MovieChat Forums > From Russia with Love (1964) Discussion > The chess scene is ridiculous

The chess scene is ridiculous

posted 10 years ago by GuyOnTheLeft
24 replies | jump to latest

Why couldn't they just show something taken from a real game between grandmasters? The villain's "brilliant gambit" would be obvious to an eight year old.

ETA: It turns out they did take it from a real championship match, but thought (erroneously) that chess games were copyrighted, so they just took two White pawns away from the centre of the board, with no consideration to how central they were to White's position. See my further explanation downthread. Anyway, at least they did try, if somewhat haphazardly--I'm glad for that.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] jconn426 10 years ago

It seems they put more thought into the set construction and props than into the winning move itself. I know little about chess, but I do know there are a great number of books devoted to recording famous matches. You'd think they would just copy the final two moves of one of them, eh? In the end, the scene was meant to introduce us to the SPECTRE agent and and establish him as someone who (supposedly) thinks everything through. It wasn't supposed to serve as a chess tutorial. (His arrogant refusal to shake hands with and thank the man who congratulated him on his way out of the room also shows us that he's an ungrateful, self-important wretch. Other villains know enough to fake being nice to someone.)

===
And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

[–] necoleman 10 years ago

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday......Member since May 2006:

I've often wondered if the display of rudeness by the SPECTRE agent after the game, was scripted or improvised?

"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

[–] nineinchnail1981-74-611426 9 years ago

Why does everyone keep talking about how Kronsteen refuses to shake the hand of his chess opponent? I'm watching the film right now and he clearly DOES shake his hand.

[–] raf-33 9 years ago

No one mentioned his opponent.

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. -Isaac Asimov

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

Well, it's not obvious to most people. So why don't you write up the scene, get the funding, cast the actors, hire the talent and rent the equipment and facilities to shoot it.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

But as jconn said above, they did a good job with the set and the props. Why do all that, including using tournament clocks (something "most people" might not know about), and then portray such an amateurish move, followed by a "resignation" after checkmate (and a failure to state "checkmate") which makes no sense?

Or why not just go the other way and show a move that's not even legal in chess? The only people who would appreciate the actual, legal move shown without immediately wondering "wait, how could he not have seen that coming" are eight or nine years old.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

Because it wasn't pertinent to the story, otherwise they might have focused on it.

What they wanted to show was the agent acting as if he was too intelligent to be bothered by something as mundane as a chess game. And, since he's a bad guy, that sends a message to the audience that he's someone dangerous because of his smarts.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

But this is my point: he doesn't look so smart to any adult who plays chess even casually. They could have spent the same amount of time on it, not focussed on it any more than they did, just used the final moves (published in newspapers at that time) from a world championship match. I'd call it laziness, but they must have had to actually think up the position they showed, since it showed legal (though infantile) moves but would never occur in a real match.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

You know what? I've played in tournaments, I've played "3D chess" both by Bobby Fisher and the Star Trek kind, and have done variations on Cassia's wild roses, and even I can't glance at a chess board and spot some well known setup with some classic counter move.

You have to think to yourself, maybe the character did it intentionally, and psyched out the opposition forcing him to lose.

[–] Tilyou1 10 years ago

It *was* from a real game between grandmasters.

Boris Spassky v. David Bronstein in Leningrad 1960

quoting...

The movie chess game is identical to that played by Boris Spassky and David Bronstein at the USSR Championship in Leningrad in 1960 (a detailed move-by-move analysis can be found here), and which is widely regarded as one of the most inspired, brilliant chess matches of all time. The real-life game involves a previously-unheard-of variation on the famous (some would say infamous) King's Gambit by Spassky, the most successful practitioner of the King's Gambit of all time

http://www.hogranch.com/mayer/chess_frwl.html

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Similar, but not identical. Two white pawns are missing from the centre of the board. Your site admits this but brushes it off as those pawns being "no longer crucial at this point". I disagree. You can play through the whole Spassky-Bronstein game here:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1034110

Ask yourself how strong chess players would even get to the position shown in the movie. How were those two central pawns taken? With what black pieces? It's very dubious to imagine that a player at that level would get to a winning position being down a rook *and* two central pawns.

And even if they did somehow get to the position shown in the film, with those two pawns missing (which, again, is very unlikely), a commenter at that site notes:

If they were going to change something, it would have been better to change something less central to the position.

Because this shift in the position allows a draw by perpetual check:

22 ..Ne6! 23 Ng6 Qc5+ 24 Kh1 Qb5! 25 Bc4 Qc6 26 Qf7+ Kh7 27 Qf5 Ng5! forcing 28 Nf8+ and Ng6+.

I did learn from reading that though that despite this "critical error", they were at least trying to portray a high level match--but mistakenly believed chess matches were copyrighted. So, apparently not really understanding chess very well, they thought it would be okay to just take out a couple pawns (why they wouldn't take them from the losing player, and more from the edge of the board, I can't say) to make it different. So at least they tried, in a bumbling kind of way. I am somewhat reassured by learning this.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] mattohmss 9 years ago

If you've ever read the novel, Fleming took his inspiration (yes, the chess match still happens, but it's between Soviet players) from a different chess match: Reshevsky-Botvinnik, Moscow 1955. This was identified by Fleming's description of the match including a "Meran Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined" and it having ended on the 41st move with the winner playing Rn8, both of which occurred in the identified match.

The more you know... 

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

Interesting! Thanks.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] mattohmss 9 years ago

Very welcome! 

[–] KingCobra686 7 years ago

I did learn from reading that though that despite this "critical error", they were at least trying to portray a high level match--but mistakenly believed chess matches were copyrighted

Who would even own a copyright of a chess game in the 1960's? I could see a tv station today doing something like that, but not back then.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

No more ridiculous than foreign language lines being spoken that don't grammatically make sense in English language films, or chase scenes occurring in well known city locations, that sequentially realistically couldn't take place. The old adage about ""Close enough, being good enough" rings true in plenty of movies.

[–] pking-2 9 years ago

It was also ridiculous when Drax launched his space shuttle off a 747. And when Bond knew to wear suction cups under his Japanese fisherman costume.

In other words...there is a lot of ridiculousness to be found if you scrutinize a Bond plot and countless scenes too closely. You're not really supposed to do that, and if you do so and it ruins your fun you might want to dial it back.

Could it have been a less ridiculous portrayal of chess? No doubt. Could the Texas Hold 'Em in Casino Royale have made more sense? Yes, very much so. Should Bond not have dilly-dallied around Jill Masterson's hotel suite after letting Goldfinger know where he was, only to cause the death of Jill and get himself KO'd? Yes. Yes on all counts. Ridiculous.

The question is whether you prefer to revel in the ridiculousness or want to excise it.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

Good points. I play Hold 'Em and actually liked that scene. Of course, the odds against that many rare and super strong hands being in play (had to laugh at the poor sucker with the "nut flush" on the paired board) is astronomical, but as I recall it it was at least conceivable (that is, no two people had the same card or something like that).

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

[–] mariakelly-04164 7 years ago

I thought the chess game scene was cool. The part that freaked me out was all of the people in the room watching it! Until then I really had no idea that it could be a spectator sport!

Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night.

[–] franzkabuki 7 years ago

"I really had no idea that it could be a spectator sport".

Well it used to be. It also carried quite a bit of political weight, especially with the Soviets.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] KingCobra686 7 years ago

True, but its better when there is a legitimate reason for things to be ridiculous. Putting that scene of them launching a space shuttle off of a midflight plane might be completely ridiculous, but its exciting and I'm willing to overlook the ridiculousness because of that.

Theres a difference between that and situations where things are ridiculous or unrealistic for no necessary reason.

[–] pking-2 7 years ago

But this is in context of a chess board being set up "ridiculously" poorly. 99 percent of the audience isn't going to audit the chess board.

Point is: I think its debatable that we need a "necesary reason" to omit a pawn or two from a chessboard that is really nothing but a prop to set up Kronsteen's next step...this movie ain't about chess, per se. So if you don't want to get "on board" and revel in some Bond goofy chess playing (or card playing etc) then you don't, but that's more on you than the movie I'd submit.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] mariakelly-04164 7 years ago

Yes, in watching Bond movies you definably have to suspend at least a little belief. I never read the novel, so I don't know if the chess scene is mentioned. I have always just looked at it as a movie scene.

Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Chess games in movies usually are ridiculous to anybody who is actually familiar with chess.

For that matter, *any* specialized activity depicted in a movie will usually be utter nonsense to anybody who actually knows that activity! Straight razor shaving, anybody?