Queen's Gambit

I saw the series and here are my thoughts :

The recreation of the 60's is beautiful and the overall preformance is very good.'
The series also brought chess back to the spotlights but it's doing so by taking a charcter which is mentaly not so stable just as Bobby Fisher was.
This is also what Bobby also did by bringing chess to the american spotlight and for that we owe him a lot.
While watching I couldn't notice the similar lines bewteen Bobby and Beth, which happens during the same time Bobby came to fame, with the only difference that Bobby wasn't an alcoholic.

I understand that it's more intersting to see a mental chess genious in action in a series but there are also mentaly stable grand masters to make a series upon.

Overall, I am happy that it broguht chess to the spotlight as the best game ever created.

Listen. What gives this story mass appeal is the story and the characters. Nobody wants to watch a show about a mentally stable genius who lives a normal life, does normal things, studies, and becomes awesome.

The hero’s journey requires some sort of supernatural gift, a mentor, challenges and temptation, a fall from grace and hitting rock bottom, atonement for past sins, and an overcoming of a nemesis.

That’s basically the story arc that everyone loves and it’s done well in the series. Beth is a heroic figure not just because she overcomes Borgov, but more importantly that she overcomes herself.

Yea but it's not really realistic. I absolutely hate this idea that success has a dark history which media likes to portray.  In reality, most people find most success in their careers when their minds are happy and at peace. That's when people are at their finest. Not when they are depressed and have tons of issues

Yeah but people usually don't like movies because they are realistic. Realistic is boring. 

I wouldn’t say that Star Wars or Game of Thrones were particularly realistic either. People don’t watch dramas for their realism.

A movie about Magnus would be boring. A normal kid from a normal family is a chess genius, works hard, and becomes world champion. There’s nothing particularly compelling about it. It’s a nice story that might interest some chess fans, but it’s boring theater.

True. I guess as a student of psychology this kind of message just doesn't make sense to me since it goes against the most basic theories of motivation and performance which we study. 

From an outsider perspective it may seem like many successful people had an easy path to the top, such as a nice childhood with supportive family, good mentors and coaches, and a disciplined hardworking mentality, but in reality everyone had to struggle in one way or another to have any worthwhile achievements in life. Depicting challenges and how a character overcomes them to triumph and reach an amazing goal is the foundation of solid drama. In Carlsen's case, a movie about him would have to be approached starting from how Norway, a country with zero chess culture, was able to cultivate and grow a talented prodigy who went on to captivate the world with his genius.

The point is that u have to fix your mental issues like depression and mental turmoil FIRST before u can become successful. You can't carry mental baggage as a badge of honor and use it to get success. Read up maslow's hierarchy of needs.  Most drama makers go straight to the 4th level without even satisfying the 2nd level(or sometimes even the first level)

Now millions of people will nelieve that yoi learn to play chess with little effort as long as you are pretty smart.

 

Oh if only true life is like fantasy. 

yup, over glorification of "talent" is also something i dislike a lot. It kind of makes a mockery out of the hard work which people do

can you send me a friend request please?  Any of you?

The point of emphasizing talent is to show that prodigies with difficult life circumstances who lack access to resources are still able to rise and become the "cream of the crop". It's not always realistic but it makes for great entertainment and sends an inspirational message to the audience.

The ability to visualize a chessboard and play out sequences in your head is not something that is easily learned. Chess prodigies do it naturally whereas some people can never do it no matter how much effort they put into it. Very few players, no matter how much hard work they do, will EVER be able to play a blindfold match, let alone a blindfold simul. Paul Morphy played against 8 strong players blindfolded in Paris and won 6 with two draws. You can’t teach that. That’s a wiring issue. And Beth did work hard. She worked obsessively hard.

what you see as inspirational, i see as delusional

Controversial opinion but morphy is ridiculously overhyped. His opponents made some of the most non logical moves i have ever seen. They were the kinds of players who did not even know the rules of chess let alone play good chess. If u put murphy down from that pedestal and objectively look at his games, u will notice that his games are full of blunders made by him.

I am sure anyone can become GM if they really dedicate themselves to it. However there is no money in chess for a GM so there really is no motivation. "Talent" has very little to do with chess since playing good chess does not require anyone to be a genius. 

Bobby Fischer said it himself "A lot of top players aren't that talented, they just work like dogs"

Totally wrong. Not anyone can be GM even if they devote their whole life to it. It takes a special kind of person to have all the ingredients necessary to achieve it. I have heard some very strong players describe that becoming GM is harder than becoming a doctor. Even with hard work and discipline, you need to have a little bit of talent and natural aptitude for the subject in order to succeed.

And for people who decide to make chess their profession, the money is not their motivation - they love the game and demonstrate that whether through playing tournaments, coaching aspiring newcomers, or writing books for all levels, from beginner to advanced. These days thanks to social media the opportunities are endless.

There is a big difference between attaining mastery and making it to the very top. If you have two people with equal work ethics, the more talented will go further.

I don’t understand why people are willing to accept that some people are born with more physical potential but not more mental. Different brains are wired differently and harping on hard work is blind to the fact that some have inherent advantages.

As for Morphy, he was by far stronger than anyone else in the world. He had nobody who could challenge him and he blitzed out moves without thinking much about it. He had no established theory worth a damn, had no training partners who could help him, and was never pushed to improve. He also quit when he was young and ultimately went insane. Holding him to today’s standards is dumb. It’s like saying Jesse Owens sucked because Usain Bolt would smoke him. I wonder how many GMs could do a simul against eight of IMs, and win 6. Could any?

Saying that becoming a GM is harder than becoming a doctor is a flawed comparison. A better comparison would be that "becoming a GM is harder than becoming a top notch, famous doctor"  ...  and no matter what u think, becoming a great doctor is way, way harder than becoming a GM.

I simply do not believe that anyone who devotes their life to chess, gets special and correct training and works hard cannot become a GM. Do you have real life examples?

A blindfold simul.

You can't see the brain, nor are people willing to try to measure intelligence anymore.  Ideology says all people must be equal in talent.