Josh Waitzkin game at end of 'Searching For Bobby Fischer'
Jim Campbell
My son is interested in the championship game depicted at the end of
'Searching For Bobby Fischer.' Was this a real game, or was it fictitious?
If it was real, can someone send information about it? In particular, my
son would like to see the chess notation for that game, which contained a
clever trick at the end involving pawn promotions.
- Jim
Kenneth Sloan
The game shown in the movie may have been a "real game" - but it wasn't
played by Josh and his opponent. In real life, Josh drew his last game
(which was enough for the championship).
I think the game shown in the movie was published in Chess Life - but I
have no idea when (other than sometime around the release of the movie).
The key pawn promotion idea is that Josh's opponent's King is lured onto
the long diagonal (say d4). He Queens first (on h8), but Josh Queens on
the very next move on a1 - leaving both Queens AND the opponent's King
all on the same long diagonal. The opponent is forced to move the K,
leaving the Queen defenseless.
The point made in the movie was that Josh needed to see the skewer and
play a combination to leave the K on the long diagonal. Much is made
over how many moves Josh has to see ahead - but most of those moves are
the 4 or 5 pawn moves by each side.
--
Kenneth Sloan sl...@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/
Adrian MacNair
news:PKAi7.398367$T97.45...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
The reason I hate that movie is that all the chess games look like BS. I
rented that movie recently hoping to catch a glimpse of some clever moves
but careful camera works keeps the viewers eyes from ever seeing the
positions. Much like a cartoon all you ever see is some jumbled peices and
then someone saying "checkmate". And then the final match against this young
wunderkind?? Give me a break!!!! The kid Waitzkin apparently "loses" his
Queen early and then he somehow comes back to win?!!? I can't remember the
last game in which any competant chess match had a player lose his Queen
only to miraculously make a Hollywood comeback. That movie is trash, much
like Fischer himself says it is. The only thing accurate about it is the
feeling of emptiness left by Fischer's departure from chess.
Russell
> Much like a cartoon all you ever see is some jumbled peices and
> then someone saying "checkmate". And then the final match against this
young
> wunderkind?? Give me a break!!!!
>I can't remember the
> last game in which any competant chess match had a player lose his Queen
> only to miraculously make a Hollywood comeback. That movie is trash
Apparently you only enjoy documentaries then? Surely you couldn't like a
single movie for the enjoyment, because the exact same process you just
described is used in just about every other movie out there. I would
imagine that the people who made the movie actually wanted to make some
money and have the movie be somewhat popular and not bog down the general
public with chess positions. The general movie goer might go and see a
movie about a chess prodigy, but I don't think the general public would
enjoy a movie about chess analysis like some of us here might. I personally
liked the book better than the movie anyway. I own both the book and the
DVD however.
David Steer
standpoint, but it *is* a very interesting and well-made movie.
The movie is obviously *not* about how to come back from a queen defecit and
win (although, incidentally, there are hundreds of annotated examples in
which queen sacrifices lead to won positions) -- it is about the
ramifications of a son's efforts to please his father. Adrian MacNair's
desire to learn something valuable about chess from a Hollywood movie is
about as misplaced as the desire to learn something valuable about cinema
from Kasparov's website.
Returning to the original questions, however, I can't answer whether or not
the final game was based on fact (although it seems incredibly unlikely).
The "clever trick" involving pawn promotions at the end, however, is simple:
Waitzkin's character queens his pawn, simultaneously placing his opponent's
king in check, where the king is in the middle of the chessboard and on the
same diagonal as both recently queened pawns. Waitzkin's character therefore
wins the opponent's queen and...game over!
More simply: set up a chess board like this, assuming that Waitzkin's
character plays white (I haven't seen the movie in a while, so I don't know
the precise position of the pieces, or even which character plays white and
which character plays black; nevertheless, the principle remains the same):
White king on f5, white pawn on h6. Black king on d4, black pawn on a2.
White to move:
1. h7 a1=Q 2. h8=Q+ Kd5 3. Qxa1 and black (Waitzkin's opponent) obviously
resigns.
Hope this helps.
"Adrian MacNair" <antsl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_dDi7.29080$f01.7...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Jidan 1.618
the game in the movie was fictional the real result was a draw
do you remember the name of his opp?
IIRC he blundered, but found "the" drawing plan
you can search whatever is stored of his games at
http://www/chesslab.com/PositionSearch.html
it looks like his earliest recored game (there) is 1989
Anyone with more information on how to find the game please speak up!
ps it wasn't a bad movie, just a bad (exploitive) title
--
Oderint, dum metuant
If you REALLY want to email me, look up my address in groups.google.com
OR you can post in alt.fan.jidan, and I'll contact you
Jeremy Spinrad
to make it less interesting and exciting. The depiction of the final game in the
book is the most exciting and moving discussion of a chess game I have ever seen;
at one point, Josh goes to the bathroom and cries for 15? minutes before coming
back and pulling himself together. As a small issue, to make Josh seem like a
"nice guy", in the movie he offers a draw in a position which he is supposed to
know he has a forced win; we chessplayers would agree this is at least strange and
borders on the inappropriate.
I would also argue that the depictions of Sarwer (Josh' aopponent) is changed to be
less interesting. In fairness to the moviemakers, the movie was a popular success,
and my personal preference for movies which show moral ambiguity rather than good
guys vs bad guys does not seem to be shared by the general public.
Jerry Spinrad
Robert Musicant
Jim Campbell wrote in message ...
I read an interview with Bruce Pandolfini, who acted as technical adviser
for the movie, in which he said that he composed the games played in the
movie. You might try writing to him through his column at chesscafe.com and
ask him to supply the score for that game.
Charles Blair
game between Sarwer and Waitzkin or at least the endgame part of it.
The Chess Life article at the time gave more attention to parts of
the scholastic event involving older children.
Bruce Pandolfini's contribution to Chesscafe seems to exclude anything
involving diagrams or actual moves. He did have a recent article that
talked about differences between the movie and real life in general terms.
littlebugga07
<antsl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
いい"Jim Campbell" <j...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
いいnews:PKAi7.398367$T97.45...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
いい> My son is interested in the championship game depicted at the end of
いい> 'Searching For Bobby Fischer.' Was this a real game, or was it
いいfictitious?
いい> If it was real, can someone send information about it? In particular, my
いい> son would like to see the chess notation for that game, which contained a
いい> clever trick at the end involving pawn promotions.
いい
いいThe reason I hate that movie is that all the chess games look like BS. I
いいrented that movie recently hoping to catch a glimpse of some clever moves
いいbut careful camera works keeps the viewers eyes from ever seeing the
いいpositions. Much like a cartoon all you ever see is some jumbled peices and
いいthen someone saying "checkmate". And then the final match against this young
いいwunderkind?? Give me a break!!!! The kid Waitzkin apparently "loses" his
いいQueen early and then he somehow comes back to win?!!? I can't remember the
いいlast game in which any competant chess match had a player lose his Queen
いいonly to miraculously make a Hollywood comeback. That movie is trash, much
いいlike Fischer himself says it is. The only thing accurate about it is the
いいfeeling of emptiness left by Fischer's departure from chess.
The best part of the films is where they showed film clips of Fischer
with audio. That was worth it just for that!
いい
Adrian MacNair
news:v9Ii7.8957$t_2.1...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
> No! "Searching for Bobby Fischer" may not be accurate purely from a chess
> standpoint, but it *is* a very interesting and well-made movie.
I respectfully disagree that it is a well-made movie.
> The movie is obviously *not* about how to come back from a queen defecit
and
> win (although, incidentally, there are hundreds of annotated examples in
> which queen sacrifices lead to won positions)
Waitzkin did not make a Queen sacrifice... the movie would have us believe
he lost his Queen with no compensation.
>Adrian MacNair's
> desire to learn something valuable about chess from a Hollywood movie is
> about as misplaced as the desire to learn something valuable about cinema
> from Kasparov's website.
I could at least have expected real positions on the chess board, of which I
suspect there were very few.
<snip explaination>
> 1. h7 a1=Q 2. h8=Q+ Kd5 3. Qxa1 and black (Waitzkin's opponent) obviously
> resigns.
Yes, I realize the little play at the end was real chess. The only time in
the game in which there was any.
Adrian MacNair
news:nhmnotsmla8js5lg3...@4ax.com...
> The best part of the films is where they showed film clips of Fischer
> with audio. That was worth it just for that!
I did like the film clips quite a bit. As I mentioned, the movie did
accurately portray the void left by Fischer leaving chess and how all these
little boys are left trying to fill his shoes and simultaneously please
their fathers (who all want their kids to be wunderkinds).
PoD
news:9mgdse$99u$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> I read an interview with Bruce Pandolfini, who acted as technical adviser
> for the movie
Judging by his books that seems a damn good reason to give the movie a
miss...
David Steer
>Waitzkin did not make a Queen sacrifice... the movie >would have us believe
>he lost his Queen with no compensation.
You're absolutely right. Nevertheless, the movie is really not about chess,
no more than "Bang The Drum Slowly" (for example) is about baseball.
Also, I apologize if my simplistic retelling of the final moments of the big
match seemed to be for your benefit. I meant to provide the illustration for
Jim Campbell's son so that he might understand the "trick" involved.
Adrian MacNair
> Also, I apologize if my simplistic retelling of the final moments of the
big
> match seemed to be for your benefit. I meant to provide the illustration
for
> Jim Campbell's son so that he might understand the "trick" involved.
No problem =)
Petrel
Adrian MacNair wrote in message
<_dDi7.29080$f01.7...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>...
>"Jim Campbell" <j...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:PKAi7.398367$T97.45...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>> My son is interested in the championship game depicted at the end of
>> 'Searching For Bobby Fischer.' Was this a real game, or was it
>fictitious?
>> If it was real, can someone send information about it? In particular, my
>> son would like to see the chess notation for that game, which contained a
>> clever trick at the end involving pawn promotions.
>
>The reason I hate that movie is that all the chess games look like BS. I
>rented that movie recently hoping to catch a glimpse of some clever moves
>but careful camera works keeps the viewers eyes from ever seeing the
>positions. Much like a cartoon all you ever see is some jumbled peices and
>then someone saying "checkmate". And then the final match against this
young
>wunderkind?? Give me a break!!!! The kid Waitzkin apparently "loses" his
>Queen early and then he somehow comes back to win?!!?
*sigh* The hell of it is, the ACTUAL game described in the book, where the
young Waitzkin's opponent takes advantage of his opponent's slip in the
endgame to come up with a study-like draw beginning with a knight move into
the corner, working out over the board the same plan that Pandolfini is
talking about in the demonstration room, is MUCH better, MUCH more dramatic,
then the blitz finish that the movie-Waitzkin bangs out. And Hollywood
COULD have shown this excitement. Grrr.
petrel
BTW I notice that Spinrad has gotten here first and already made the same
point, but what the hell, you can't copyright ideas :-)
I don't suppose anyone has the ACTUAL score of the real-life game?
p>
David Steer
Although I'm obviously in the vast minority with respect to this movie and
am probably only beating my head against a wall, I've decided to voice my
opinion one last time...
> The sad thing about this depiction in the movie is that the game has been
changed
> to make it less interesting and exciting. The depiction of the final game
in the
> book is the most exciting and moving discussion of a chess game I have
ever seen;
> at one point, Josh goes to the bathroom and cries for 15? minutes before
coming
> back and pulling himself together.
Perhaps I enjoyed the movie simply because I hadn't read the book -- in
fact, I hadn't even heard of Josh Waitzkin when the movie came out.
> As a small issue, to make Josh seem like a
> "nice guy", in the movie he offers a draw in a position which he is
supposed to
> know he has a forced win; we chessplayers would agree this is at least
strange and
> borders on the inappropriate.
Yes. This is not believable purely from a chess standpoint, although it
works within the general themes of the movie.
> I would also argue that the depictions of Sarwer (Josh' aopponent) is
changed to be
> less interesting. In fairness to the moviemakers, the movie was a popular
success,
> and my personal preference for movies which show moral ambiguity rather
than good
> guys vs bad guys does not seem to be shared by the general public.
Frankly, I prefer good movies, regardless of their aesthetic bases. Granted,
movies that seem truthful in their portrayal of the human condition do tend
to grab my attention more readily. This is no guarantee that a movie that
portrays moral ambiguity is a *good* movie, however: some movies along these
lines are excellent, some are boring, some are well-made, some are loads of
trash, some are insightful, some are self-indulgent. Movies that use the
good v evil archetypes are similarly mixed in their achievements. There does
tend to be a fantastic (or fairy-tale) element to good v evil flicks, but
when used appropriately this helps to elucidate the thematic issues on which
they are based. Case in point: the bible, which is essentially one
loooooonnng allegory on the good v evil archetype, and probably the greatest
single work of literature in the English language.
Now "Searching for Bobby Fischer" is not the bible. But the truths it does
reveal (that it is better to be a good person than to be winner, for
example) are no less relevant. And while his opponent and his opponent's
coach in the film are nasty to the point of being unbelievable, this element
of fantasy is consistent within the good v evil archetype as it has been
used in artistic endeavor throughout the centuries. Art tends to blur
reality in an effort to establish a greater understanding about (usually)
the human condition. And therefore Picasso is a greatest artist than my next
door neighbor who can recreate a garden scene to perfection.
So, to sum up: "Searching for Bobby Fischer" is *not* a movie about chess;
criticisms along these lines miss the point of the film entirely.
Furthermore, while it does tend at times to revert to cliche, there is no
denying its attempt to tell fundamental truths. In my opinion, only
arguments about its success or failure in telling those truths are valid.
Regards,
DSteer
Gian-Carlo Pascutto
news:_dDi7.29080$f01.7...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> "Jim Campbell" <j...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:PKAi7.398367$T97.45...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> And then the final match against this young
> wunderkind?? Give me a break!!!! The kid Waitzkin apparently "loses" his
> Queen early and then he somehow comes back to win?!!? I can't remember the
> last game in which any competant chess match had a player lose his Queen
> only to miraculously make a Hollywood comeback.
When I was a 17-year old I played in a schools tournament.
Our team included a 13-year old kid who was local champion in his
age group. His playing level was about the same as mine at that
time.
In one of my games, I won a queen early due to a standard trick in
the Russian (e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Nxe4 Qe2 Nf6 Nc6+). My opponent
refused to give up and developed some counterplay in the game.
Being a queen up, I stopped being concentrated and found my queen
in a pin about 25 moves later. After losing it, I was only a pawn
up and very lucky to win the game in the end.
Putting this all together, the scenario depicted in the movie
certainly is not unrealistic for players of this level.
--
GCP
David J Bush
|*sigh* The hell of it is, the ACTUAL game described in the book, where the
|young Waitzkin's opponent takes advantage of his opponent's slip in the
|endgame to come up with a study-like draw beginning with a knight move into
|the corner, working out over the board the same plan that Pandolfini is
|talking about in the demonstration room, is MUCH better, MUCH more dramatic,
|then the blitz finish that the movie-Waitzkin bangs out. And Hollywood
|COULD have shown this excitement. Grrr.
|I don't suppose anyone has the ACTUAL score of the real-life game?
It was a great read, wasn't it? Sacrificing a pawn in order to put in
motion a Troitsky-like sequence of forcing moves that culminate in a
draw. It had a strong ring of truth to it didn't it?
But did it really happen like that?
When asked, Pandolfini claimed he lost the game score. Not difficult
to believe. But IM Jack Peters was there, according to the book.
So was Fred Waitzkin, and so was Josh Waitzkin. Such a superb ending
would deserve mention in some chess publication somewhere.
Has anyone seen the game score Fred Waitzkin describes? Or did he
succumb to the lure of providing a dramatic finish for his book, even
at the expense of the truth?
Or am I just paranoid?
David Bush http://www.geocities.com/twixtplayer/
Remove nospamtoday from my email
Eric Hallsworth
<tw...@nospamtodaycstone.net> writes
Black (Josh, to move): Kc2 Rc7 Nb6 Bd8 Pa7 Pg7
1...gxf6 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 3.Nxf6 Rc6+ 4.Kf7 Rxf6 5.Kxf6 Nd7+ 6.Ke6 Nxe5
7.Kxe5 a5 8.h5 a4 9.h6 a3 10.h7 a2 11.h8=Q a1=Q+ 12.Kf5 Qxh8 0-1
--
With best wishes from:
Eric Hallsworth, The Red House, 46 High St. Wilburton, Cambs CB6 3RA, England.
Editor of Selective Search, the UK's only Computer Chess Magazine, est. 1985.
http://www.elhchess.demon.co.uk
David J Bush
|>
|>It was a great read, wasn't it? Sacrificing a pawn in order to put in
|>motion a Troitsky-like sequence of forcing moves that culminate in a
|>draw. It had a strong ring of truth to it didn't it?
|>
|>But did it really happen like that?
|>
|>When asked, Pandolfini claimed he lost the game score. Not difficult
|>to believe. But IM Jack Peters was there, according to the book.
|>So was Fred Waitzkin, and so was Josh Waitzkin. Such a superb ending
|>would deserve mention in some chess publication somewhere.
|>
|>Has anyone seen the game score Fred Waitzkin describes? Or did he
|>succumb to the lure of providing a dramatic finish for his book, even
|>at the expense of the truth?
|>
|>Or am I just paranoid?
|>
|>David Bush http://www.geocities.com/twixtplayer/
|>Remove nospamtoday from my email
|>
|White (The Other Kid): Ke6 Re5 Ne4 Bg5 Pf6 Ph4
|Black (Josh, to move): Kc2 Rc7 Nb6 Bd8 Pa7 Pg7
|
|1...gxf6 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 3.Nxf6 Rc6+ 4.Kf7 Rxf6 5.Kxf6 Nd7+ 6.Ke6 Nxe5
|7.Kxe5 a5 8.h5 a4 9.h6 a3 10.h7 a2 11.h8=Q a1=Q+ 12.Kf5 Qxh8 0-1
That's the MOVIE GAME! If you READ my post you will see I'm talking
about the BOOK GAME! Which ended in a DRAW!
Charles Blair
>When asked, Pandolfini claimed he lost the game score. Not difficult
>to believe. But IM Jack Peters was there, according to the book.
>So was Fred Waitzkin, and so was Josh Waitzkin. Such a superb ending
>would deserve mention in some chess publication somewhere.
>Has anyone seen the game score Fred Waitzkin describes? Or did he
>succumb to the lure of providing a dramatic finish for his book, even
>at the expense of the truth?
It is surprising that the game score vanished. However, my guess
is that the event had a much greater importance in Fred Waitzkin's
mind than for anyone else. I also suspect that the draw Josh Waitzkin
found at the board involved some well-known technique, something like
moving the king to the shorter side of the board in rook and pawn
against rook. Waitzkin's accomplishement in finding it (whatever it
was) at the board was still significant, but the position did not
add anything to previous endgame knowledge.
David J Bush
Certainly, the game was important to both Waitzkins. And the ending
might very well have involved known techniques. My question concerns
the very specific events during and after the game which Fred W.
describes:
Sarwer, with the white pieces, made a slight overplay of his position
in the endgame. I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe
it was Sarwer's K + B + pawns versus Waitzkin's K + N + pawns. Sarwer
was a pawn plus.
Pandolfini, watching the game on closed circuit TV, describes a
possible drawing plan Black might undertake, which seems suicidal
at first. The key move is to put the knight in a corner of the board.
IM Jack Peters, also watching, expresses his doubts about the plan.
Josh makes the key move. As Bruce continues to describe the drawing
plan, Josh continues to play it. Finally there are just two kings
left- draw.
As Josh leaves the tournament room, Jack P. grabs him and asks,
"How did you DO that? How did you DO that?"
Did these events happen, or did they not?
Looney
>IM Jack Peters, also watching, expresses his doubts about the plan.
>
Just a nitpick. It was John Litvinchuk.
:-)
Anthony "Looney" Toohey
-------------------------------------
"Very few authors, especially the unpublished,
can resist an invitation to read aloud."
- Truman Capote: Breakfast at Tiffany's