posted
I just watched that movie again tonight after many years. Wow. I just have to say "what a great film!" Wonderful acting, wonderful story. Anyone else remember it? If you don't, go rent it. (unless you have to have lots of action and fast-moving stuff--then this isn't for you.)
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Laurence Fishburne, looking very young. Ben Kingsley, Joe Mantegna, brief appearance by Tony Shalhoub, all kinds of familiar faces.
I was just looking at the website of Josh Waitzkin, the kid the movie is about. He's also got world championship titles in Tai Chi Chuan, whatever that is. Interesting guy.
Apparently the movie was based on a book his dad wrote. I think I'm going to have to find it and read it.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the book years ago, neat book. The bit I remember = remember in the movie at the end where Josh looks at the board and is able to see 10-15 moves ahead to how the game could end? That did really, actually happen. Amazing kid.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(((Kwea as JenniK again, because she STILL doesn't log off!)))
I love that movie, and thought it was one of the best chess movies ever. Lots of movies try to include chess in what is suppose to be an intelligent way and flub it. This whole movie was about chess, and what being a prodigy can do to your life.
It ended up being a wonderful movie about relationships too.
posted
I adore that movie. For a long time, it was the movie I chose for "What is your favorite movie of all time?" questions. These days I'm back to having too many to pick just one. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the movie I have watched more often than any other movie. I might even have it memorized! I adore it.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
Not that I'm a prodify, but I remember the day I beat my father at chess. Bragged about it for a week.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Until you find out what Bobby Fischer's done lately. (You know, the raving anti-semitism, the anti-American foreign talk shows, and the living in exile)
Posts: 8 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew that when I watched the movie. But the movie isn't ABOUT Fischer; it's about Josh Waitzkin.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the coolest parts of the movie is when Josh's teacher tells him he needs to learn contempt for his opponents, and Josh just says sort of listlessly, "I don't feel that." His teacher tells him that Fischer felt contempt for everyone, and Josh responds, "But I'm not him."
In looking at the book excerpts on Amazon, as well as looking at a couple of video clips on Josh's website, I decided that Josh as a child was much more driven and cockier than he was portrayed in the movie. The actor who played him was incredibly sweet. But he really did look like young Josh.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. I loved the movie precisely because of that character and the way he was played. It doesn't need to be "true" to be a powerful story. I wasn't even aware it was based on a true story originally (although how I could have missed that, I'm not sure; I must have just forgotten).
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the mom in this movie (yes, I know she is fictional, or at least movie mom based on real character) is one the models I try to emulate when I'm trying to be a good parent. I have a lot of models -- people I know in real life, historical figures, religious leaders -- and she is definitely a good one. WWJMD? (What Would Josh's Mom Do?)
I feel vaguely touchy feely saying this, so I will go do something tough now, like lift weights or drive a tractor.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not find the film particularly moving as a künstlerroman, certainly not when compared to "The Dead Poets' Society," which must be the golden standard for that genre in the late twentieth century.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and there's at least one Scrabble player in one of the Washington Square Park scenes . (Yeah, "we" play there, too. I haven't yet, but I certainly plan to in my lifetime.)
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt played chess in Washington Square last October. We did this as a direct result of the movie - at least, that's why I wanted to do it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the movie because I could relate to it. I wasn't a prodigy (mentioned that already, didn't I?), but I played in the U.S. Open of chess when I was twelve (the first person I played was Campomanes, who at the time was one of the top figures in the international chess federation, and had a rating of 2300+). I was head of the school chess club for two years. I had played in numerous tournaments, won some money here and there, and had been through everything he did: played several five hours or more games, offered draws when I *thought* I might be winning but wasn't 100% sure, etc...
On at least three separate occasions, in a tournament in which my father and I participated I ended up having to play him in the last round. Prior, we'd sit down and decide which outcome between us would guarantee us the highest combined payout, and agreed that whatever happened we'd do that. Then we'd play normally.
One time we determined that if he won we'd get like $100 more because of the payout breaks. We played a normal game, I was three move away from mating him. I looked at him and he knew it. Then I resigned. Ka-ching!
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh. Okay, maybe Josh's mom WOULD go for flogging in this case, Nighthawk. That's awful. How old were you?
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have done something similar with pool tourny's. If a friend and I are both playing in hte same tourny, and he is one of the few friends I have that can beat me on a regular basis, I will sometimes offer a "split" to him.
I don't end up throwing the match, but if we are in the finals against each other we don't even have to play it as we are splitting 1st and 2nd.
I don't know why the payout for Nighthawks payout would have varied though....isn't the prize the same regardless of who wins hte bracket?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The way chess tournaments pay out, they'll have prizes say,
1st: $500 2nd: $200 3rd: $100
It's not an elimination tournament, but what's called a Swiss System--you play a number of games, and whoever has the most points (1 for a win, .5 for a draw) wins the tournament. In the case of a tie, you add up the places tied for and split evenly. In the above example, if two players tie for first, they'd each get $350 ($500+$200, split evenly).
Suppose, then, in a 6 round tournament, we have in the final round (with current scores)
A (4.5/5) vs. B (4/5) C (4/5) vs. D (4/5) E (4/5) vs. F (4/5)
A and B, like Nighthawk and his father, are together. If A wins, he wins the tournament outright for $500 and B gets nothing. If B wins, and the two lower games end in a win of some sort, B and each of the two other winners get $267 while A gets nothing.
I was nationally competitive in elementary and junior high school, but not quite at Josh's level. I did play in the championship game at a national school grade championship once, at Orlando 1995, losing the game for 3rd place overall.
Then I ended up at NYU Law right across from Washington Square Park Too bad I'm not a tournament player anymore.
Also, while Max Pomeranc gave a great performance and seemed so sweet in the movie, I met him on the plane to the San Jose national championship in 1995. He was a jerk. Incidentally, he had also let his performance go to his head, and thought he was a much better chess player than he actually was Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know why the payout for Nighthawks payout would have varied though....isn't the prize the same regardless of who wins hte bracket?
It's all based on an overall point system. 1 point win, 1/2 point ties. If two people tie for first, you take the first and second place prices, lump them up and split them.
In that tournament I had four points and he had five, and there was one other person with five. If I won, we'd all be tied and get 2/3rd of the first three prizes. If we drew, we'd get 1st and 3rd. If he won, he'd get first and we'd split the 2nd and 3rd place price, which ends up being the highest payout.
Assume 1st is $500, 2nd is $250, 3rd is $125.
My father wins: $500 + ( ($250 + $125) / 2) = $687.50 We tie: $500 + $125 = $625 I win: ($500 + $250 + $125) * (2/3) = $550
I'm not using exact numbers, but you get the idea.
Now, if it were for a trophy, there'd be no holds barred. When I was part of my high school team I had no shame in crushing a fellow teammate in order to get a personal trophy, so long as it does not damage the possibilities for the team as a whole.
Sometimes we would have to wait until the next person below us finishes their game. We'd move pieces back and forth aimlessly, ensuring we don't repeat three times in a row (forcing a draw). When they were done, we'd know where things stood.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Collusion is unethical and against the spirit of the games. From the National Scrabble Association rules (the tournament organization that I belong to): "The tournament culture and rating system thrives best only when each player strives to play their very best." I bet chess has some similar wording, but I can't search their site very easily right now.
It's an honor thing.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Collusion is unethical and against the spirit of the games. From the National Scrabble Association rules (the tournament organization that I belong to): "The tournament culture and rating system thrives best only when each player strives to play their very best." I bet chess has some similar wording, but I can't search their site very easily right now.
The United States Chess Federation and World Chess Federations agree. Generally, collusion is a sanctionable offense if you can prove it. However, it usually doesn't come up as an issue except where lots of money (more than $5000) is at stake or grandmasters are playing. Fortunately for Nighthawk, the TD clearly wasn't paying close attention.
It's actually a huge problem in the chess world, though not as big as "sandbagging". Players will artificially lower their rating by throwing games so that they can play in weaker sections in big tournaments. To put some control on the problem, the USCF has a "rating floor"--your rating can't drop by more than 200 points from your top rating over a certain number of years (I think 2).
Tournament chess is a pretty sketchy business.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
True. And my father and I had the utmost honor between ourselves. When we played each other for real, we didn't think about the fact who we were playing. We knew each other's stong points, weaknesses, exploits and traps, and if need be would use them against each other and, ultimately, learn from it. We respect each other to the highest degree in that regard, and had no shame in the way we handled our matches in the bigger picture.
In fact, when we were matched together, we protested. We didn't want to be paired together because of all the overall ethics involved. Sometimes they'd arrange separate matches, but sometimes USCF didn't give us a choice.
Like I said, playing for trophies and prestige is a different issue altogether. Other than the amount written on the check, there was no recognition or acknowledgement or anything. In a trophy situation, it is a gladiator-like "no holds barred" competition to see who's the best (for the record, I've won two trophies for the University of Miami in 1989). Same goes for an elimination tournament. In a payout only tournament where it's not by elimination, it's who can make the most.
*EDIT* When grandmasters are playing, it is no longer just for money. They have their reputations to protect, so it's back to being a prestige thing. We weren't that highly ranked (my father was in the 1800s, I was in the 1600s), so nobody really cared.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: True. And my father and I had the utmost honor between ourselves. . .
---
In a payout only tournament where it's not by elimination, it's who can make the most.
Right, but the point here is that you only had honor between your yourselves. By colluding, you were cheating someone else out of prize money that they would have won if you were playing the game honestly.
I'm sure you won't be surprised to find I consider that as unethical as I would if you had thrown games while playing for trophies or prestige.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad someone else likes this movie too. Actually, if I could I would transport this cast and crew into the Ender's Game Movie. I thought this movie didn't over use voice overs to show some of Josh's inner thoughts and feelings and was filmed magnificently. Credit that to the Director/Writer, Steve Zaillian, and the cinematographer, the late great Conrad L. Hall (who also was director of photography of Road to Perdition)
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: I think one of the coolest parts of the movie is when Josh's teacher tells him he needs to learn contempt for his opponents, and Josh just says sort of listlessly, "I don't feel that." His teacher tells him that Fischer felt contempt for everyone, and Josh responds, "But I'm not him."
In looking at the book excerpts on Amazon, as well as looking at a couple of video clips on Josh's website, I decided that Josh as a child was much more driven and cockier than he was portrayed in the movie. The actor who played him was incredibly sweet. But he really did look like young Josh.
Then again if he was driven and cocky he would have been Ender
edit: my dad bought the movie on laser disk, and I really enjoyed it. Its funny to watch this movie then follow it with Ghandi as an uninformed kid because you think, "Wow maybe Josh should have been more respectful of his chess teacher (Ben Kingsley) his teacher gained independance for INDIA!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ben Kingsley is a wonderful actor, but I'm afraid that no matter what role he ever plays, I will always look at him and see Gandhi. Same for Ian McKellen: he'll always be Gandalf. What is it with these "Gand" characters, anyway? Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm torn between considering McKellen as either Gandalf or Magneto. Guess he just likes to play the powerful types.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie: I feel vaguely touchy feely saying this, so I will go do something tough now, like lift weights or drive a tractor.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
What a mess!
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
