Talk:Searching for Bobby Fischer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The film's producers used Fischer's fame to promote the movie yet paid Fischer nothing for it." - This seems a bit too POV to just be stated bluntly like that. Yes, it may be 'literally true', but it's not usually considered that controversial for producers to make films about living people without their involvement or consent (think of all those mini-series about the British royal family, or the two Michael Moore films that 'used' George W Bush's fame as a promotional tool). In fact is presumably a restatement of Fischer's complaint about the film, so I suggest it is rewritten in those terms:

eg . Fischer has cited the movie as just another example of a "Jewish conspiracy" to make money off him and sully his reputation at the same time, on the grounds that the film's producers used Fischer's fame to promote the movie yet paid him nothing for it.

I have updated the page with this suggestion. Molinari 01:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It kind of sounds like Bruce Pandolfini would have more reasons to be irritated. For the most part the Bruce Pandolfini character in the film is very unpleasant. Bobby Fischer is just some iconic half-legendary figure in the film. The descriptions of him are disparaging, but also kind of legendary or unreal seeming. (Although later I learned they were somewhat accurate as he's a vaguely legendary or unreal figure) It sounds like he wasn't that way and actually does teach chess students. I wonder if it hurt his business?--T. Anthony 10:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The real Bruce Pandolfini actually plays a minor character in the film (with the line "Young Fischer") when Josh plays at Washington Square. --Anders Rundgren 12:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Turidoth has added two question marks, making the move 7.Kxe5?? . I am trying to understand why he did that. 7.Kxe5 is forced. I suppose he believes that Black could draw with 7. Kd5 instead. However. Kd5 looses. Any other white king move gives Black time to move the knight to where it will stop the rook-pawn from advancing and then Black will queen easily. Sam Sloan 13:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, should have posted this along with it, but had to sleep... In the final game, I think 7.h5 or Kf5 instead of taking the knight would result in a draw (checking with chessmaster 9000 to 19/23). Can someone with a 5-man tablebase look into it? Better yet, if anyone has a 6-man tablebase, analyze from 1...gxf6 2.Bxf6 , 1...gxf6 2.Nxf6 , and 1...Rc6+ 2.Nd6 Bxf6 3.Bxf6 Thanks! Turidoth 14:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Chessmaster's line is 7.h5 Ng4 8.Kf5 Nh6+ 9.Kg6 a5 10.Kxh6 a4 11.Kg7 a3 12.h6 a2 13.h7 a1=Q+ 14.Kg8

I've used the built-in 4-man tablebase to check likely variations, White can always queen the pawn successfully. Turidoth 15:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vinnie

I thought the real life character of Vinnie died of AIDS not heroin OD? Barneygumble 16:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I do know I played in a USCF-rated tournament (Susquehanna Valley Open) that the teenage Vincent Livermore won circa 1969. So I will correct the "never had a rating." He should be on the 1969 or 1970 USCF Annual Rating List. Billbrock 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did black win or was it a tie?

The article seems to say that the game shown ended in a draw, but the notation seems to say black won. Which is it? --Mike Schiraldi 22:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The text does need to be more clear. What it means to say is that the "real-life" showdown between Waitzkin and Sarwer ended in a draw. The movie version has Josh winning with a fancy combination. SubSeven 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In my view WHITE wins the game !

At the 5th move instead of Kxf6 which allows 5...Nd7+ with the white rook capture, White plays 5.Re2+ and after 5...Kd3 is 6.Kxf6. Now even with the lost of the white rook, after few more moves White wins: 1...gxf6 2.Bxf6 Rc6+ 3.Kf5 Rxf6+ 4.Nxf6 Bxf6 5.Re2+ Kd3 6.Kxf6 Kxe2 7.h5 Nd7+ 8.Ke7 Ne5 9.h6 Ng6+ 10.Kf7 Ne5+ 11.Kg7 a5 12.h7 1-0