playing chess. Ultimately neither child has become a grandmaster. Waitzkin is an IM, though no longer plays competitively, and Sarwer recently achieved an IM norm after a long absence from the game. Funny how things turn out.

As for The Luzhin Defense, I just really want to read the book, since I'm a huge Nabokov fan.

The book is excellent.

[ShogunRua]

I absolutely despised Searching for Bobby Fischer, and as leery as I am of Pawn Sacrifice[i], it doesn't sound one tenth as imbecilic, fake, and painfully stupid as the former picture. To compare it to another sport, [i]Searching for Bobby Fischer would be the equivalent of a 5 foot tall white kid who had played basketball for 3 months dominating everyone in the NBA by shooting three pointers from mid-court and making 90 percent of them. That's about how accurately they depict the game, Josh Waitzkin, etc.

lol...It's always more amusing reading scathing comments than praise. Yeah, it is a bit cliched at times, but there are so few films that focus on chess that I was willing to forgive it most of its faults. Honestly though, I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you're suggesting. I actually think it's a very good film, all things considered. I would disagree with your sports analogy, as Waitzkin was only shown to be dominating (most) other kids around the same age as he, and adults who didn't really play chess.

I meant the way Waitzkin played, not his actual chess strength. Namely, mindlessly blitzing out every move with barely a thought. Or his impressive last round victory against really strong fellow prodigy Jeff Sarwer (which in real life, was a draw) to a tactic a beginner with a few months of knowing the moves should see.

That's how far removed it is from the realities of serious, high-level tournament play.

Also, you have to remember that this film is based on the book that Josh's father Fred wrote (which I have read), and much of the film is seen through his eyes, so some of the exaggeration of Josh's talent for chess is partly a reflection of a lack of understanding of the game on the part of Fred, and partly pride in the (not inconsiderable) talent Josh did have - and there's no denying Waitzkin was very good for his age. Whether he was as saintly and Serwar as devilish as depicted is debatable.

Yeah, I know. I have thumbed through a few pages of Fred's book and was unimpressed, but don't recall anything as singularly moronic as the emotionless blitzing and (non-practice) in the movie.

On an unrelated note, I feel for Bruce Pandolfini. I've had some brief interactions with him and Bruce seems like a really great, cool guy. He also wrote some good books for beginners that helped me out a lot when I was starting out as a child. It sucks that for most people, he is known through this imbecilic movie, and yet, it definitely helps his publicity for lessons, appearances, etc.

And by focusing further on one child discovering he has a talent that his parents don't understand the film, while ostensibly about chess - a dry and cerebral subject - becomes much more human and approachable. It's an engrossing drama about the interesting family dynamics that arise because of this child's unusual talent. It's more a coming of age film than a chess film, really, and approached in that fashion is quite rewarding imo.

See, I disagree even with this. It's a HORRIBLY INACCURATE representation of what it means for a family to deal with a child pursuing his talent.

I know, because when I watched the movie, my parents were driving me around to weekend tournaments throughout California and Nevada as well as a club tournament every single week, getting me lessons with titled players, etc. And I had friends whose parents were even more devoted, taking them to tournaments all over the US.

Our experiences were NOTHING like what was shown in the film.

Yes, names and details will have been changed (the final match result while technically accurate was not arrived at in quite the way it was depicted in the film for example),

Again, even the result is wrong. The actual game was a draw.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1473029 (Also, many of the earlier kibitzes from 2007 include comments by the real Jeff Sarwer, who comes across as a genial, fun guy)

Interestingly, the kid Josh ends up facing off against in the championship at the end of the film (Jonathan Poe in the film - Jeff Sarwer was the kid the character was based on) sounds like he would have been a much more suitable candidate to be compared favourably to a young Bobby Fischer than Waitzkin,

Judging by Sarwer's kibitzes linked above, and that at 29, he was a seemingly happy, well-adjusted adult who loved the game of chess and purely plays it for fun (very similar to my attitude towards the game now, except I'm 28), I don't see much similarity between him and Fischer.

The book is excellent.

Thanks, look forward to reading it!

[VinegarBob]

Again, even the result is wrong. The actual game was a draw.

Oh, I know the actual game was a draw, but Waitzkin was awarded the win. I'm sure I read somewhere that under tournament tie-breaking rules, he was determined to have played stronger opponents during the overall competition and was awarded first place, but they were declared US Primary School co-champions.

I can just imagine the meeting where they were deciding how to film the last game of the tournament and being unhappy about the draw, when someone pipes up, "Well, actually..." and the rest is up there on the screen. They got away with it on a technicality! That's Hollywood for you.

I still think it's a fine film, but I can see why you dislike it, considering your personal experiences. I must admit this has really put me in the mood to watch it again, so if I do my rating may change, as it's been years since I saw it.

Question: What 's the best film you've seen about chess/chess players?

[ShogunRua]

Again, even the result is wrong. The actual game was a draw.

Oh, I know the actual game was a draw, but Waitzkin was awarded the win.

No, no. Waitzkin won the tournament, but the game itself was a draw.

Let's say we're both playing in a 6 round tournament. I can beat you in our game, but if in the other 5 games you win all of your games (for 5 points out of 6 games), while I win 2 and draw 3 (for 4.5 points out of 6 games), you win the tournament. That doesn't change the result of our individual game, though.

I'm sure I read somewhere that under tournament tie-breaking rules, he was determined to have played stronger opponents during the overall competition and was awarded first place, but they were declared US Primary School co-champions.

Yes, many large scholastic Swiss events are determined via tie-breaker.

I still think it's a fine film, but I can see why you dislike it, considering your personal experiences. I must admit this has really put me in the mood to watch it again, so if I do my rating may change, as it's been years since I saw it.

Have you played in many tournaments?

Question: What 's the best film you've seen about chess/chess players?

12 Chairs. Ostap Bender is the greatest chess player ever.

[VinegarBob]

Have you played in many tournaments?

I have played in a few tournaments, yes. But by the sounds of it nowhere near as many or as highly graded as you. Do you still play tournament chess? How is your rating now?

EDIT:

I just re-watched the film, and it's not as good as I remember. It's still okay, but is really hokey for the most part. The performances are good, especially considering the script is quite weak overall. It's well shot, and the editing is really good. However it's definitely not the most subtle film, and subtlety is something I appreciate much more than I used to.

I really wish I didn't know so much about the real events this film is based on, as I think the amount you enjoy this film may be inversely proportional to how much you know about

a) Chess
b) Tournament Chess
c) The various people portrayed in the film

There are quite a few instances where if I'd never played over the board chess I'd probably not be bothered, but as I have they stick out - I've never seen anyone knock over their king when checkmated, for example. Knocking your king over in defeat is purely a movie convention - people don't do that in real life. And there's quite a lot of that kind of stuff in the movie. I also forgot about the Snidely Whiplash chess teacher guy who's Pandolfini's nemesis. Way over the top cartoon villain. Sigh.

So I think I'll modify my score from Very Good down to Average. It's still quite watchable, and does have a good chess flavour, but it's just not the kind of film I can really get on board with these days. The 22 years between watches has not been kind to this film for me. Still, it's given me hope that maybe Pawn Sacrifice will be better than I was expecting.

12 Chairs. Ostap Bender is the greatest chess player ever.

Well there you go. I think that proves my point about the dearth of good chess films at least.

[ShogunRua]

Have you played in many tournaments?

I have played in a few tournaments, yes. But by the sounds of it nowhere near as many or as highly graded as you. Do you still play tournament chess? How is your rating now?

I last played when I was 19, so 9 years ago, and my rating was 2029 then. I definitely feel and play much better nowadays, though. Still, if I wanted to play in a tournament again, I would have to invest a lot of time in opening preparation, for a start...

Knocking your king over in defeat is purely a movie convention - people don't do that in real life.

To be fair, while I don't knock it over, I do lay down my king to signal that I'm resigning. In fact, doing so is extremely common in US tournaments.

Well there you go. I think that proves my point about the dearth of good chess films at least.

The same is true of any sufficiently complicated endeavor or subject, though. How many good films, for instance, have we had about mathematicians or physicists?

[Stewball]

Well there you go. I think that proves my point about the dearth of good chess films at least.

The same is true of any sufficiently complicated endeavor or subject, though. How many good films, for instance, have we had about mathematicians or physicists?

Good point, one you should take to heart. Why do so many people who would be the most likely to appreciate such "think pieces" which emphasize dialogue over action, avoid them as well--even when they're right in their own wheel house?