TV/Movies Megathread

[garbon]

I did at least one tournament as a child and have in storage somewhere a wooden carrying case/board set. One of the pieces got separated from set and is on my dresser here in London.

[Josephus]

...also it took me till the last episode, but I finally realized that the first champion she beat was the actor who played Dursley in the Harry Potter series.

[Sheilbh]

Never got into chess as a kid - I could play but I was never good, I don't think there were clubs or competitions in my area.

But I do kind of love things "about" chess. It seems like the area where the line between genius and madness really is very, very fine indeed - this could be shaped by being a big Nabokov fan. Every great chess player I've read about has a story that's a slightly alarming mix of a very smart kid and basically child abuse by their parents/teachers etc, but maybe that's true for all prodigies.

[The Brain]

I played chess occasionally when I was a kid, though I never really studied it. BUT I have seen Ingmar Bergman in the flesh and I've been to the church that has the medieval painting that inspired him.

[frunk]

I haven't played regularly since high school.  I did play some bughouse in college.

[Josephus]

I used to play back in high school, but I never really learned all the moves. I wouldn't know a Sicilian from an English. In fact the last time I played, several years ago, was online against a Paradox forum guy, who may have been on here, not sure, named Uncle Brian. I started off well, and then he said something about "Ah...you're using the Sicilian Defence, I now just how to counter that." I had no idea what he was talking about, he went on to clobber me, and I hung up my cyber chess pieces.

[crazy canuck]

So yeah....Queen's Gambit, best thing I've seen in a while.

Question though: it made me wonder; Is chess still a thing? I mean I know people still play it, but I can't name you a grand master since, like, Kasparov. Do they still have headline-making chess championships and stuff?

Hey old timer, google Magnus Carlsen.  He is a big hit on social media.

How many players here, of any level?

I play fairly regularly.  But less against my oldest boy now that he is moving up in the rankings. 

[Tamas]

Never got into chess as a kid - I could play but I was never good, I don't think there were clubs or competitions in my area.

But I do kind of love things "about" chess. It seems like the area where the line between genius and madness really is very, very fine indeed - this could be shaped by being a big Nabokov fan. Every great chess player I've read about has a story that's a slightly alarming mix of a very smart kid and basically child abuse by their parents/teachers etc, but maybe that's true for all prodigies.

I think that's true for a lot if not most really successful professional sport people. You need a natural talent of course but in a highly competitive sport where repetition and persistence can also yield results, you need to absolutely dedicate your entire life to it to reach the truly highest levels. That's hard to do without the parents dedicated to destroying your childhood in pursuit of it.

[crazy canuck]

Never got into chess as a kid - I could play but I was never good, I don't think there were clubs or competitions in my area.

But I do kind of love things "about" chess. It seems like the area where the line between genius and madness really is very, very fine indeed - this could be shaped by being a big Nabokov fan. Every great chess player I've read about has a story that's a slightly alarming mix of a very smart kid and basically child abuse by their parents/teachers etc, but maybe that's true for all prodigies.

I think that's true for a lot if not most really successful professional sport people. You need a natural talent of course but in a highly competitive sport where repetition and persistence can also yield results, you need to absolutely dedicate your entire life to it to reach the truly highest levels. That's hard to do without the parents dedicated to destroying your childhood in pursuit of it.

Entire life?  Most elite athletes are elite at a young age.

Destroy childhood?  I don't think you spent much time around elite athletes and are really going to the well on some pretty well worn stereotypes.

[Josephus]

Hey old timer, google Magnus Carlsen.  He is a big hit on social media.

What is this social media thing?

[Josephus]

Just Googled this Magnus dude. Wow..pretty impressive. They argue he's the best ever to play the game.

[Tamas]

Never got into chess as a kid - I could play but I was never good, I don't think there were clubs or competitions in my area.

But I do kind of love things "about" chess. It seems like the area where the line between genius and madness really is very, very fine indeed - this could be shaped by being a big Nabokov fan. Every great chess player I've read about has a story that's a slightly alarming mix of a very smart kid and basically child abuse by their parents/teachers etc, but maybe that's true for all prodigies.

I think that's true for a lot if not most really successful professional sport people. You need a natural talent of course but in a highly competitive sport where repetition and persistence can also yield results, you need to absolutely dedicate your entire life to it to reach the truly highest levels. That's hard to do without the parents dedicated to destroying your childhood in pursuit of it.

Entire life?  Most elite athletes are elite at a young age.

Destroy childhood?  I don't think you spent much time around elite athletes and are really going to the well on some pretty well worn stereotypes.

I am not saying they end up regretting their parents choice necessarily.

And the childhood is "destroyed" in the sense that it is consumed by the pursuit of what is initially the parents' and not the kid's amibtion. If it works out and the kid loves it great. But I have a suspicion not everyone who is set on a path to greatness achieves it.

And in most sports, you need to reach pretty high levels for the effort vs. profit ratio even remotely to make sense.

[crazy canuck]

Never got into chess as a kid - I could play but I was never good, I don't think there were clubs or competitions in my area.

But I do kind of love things "about" chess. It seems like the area where the line between genius and madness really is very, very fine indeed - this could be shaped by being a big Nabokov fan. Every great chess player I've read about has a story that's a slightly alarming mix of a very smart kid and basically child abuse by their parents/teachers etc, but maybe that's true for all prodigies.

I think that's true for a lot if not most really successful professional sport people. You need a natural talent of course but in a highly competitive sport where repetition and persistence can also yield results, you need to absolutely dedicate your entire life to it to reach the truly highest levels. That's hard to do without the parents dedicated to destroying your childhood in pursuit of it.

Entire life?  Most elite athletes are elite at a young age.

Destroy childhood?  I don't think you spent much time around elite athletes and are really going to the well on some pretty well worn stereotypes.

I am not saying they end up regretting their parents choice necessarily.

And the childhood is "destroyed" in the sense that it is consumed by the pursuit of what is initially the parents' and not the kid's amibtion. If it works out and the kid loves it great. But I have a suspicion not everyone who is set on a path to greatness achieves it.

And in most sports, you need to reach pretty high levels for the effort vs. profit ratio even remotely to make sense.

A lot of assumptions there.  Why do you think a young althete becomes an elite athlete because of a pursuit that was initially the parents' ambition.  Hell if parents could simply will their kids to be great, that would be fantastic.  You are basing your worldview on stereotypes that, like all stereotypes, have a grain of truth but are not application in all or most cases.

[Sheilbh]

So I finished the Crown and I have an issue with their portrayal of Thatcher (shocked gasps).

Basically [spoiler]I have an issue with her wars. She accidentally escalates the situation leading to the Falklands War in part because she's too distracted and emotion and motherly (the woman! ) which I think is a bit tonally weird. In reality the events didn't overlap and I think she does bear some blame for the Falklands but it's because she cut the budget for the UK's naval presence in the South Atlantic which the Argentine junta took as a weakening/lack of commitment to defend the Falklands.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]The other one is the Gulf war where it's shown as a sort of response to the leadership challenge, which I think does her a bit of a disservice. And I think it avoids some of the drama of the plots against her. The leadership challenge was launched while she was out of the country. It was such a surprise for outsiders that the King of Saudi assumed that there was a military coup and I believe the NATO Supreme Commander was stunned by it and joked about what sort of country gets rid of their leader while they're overseas, during a war. She wasn't sat in Downing Street when she found out, she was in a foreign Embassy.[/spoiler]

And I wonder if it's a structural issue with the show. It can't really deal with domestic politics unless there's some encounter they can hang it onto (like the palace intruder incident, or Churchill's secretary) or a national tragedy like Aberfan (and, I assume, the same will happen with Dunblane). The characters are too distant from the domestic realities so the politicians in the show are seen too much from foreign policy issues and, on her wars, Thatcher was right [spoiler](and not an over-emotional woman distracted by her kids)[/spoiler] but you only see the other stuff generally through characters watching TV. It is particularly mindblowing to see an 80s drama with no mention of the miners' strike. [spoiler]Also I think the Queen may have had some issues with Thatcher, especially on a personal level, but the idea the royal family are secret lefties who weren't fans of her is mind-boggling. I remember an old anecdote that the Queen Mother would show her views on PMs by how high she held her G&T when talking about them - Thatcher was very, very high and Blair would get put down.[/spoiler]

[Syt]

I'm 6 episodes into Arrested Development. Does the show pick up eventually? Because so far it's not really grabbing me at all and at best elicits a mild chuckle.