Which Chess player do you think there should be a movie about?


How quickly you resort to name calling, a sure sign of a keen wit. So tell me where Spandau was and you can rejoice in your mental superiority, but are you trying to tell me he wasn't held by the Soviets?

electricpawn wrote:

Frank Marshall devised a gambit fo black in the Ruy Lopez (The Marshall Attack) with the specific intent of using it to defeat Capablanca. It was 10 years before he had the opportunity to use it against him,  but whem he did Capablanca refuted it over the board the first time he saw ut!

Capablanca would be my 2nd choice behind Tal. I think you could make some great movies about them. Fact is, you could make a good movie about many of the chess legends' lives/careers.

Manos_HandsofFate wrote:

Spandau prison was in Germany.  He was not held by the Soviets.  The defendants in the first Nuremberg trials were held by the Western Allies.  I am "trying to tell [you] he wasn't held by the Soviets." 

No joke.

Spandau was in West Berlin and was controlled by Britain, France, USA and USSR. Repeated requests for the release of Hess were denied at the request of the Soviets.


1. Alekhine

2. Borislav Ivanov

3. Korchnoi

Good casting would be essential!


vishwanath anand

Manos_HandsofFate wrote:
electricpawn wrote:

60 Minutes interviewed a US GI who played chess with Rudolf Hess in Germany before he was sent to the USSR. Hess was talkative and eager to play. The GI laugheed because Hess was much better than him, but they played several games. He was a guard.

Quoting this idiocy just in case you attempt to edit it...

If the Soviets coud prevent prisoners from being released, then doesn't that indicate a level of control? If a nation controls a piece of land, is it not defacto a part of that nation?

What a prudent measure it was for you to memorialize my idiocy. Why, I could have snatched it up and deleted it like nobody's business.


That crash you all heard a while back was this thread running over an object on the train track, causing it to derail in a spectacularly fiery explosion.

NomadicKnight wrote:

That crash you all heard a while back was this thread running over an object on the train track, causing it to derail in a spectacularly fiery explosion.

Good Lord, I hope you cleared that with the HANDSOFFATE!


For bio-pics, there are three I'd like to see: Spassky (another Pride and Sorrow story), Prince Dadian, or Pillsbury.  All three were great players, good people, and led interesting lives.  Pillsbury would probably be the easiest to translate to a good film.


Harry Nelson Pillsbury would be a fantastic subjet for a movie.


How about a film about Chess.com members bickering over which player should or should not be made into a movie? This thread would be the script. Money Mouth



Becasue there was so much more to him, than chess.

Or Capablanca, because he was a class act.

Beren_Camlost wrote:

Bobby Fischer End of Discussion

You will never hear the end of Bobby Fischer.


Kupov wrote:

Akiba Rubinstein

I agree, anyone not familiar with Ruinstein should read the wiki entry on him, probably the strongest player in the world around 1910-1915 but stopped playing after 1930 because he was full tilt nuts, lived into the early 60's in various loony bins. Everyone thought he had been dead for years when he finally passed away.

BradStone19 wrote:

I'm more concerned about how Chess.com members unquestioningly accept that some chess player's life should be made into a feature film, when such a film would in all likelihood be boring and pointless as heck.

Bizzare people on this site for sure...

You're simply an idiot, that's why you are concerned about this discussion. There have been plenty of arguments in this thread that completely break down your narrow viewpoint. You must live under a rock if you think a movie about a legend in an artistic field could not be made into a good movie. Just because YOU wouldn't be interested, doesn't mean other people wouldn't be. Now, why don't you just leave this thread, and go read about yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29


     I don't attend movie theaters and have absolutely no idea what goes into making a successful film.  But I do know a little about storytelling.

     It doesn't matter whether the surroundings are academia, sports, arts, work or even chess. These things might attract certain viewers, but have little or nothing to do with the quality of the story or its inherent interest.

     So, a story about a chess player can't rely upon the chess aspect to make it either interesting or boring, nor for the sucess or failure of the film.

     Morphy's story does have great many facets and could be an appealing book or movie (without the fictional nonsense most authors have injected because they lack the skill to write without props). 

    Constance Beauvais' portrait of Morphy from her first-hand association is very gripping.   She begins with the description of a little middle-aged man with peculiar affectations and even more peculiar manners who gazes sardonically at passer-bys who stare at him with disdain.  Then she flashes back to his early home life filled with music, intellectual pursuits and promise.  Querouze, writing as Beauvais, follows him through his brief chess career and the slow transformation from a widely popular national hero (Morphy was the first truly international star hailing from the United States) to the man described in the opening. But, at the same time, she reveals how the little man on the street observed by strangers doesn't reflect the same man at home loved by family and friends - a wry, brilliant man steeped in philosophy, literature and music, dealing quietly with his psychological (or possibly physiological) dysfunctions - and his sudden, yet silent demise.

     Morphy's story must reflect that the public and private man were at distant poles, yet each revealed something of the other. Similarly, Morphy's story can't be the superficial trivia generally offered but rather the story of a man dealing with his genius and at odds with the world around him, a fight he both lost and won on different levels.


Jeff Sarwer. Very sad story but it also has a nice outcome. A true story of a homeless brother & sister who won world championships for their ages (I believe his sister won her section for a world title). They had to quit chess because their father had them on the run from the law. Eventually Jeff ends up playing tournament poker & takes some of his winnings & becomes a real estate investor. Good luck Jeff. Bluff magazine had an article saying Jeff had maybe the most amazing mind in poker history. Quite an opinion. Bruce Pandalphini (spelling?) said the Jeff was the most gifted chessplayer he had ever witnessed (or something similar) & this was while he was teaching Josh Waitzkin.


Jeff's and Julia's story could indeed be made into something worth watching.

Tricklev wrote:

Except for Robert Fischer, I'm tired of Americans and western europeans allways answering with their hero, so any chess player except for Bobby.


Personally I think Wilhelm Steinitz would make an interesting movie. From his early life and career to the early days, his uprise, his world championship. His new ideas, the way he had to fought for them, the problem and attitude the rest of the chess world met his ideas with. And finally how he went mad and ended up in a Mental Asylum.

Who would you prefer to see a chess movie about?


These aren't "chess movies" but stories in which chess factors in.  Chess, like several other disciplines, attracts unusual people, sometimes boring people, sometimes quite colorful people.  It's such people that make a story.