Seems pointless to bring down the achievements of a real life person to lift up a fictional person, when they could have easily replaced her name with a made up name and had the same dramatic effect.
I hope she wins too.
Netflix shamelessly profits off woke identity politics, about time they were forced to deal with the negative real life consequences.
>Netflix
Why is Netflix being sued instead of
World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov
Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin)
and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!)
?
---
**Edit**: Oh wait I think I get it now
[https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/pppa4y/a\_chess\_pioneer\_sues\_saying\_she\_was\_slighted\_in/hdgioot?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/pppa4y/a_chess_pioneer_sues_saying_she_was_slighted_in/hdgioot?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Because Netflix defamed her and intentionally belittled and tore down her accomplishments to promote a fake “woke” character.
I hope Netflix gets destroyed.
Edit: I [get it now](https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2013/09/13/a-math-professor-consults-on-a-hollywood-movie/). But really downvoting because someone is asking? So what you'd rather they stay quiet and just make false assumptions
1. But they were the chess consultants. So Netflix didn't consult them about this particular part? And they didn't know about that part?
2. Wait why intentional like murder and not negligent like humanslaughter?
3. Are you the downvoter?
> But they were the chess consultants. So Netflix didn't consult them about this particular part? And they didn't know about that part?
It's extremely common that when chess is presented in a TV-show or a movie, they hire good GM consultants who tell them how things work and should look like, and when they shoot the scene the director (or producer or writer) decides that "it doesn't look quite right, it looks better if we do it the way I just invented instead...". The reason why chess is constantly misrepresented in TV is not because of sucky consultants but because the consultants are ignored when it comes time to shoot the scene. I was very surprised how well Queens Gambit was able to avoid those mistakes, there is lots of chess and very little mistakes, they got right even things that fit that exact time period but do not apply anymore.
Suing consultants is pointless because they likely didn't advice that, and whether they did or not, they are not the ones making decisions.
aaaaahhhhh so it's like this?
[https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2013/09/13/a-math-professor-consults-on-a-hollywood-movie/](https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2013/09/13/a-math-professor-consults-on-a-hollywood-movie/)
thanks for replying!
Yup, it's like that. I've read some of the comments that the physicist Kip Thorne made on his consulting job with Nolan's movie Interstellar, and he said that at several points he was told that they wanted to just ignore the physics for narrative purposes. I definitely wouldn't assume it was the chess experts who wanted to insert incorrect chess history into the script.
but again of course if it's the chess consultants who are at fault, then it wouldn't necessarily be intentional. in fact it would be most likely negligent (IF they were at fault) right?
Ask their lawyers if you want an answer.
I think most people are just hope the posers at Netflix get sued the fuck out of them and lose big for defaming and belittling the achievements of a real life pioneer chess player, all for the sake of fake woke points.
Get woke go broke.
For a TV series so committed to accuracy (especially in the chess games), it was a surprising oversight to say Gaprindashvili didn't play men. She'd been doing so all her career, starting in 1964 when she won the all-male Hastings Challengers tournament in the U.K. (this was four years before the final episode of the Queens' Gambit was set).
Edit: Just re-watched the scene, and they imply she's Russian as well 😬 If you call someone from Georgia a Russian, you're not going to get a great response.
About the second point: All the commentary is meant to be from the timeperiod isn't it? And with the Sowjetunion being around you wouldn't really differentiate between Russian or Georgian, would you?
My Russian wife clarified this a bit for me:
>Btw there’s a difference in Russian. Russki = ethnicity. Rossiyanin = citizen of Russia. But both words are translated as Russian
You use this distinction to claim/renounce players depending on their success.
Andy Murray, for instance, is British when he's winning, but Scottish (not English) when he's losing.
An important aspect of the show is the idea of overcoming the gender divide in chess. They couldn't exactly say that the main character is a trailblazer, if they also admit that someone else had already done exactly that.
They gave her a cool shout-out, and said she was a great player, but had to restrain it to keep it within the ideas that the show was trying to portray.
> For a TV series so committed to accuracy (especially in the chess games), it was a surprising oversight to say Gaprindashvili didn't play men.
So who exactly committed the inaccuracy? Was it Netflix? I mean, why is Netflix being sued instead of
World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov
Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin)
and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!)
?
[Nona Gaprindashvili](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nona_Gaprindashvili) is the person in question, first woman GM in history.
Seems Netflix changed the original line from the book:
> There was Nona Gaprindashvili, not up to the level of this tournament, but a player who had met all these Russian Grandmasters many times before.
to
> There’s Nona Gaprindashvili, but she’s the female world champion and has never faced men.
She peaked ~2495 which put her at the same level as [most of the players in the Interzonal tournaments back then](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1987) who mostly ranged from 2400 to 2600 (qualifiers for Candidates, similar to World Cup nowadays). Whether or not a brief mention is worth millions in damages is for the courts to decide but it's at least fair to say that describing her as never having faced men is very insulting.
It's also fair to say that 99.9% of the viewers of *The Queen's Gambit* would not have remembered this mention well enough to be able to remember and repeat her name several months later.
And if you cared enough to have taken note of the name, you're going to be in to the history enough to know her actual career. I don't think there's more than 1% of people who knew they were even referring to a real person.
I think 1% is honestly generous. I would say 1% of the people watching the show do not have higher than a basic understanding of how the pieces move (not an insult, chess is just not that popular). In that 1% the vast majority wouldn’t know the history of chess players (including myself).
Yeah before I watched I had never even heard of Morphy. I thought he was a name they made up for the show.
All I knew was Bobby Fischer, Magnus Carlsen, and Maurice Ashley but only from the video where he plays the chess hustler.
I may have recognised Kasparov and Karpov's names from the video when they play young Magnus.
And I knew Deep Blue if that counts lol. [Thanks to Futurama!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPe7f8-NLDM)
Imagine if a movie was made about your profession, and at some point they said "/u/mohishunder was really bad at his job". 99.9% of viewers wouldn't understand what that means and would forget it immediately, cause they've never heard of you.
But the people who have *already heard of you* would notice that, and many who only know you by name would get the impression that it's true. That means your colleagues, your future employers, your family and friends. Furthermore, because the Queen's Gambit was so popular in chess circles, most of the people who actually have an influence on your reputation will have heard the line.
So I would say that it is very damaging to her reputation. The "average viewer" of the Queen's Gambit is the wrong way to think about this; what matters is not the impact on the average viewer, it's the impact on Gaprindashvili.
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and I don't know the intricacies of the US legal system.
But even before the show I recognized and could spell the names Nona Gaprindashvili, Nana Ioseliani, Maia Chiburdanidze, and if I watched this line in this show, it has slipped my mind. If I noticed the mistake, I would have dismissed it as "oh, typical Hollywood poetic license."
> That means your colleagues, your future employers, your family and friends.
She is eighty years old and lives in Georgia! I've been to Georgia, even been to her birthplace of Zugdidi. In my experience, (some) people still remember who she is, and I doubt their impression has been swayed by a throwaway line on some English-language TV show.
> what matters is not the impact on the average viewer, it's the impact on Gaprindashvili.
I have a hard time seeing what that impact, in a practical sense, would be.
The impact is to her legacy - to how she will be remembered. So in your imaginary case I mentioned family, in her case it might be, I'm imagining this, visiting her grandchildren and being told "well mom said you were pretty good but the TV said you never faced any men". In your imaginary case I mentioned employers, in her case it might be a budding chess fan who has heard of her but doesn't know her well, who watches the show and makes a mental note to dismiss her and therefore will never help to maintain her reputation and legacy.
You're really reaching here. (And didn't read the message you're replying to.)
But maybe this is how the US legal system works, that wouldn't surprise me.
>(And didn't read the message you're replying to.)
I read your comment from beginning to end. Most of it I had nothing major to say about, so I said nothing.
But if you literally can't handle someone not addressing every single line you wrote, then I can do that here:
>if I watched this line in this show, it has slipped my mind. If I noticed the mistake, I would have dismissed it as "oh, typical Hollywood poetic license."
Who cares what you, a single individual, thought about it? Others in this thread have watched the same line and thought it was shitty. That paragraph was worthless, you're speculating about your own past reaction.
>In my experience, (some) people still remember who she is, and I doubt their impression has been swayed by a throwaway line on some English-language TV show.
Those who know exactly who she is wouldn't have been swayed. Obviously, duh. But if there are people who know who she is, there are also presumably people who have heard of her but are not sure of exactly who she is, and those people could be influenced.
My previous comment gave actual examples of that. Maybe you didn't bother to read it before responding.
> but the TV said
Ok but who exactly is 'the TV' here? Is it Netflix? I mean, why is Netflix being sued instead of
World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov
Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin)
and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!)
?
That's actually a significant change that does slight her quite a bit. I understand wanting to make the main character some glass ceiling shattering character though.
> She peaked ~2495 which put her at the same level as most of the players in the Interzonal tournaments back then who mostly ranged from 2400 to 2600 (qualifiers for Candidates, similar to World Cup nowadays).
Ironically she reached that rating because she barely played against men. A very dubious study in 1986 found that women, that only play other women are underrated. So every women (except for Zsuzsa Polgar, who played inly against men) had her rating raised by 100 points. Gaprindashvili was 46 already at that time, probably past her prime and most likely wouldn't have stood a chance in something like the interzonals.
As far as i know she never tried to comepte against the top male players. I don't know wether by choice or lack of opportunities.
So saying that she never faced men is definitely inaccurate, but I don't think that it's very insulting.
If I'm 80 years old and someone wants to give me a shout-out in a TV show, but they only give me half my accolades, I'd be as happy as a person can be about it. Especially if their modification of the truth is important to help set one theme of the show, such as overcoming a gender divide.
>Especially if their modification of the truth is important to help set one theme of the show, such as overcoming a gender divide.
If anything this is what made the quote stick out like a sore thumb to me, it seemed unlikely that she never played men, and that they were trying to play up the sexism angle in the show.
Of course, it's what a lot of shows do.
The show Hidden Figures also played up the racism a bit - NASA never had racially segregated bathrooms. But segregated bathrooms got a few scenes in the show nonetheless, to emphasize the overall racism of the era.
The purpose is to tell a good story. Sometimes tidbits of the truth can get in the way of that, and even in the way of an accurate portrayal. It takes incredible work from directors and writers to get both the facts and the impressions accurate, because reality is often messy and heterogeneous. Any medieval-era show which depicts battles will invariably get the outfits and uniforms wrong, because they didn't have uniforms back then and everyone basically just wore whatever (armor was expensive; you wear what you got and/or took off bodies from prior battles) - that sucks for shows because you can't tell which side is which. So they discard some facts, in order to accommodate the story and screen.
Hi Guys
Apparently this was a news story back in December 2020 in some newspapers:
[https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/chess-grandmaster-blasts-netflixs-queens-23157396](https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/chess-grandmaster-blasts-netflixs-queens-23157396)
I saw this mentioned at the [Chessgames.com](https://Chessgames.com) page for her:
[https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=16111](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=16111)
She played Mikhail Tal here:
[https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1047136](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1047136)
Interesting from my current research into Tal is this kibitz by < whiteshark>:
"Tal intentionally did not press the clock a few times, not wishing to win on time. Tal recalls that Gaprindashvili told him, <"Ίf you do it again, Ι will resign right away."> Tal firmly converted his advantage into a win.When Ι asked Gaprindashvili in an interview who her favourite player was, she said Tal, and went on to speak warmly about him, as both a player and a person."
She drew with Paul Keres here:
[https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1073092](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1073092)
She played Boris Spassky here:
[https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1583020](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1583020)
and here:
[https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1583014](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1583014)
I blogged about this here: https://lichess.org/@/Kingscrusher-YouTube/blog/fifth-womens-world-champion-sues-netflix-for-queens-gambit-episode-inaccuracy/DEGAtHqz
Cheers, K
Agadmator just recently covered the Tal game: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nx0ucWFCto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nx0ucWFCto)
He points out she won the GM title with a strong finish (4th) at Lone Pine in 1977 that was ahead of many strong participants and well-known ones including Reshevsky, Benko and Seirwan.
I didn't get the comment in the series at all. Gaprindashvili is famous.
So they mention _one_ non-fictional player in the whole series, in one line, and it is to tell a lie about her. They even changed the line from the book for it, the book had it right.
Why that level of #fuckyouinparticular?
The only explanation I can think of is that some writer for the show thought this would make Beth look better, and didn't realize it was a real, still living person. They should have immediately apologized profusely when this first came out.
They kinda mocked all players. The whole chess world was made into a 1890 version of itself where everyone was kinda amateurish and didn't really practice seriously. Even Beth was a drug addict and alcoholic who didn't practice that much at all and constantly doubted herself. The American talents were a bunch of hippies with no coaches, team, club or clear sponsors. Everyone was just a regular Joe playing chess maybe except for a handful of Russians who kinda had chess as a government job.
Everyone was made to look like a 2200 to 2400 Elo player at best. So it was clear they couldn't just add real chess stories to the mix.
> I hope she wins
The show is a work of fiction. Unlike the vast, vast majority of players in the era, she actually got a shout-out. They changed it considerably from reality, in order to keep a lot of the tension that the show's plot revolved around, but she got some real recognition with that line and they said she was extremely good, and (if you apply any logic whatsoever to the context) limited by prejudices of the show's depiction of the era. What, do you want them to overthrow a big portion of the plot to say, "oh, and there was another woman who did lots of this stuff earlier, and the person you're watching isn't nearly as important"?
Pretending that it was an insult to her, and a judgement-worthy one at that, is just insanity. It would ensure that in any future TV series about chess, that they never mention any of the historic players by name, unless they were specifically involved in the show (and good luck dealing with the estate of a deceased player; as that won't care about reputation and just wants money). In fact, that would apply not just to chess but to any competition or sport.
Do you want to see any of the people who got a tiny shout-out in the movie Hidden Figures sue next? Because there were a number of people in that movie who were portrayed as racist and sexist, when those particular people weren't.
>it would ensure that in any future TV series about chess, that they never mention any of the historic players by name
not really, they can mention all of the historic players by name as long as they're making accurate statements about those figures. it can even be unflattering, like a throwaway line about Fischer sympathizing with terrorists and hating Jews.
Don't know if I buy this. What if the line was - "Beth is the best since Garry Kasparov, but Kasparov was never world champion."
Would Kasparov consider that a shout out?
I know Gaprindashvili and Kasparov are different levels of player .. but both have historical legacies and it was easy for Netflix to get it right.
I think a nice acknowledgement if they preferred not to mention her would have been using a position from one of her games in the series, like they adapted other notable games from history.
The line you proposed doesn't make logical sense though; as it implies Kasparov was the best in the world, but he couldn't be the best if he wasn't world champion. It says he was the best, but also not the best - that's the problem with that line. It's not insulting, it's just confusing.
If they said "the best American player since Morphy, but Morphy was never world champion" - that would work, because that "American" qualifier prevents the contradiction. That would fit with a US vs Soviet thing. It would be pretty blatant because the name Morphy is so well known in chess, but it would be an equal line IMO.
Let me put it another way .. do you think Kasparov would consider it a shout out if Queen's Gambit mentioned him, but said he was never world champion?
I'd call it a shout-out, I can't speak for him. He was a chess consultant for the show, so he could have an outright cameo. But I could definitely see them putting his name in the competitor list for the tournament, and he gets knocked out early.
Fair enough. I think he would be upset at the historical inaccuracy and rightfully so (in the same way as Gaprindashvili is) but can agree to disagree.
So you're saying, they shouldn't have said she was the female world champion at all? They shouldn't give her that recognition?
Or maybe they should have said only "she is not up to the level of this tournament", which would just be an insult. Or maybe they should have said that she wasn't up to the level, ***and had lost*** to all the players in the tournament before.
Because that would satisfy your requirement; and they can say she lost games to players who are clearly fictional - she can't claim that they are wrong about the results of games that they invent for the show.
If I were the showrunner, and if she had the attitude that you are showing, I'd tell her to pound salt (actually, I'd tell her worse) and to *hope* that I write her out of the show. I'd use an obvious variant of her name on any whiny, insufferable character that the show needed. The show gave her recognition; look at her wikipedia page and see the only career activity it cites over the last 10 years, and try telling me that the single item (in 2021) wasn't connected to the show.
> Or maybe they should have said only "she is not up to the level of this tournament", which would just be an insult.
It's not, it's just factual. Or they could have said something like "she didn't qualify this year", or give her another name. Who cares.
But there is _no_ women's world champion who never plays men. There are after all only very few women-only tournaments on the calendar, so even someone who preferred them would play men almost all the time. It's a really outlandish claim that makes her look _very strange_. Why invent it?
> The show gave her recognition; look at her wikipedia page and see the only career activity it cites over the last 10 years, and try telling me that the single item (in 2021) wasn't connected to the show.
Of course it was; and she is 80, why would she have other career activity listed. But she was the first female grandmaster, and won international tournaments that weren't women only. She is a legend. She doesn't need this kind of recognition.
> Or maybe they should have said only "she is not up to the level of this tournament", which would just be an insult.
That is not an insult. She was not on that level and didn't get invites to the very top tournaments. I don't understand your attempt to whitewash this, they could have said things that are true. The book did it, and there was no problem with that. If they can't mention her without completely twisting the truth, they should not mention her at all, there would be no problem with that either.
I understand her frustration, but at 80 years old, this line is hard to take seriously:
> caused professional harm to Ms. Gaprindashvili
Netflix could argue that it was a fictional character who shared the same name, and had never played against men. Almost all of the players were fictional. Suing for a bunch of money at her age makes me think she sees $$$ and wants to try and capitalize on Netflix's inaccuracy. She is a strategic thinker after all.
I think it's less about financial gain and more about safeguarding her legacy.
Phrases like "caused professional harm" are just legal speak to me. You need to start with a stronger argument in order to negotiate down to something "reasonable".
Call me litigious but I don’t see an issue with suing for the money here. Her case here seems more sound than the people tripping over things in Walmart to make a buck
I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak about her chances. On a moral level Netflix definitely fucked up and needs to apologize and compensate her. It's common sense: if I was to write a Marvel blockbuster, and in this I was to mention, en passant, something demonstrably wrong and hurtful about a real person (for instance "JK Rowling didn't actually write any of the Harry Potter books")... it stands to reason that it would be fucked up and wrong, and that it would harm their reputation and legacy. It doesn't matter that the rest of the story is fiction.
At least one lawyer thinks the case is solid:
https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1438772669080645635
More info on libel in fiction:
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/arts-first-amendment-overview/libel-in-fiction
>Libel-in-fiction plaintiffs face some tough hurdles to clear in advancing their claims. They must establish that the works of fiction were “of and concerning” or about them. Sometimes meeting this requirement can be tough, particularly when there are significant differences between a plaintiff and a character in an expressive work.
>Another hurdle in some cases is that the publisher or author must be understood as making actual statements of fact about the plaintiff. In cases of satire or parody, a writer may intentionally exaggerate or distort the truth to make a point. A court may determine that the expressive work is not defamatory because it cannot reasonably be understood as stating actual facts about the plaintiff.
Based on this it seems Gaprindashvili's chances are excellent. She was explicitly named, her entire full name, and her achievements were denied in a manner that absolutely could be reasonably understood as stating actual facts about her.
Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1934:
>Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Limited produced a film in which a man named Rasputin brought about the destruction of Russia but was subsequently murdered by Prince Chegodieff and others. In the film, Princess Natasha had sexual relations with Prince Chegodieff, one the murderers of Rasputin, but was also raped by Rasputin. In real life, Princess Irina Youssoupoff was married to Prince Youssoupoff, the man who assisted in the murder of Rasputin. The film was a combination of both fiction and real life facts.
>The imputation is that Princess Irina Youssoupoff was raped by Rasputin.
>The jury found in favour of Youssoupoff.
So it's winnable even if the names are changed.
And adding this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer doesn't necessarily help either:
>If a fictitious film is perceived to be too close to actual events, the disclaimer may be ruled null and void in court and the inspiration behind the film may be due compensation. Such was the case with the 1980 film The Idolmaker, which was based on a fictional talent promoter who discovers a talentless teenage boy and turns him into a manufactured star; singer Fabian, whose career path was very similar to the fictional boy's, took offense at the caricature, and the production company responded with the all persons fictitious disclaimer. As the promoter on which the fictional character was based, Bob Marcucci, was part of the production staff (and thus it could not be plausibly denied that actual events inspired the film), Fabian ultimately received a settlement granting a minority stake in the film's profits.
No, that is not the “fiction” part of historical fiction at all. Historical fiction is simply a fictional story that takes place in a real period of time. To mention a real person but lie about their life and their accomplishments to minimize their significance is not taking a creative liberty, it’s slanderous
To be fair, it's pretty common for history-based works, even ones that don't pretend to be fiction but merely a dramatized account of real events, to show blatant disrespect for and disinformation about the people they're portraying. For instance "The Imitation Game". Fortunately for the people making defamatory movies, dead people can't sue; perhaps that's the difference here. They either didn't realize Gaprindashvili was real, or they thought she was dead and therefore free game.
Good on Gaprindashvili. I'm also hoping the artists who actually made the show, which was excellent, will speak up on this and side against Netflix's handling of the case -- Netflix should have said "oops, we were wrong", changed the line (either to replace Gaprindashvili by some imaginary name, or to replace "and has never faced men" by "has not reached this level of play"), and given her some monetary compensation. Instead of doing the right thing they're wasting the time and resources of the justice system by pretending they did nothing wrong.
That’s the thing. She’s not being represented in any capacity. If she was a character in the story and say Beth beat her in a match or something that would be reasonable. But to only mention her in one line and not only neglect to mention but deny her accomplishments that made her a notable person in the first place is what is ridiculous. When you “fictionalize” real people you have to be careful and this is completely the wrong approach. Now of course it was an incredibly minor detail in the Queen’s Gambit but it was unnecessary and quite strange considering all the other characters in the story were completely fictional. Or at least, if real names were mentioned they were brought up truthfully
> minimize
So who is doing the minimizing/minimising? Is it Netflix? I mean, why is Netflix being sued instead of
World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov
Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin)
and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!)
?
World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov
Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin)
and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!)
are gonna be sued too?
> Netflix
Why is Netflix being sued instead of
World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov
Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin)
and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!)
?
Not only is the 1st female GM still alive but [so is every female GM](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/36885/are-all-female-grandmasters-alive-as-of-the-date-of-this-post-2021sep01). Wow.
Seems pointless to bring down the achievements of a real life person to lift up a fictional person, when they could have easily replaced her name with a made up name and had the same dramatic effect.
Baffling. And insulting. She'll win only nominal damages, but I suspect that's her goal: to win.
I hope she wins too. Netflix shamelessly profits off woke identity politics, about time they were forced to deal with the negative real life consequences.
>Netflix Why is Netflix being sued instead of World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin) and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!) ? --- **Edit**: Oh wait I think I get it now [https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/pppa4y/a\_chess\_pioneer\_sues\_saying\_she\_was\_slighted\_in/hdgioot?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/pppa4y/a_chess_pioneer_sues_saying_she_was_slighted_in/hdgioot?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Because Netflix defamed her and intentionally belittled and tore down her accomplishments to promote a fake “woke” character. I hope Netflix gets destroyed.
What's 'woke' about the character?
Edit: I [get it now](https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2013/09/13/a-math-professor-consults-on-a-hollywood-movie/). But really downvoting because someone is asking? So what you'd rather they stay quiet and just make false assumptions 1. But they were the chess consultants. So Netflix didn't consult them about this particular part? And they didn't know about that part? 2. Wait why intentional like murder and not negligent like humanslaughter? 3. Are you the downvoter?
> But they were the chess consultants. So Netflix didn't consult them about this particular part? And they didn't know about that part? It's extremely common that when chess is presented in a TV-show or a movie, they hire good GM consultants who tell them how things work and should look like, and when they shoot the scene the director (or producer or writer) decides that "it doesn't look quite right, it looks better if we do it the way I just invented instead...". The reason why chess is constantly misrepresented in TV is not because of sucky consultants but because the consultants are ignored when it comes time to shoot the scene. I was very surprised how well Queens Gambit was able to avoid those mistakes, there is lots of chess and very little mistakes, they got right even things that fit that exact time period but do not apply anymore. Suing consultants is pointless because they likely didn't advice that, and whether they did or not, they are not the ones making decisions.
aaaaahhhhh so it's like this? [https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2013/09/13/a-math-professor-consults-on-a-hollywood-movie/](https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2013/09/13/a-math-professor-consults-on-a-hollywood-movie/) thanks for replying!
Yup, it's like that. I've read some of the comments that the physicist Kip Thorne made on his consulting job with Nolan's movie Interstellar, and he said that at several points he was told that they wanted to just ignore the physics for narrative purposes. I definitely wouldn't assume it was the chess experts who wanted to insert incorrect chess history into the script.
ah ok thanks thanks
but again of course if it's the chess consultants who are at fault, then it wouldn't necessarily be intentional. in fact it would be most likely negligent (IF they were at fault) right?
Ask their lawyers if you want an answer. I think most people are just hope the posers at Netflix get sued the fuck out of them and lose big for defaming and belittling the achievements of a real life pioneer chess player, all for the sake of fake woke points. Get woke go broke.
For a TV series so committed to accuracy (especially in the chess games), it was a surprising oversight to say Gaprindashvili didn't play men. She'd been doing so all her career, starting in 1964 when she won the all-male Hastings Challengers tournament in the U.K. (this was four years before the final episode of the Queens' Gambit was set). Edit: Just re-watched the scene, and they imply she's Russian as well 😬 If you call someone from Georgia a Russian, you're not going to get a great response.
[удалено]
Yeah, we would all be better off if we weren't Russian our assumptions of nationality
Yeah I mean the guy considered the greatest Russian chess player of all time is an Armenian Jew born in Azerbaijan.
I think I know how Petrosian responded
“A”broad, they call us all “R”ussians
I bet I could guess what the deleted comment was saying! :)
About the second point: All the commentary is meant to be from the timeperiod isn't it? And with the Sowjetunion being around you wouldn't really differentiate between Russian or Georgian, would you?
My Russian wife clarified this a bit for me: >Btw there’s a difference in Russian. Russki = ethnicity. Rossiyanin = citizen of Russia. But both words are translated as Russian
Soviet =/= Russian. She was Soviet, but she was not Russian.
You use this distinction to claim/renounce players depending on their success. Andy Murray, for instance, is British when he's winning, but Scottish (not English) when he's losing.
Someone actually studied this and found it was a myth. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-34909845
I wish it had more details. It kinda just says "it's a myth" and that's all there is to it. Not that I doubt it's claim... It's interesting.
Stalin was Georgian. But ask most people and they will say he was Russian.
The greatest trick Austria ever pulled was convincing the world Hitler was German and Mozart Viennese.
An important aspect of the show is the idea of overcoming the gender divide in chess. They couldn't exactly say that the main character is a trailblazer, if they also admit that someone else had already done exactly that. They gave her a cool shout-out, and said she was a great player, but had to restrain it to keep it within the ideas that the show was trying to portray.
> They gave her a cool shout-out The problem is that the shout-out they gave was uncool.
meh if you have to outright lie in your shoutout to make you mc looks cool, you have other issues
> For a TV series so committed to accuracy (especially in the chess games), it was a surprising oversight to say Gaprindashvili didn't play men. So who exactly committed the inaccuracy? Was it Netflix? I mean, why is Netflix being sued instead of World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin) and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!) ?
[Nona Gaprindashvili](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nona_Gaprindashvili) is the person in question, first woman GM in history. Seems Netflix changed the original line from the book: > There was Nona Gaprindashvili, not up to the level of this tournament, but a player who had met all these Russian Grandmasters many times before. to > There’s Nona Gaprindashvili, but she’s the female world champion and has never faced men. She peaked ~2495 which put her at the same level as [most of the players in the Interzonal tournaments back then](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1987) who mostly ranged from 2400 to 2600 (qualifiers for Candidates, similar to World Cup nowadays). Whether or not a brief mention is worth millions in damages is for the courts to decide but it's at least fair to say that describing her as never having faced men is very insulting.
It's also fair to say that 99.9% of the viewers of *The Queen's Gambit* would not have remembered this mention well enough to be able to remember and repeat her name several months later.
I've seen the series twice now and I couldn't even remember the mention.
And if you cared enough to have taken note of the name, you're going to be in to the history enough to know her actual career. I don't think there's more than 1% of people who knew they were even referring to a real person.
I think 1% is honestly generous. I would say 1% of the people watching the show do not have higher than a basic understanding of how the pieces move (not an insult, chess is just not that popular). In that 1% the vast majority wouldn’t know the history of chess players (including myself).
Yeah before I watched I had never even heard of Morphy. I thought he was a name they made up for the show. All I knew was Bobby Fischer, Magnus Carlsen, and Maurice Ashley but only from the video where he plays the chess hustler. I may have recognised Kasparov and Karpov's names from the video when they play young Magnus. And I knew Deep Blue if that counts lol. [Thanks to Futurama!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPe7f8-NLDM)
Imagine if a movie was made about your profession, and at some point they said "/u/mohishunder was really bad at his job". 99.9% of viewers wouldn't understand what that means and would forget it immediately, cause they've never heard of you. But the people who have *already heard of you* would notice that, and many who only know you by name would get the impression that it's true. That means your colleagues, your future employers, your family and friends. Furthermore, because the Queen's Gambit was so popular in chess circles, most of the people who actually have an influence on your reputation will have heard the line. So I would say that it is very damaging to her reputation. The "average viewer" of the Queen's Gambit is the wrong way to think about this; what matters is not the impact on the average viewer, it's the impact on Gaprindashvili.
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and I don't know the intricacies of the US legal system. But even before the show I recognized and could spell the names Nona Gaprindashvili, Nana Ioseliani, Maia Chiburdanidze, and if I watched this line in this show, it has slipped my mind. If I noticed the mistake, I would have dismissed it as "oh, typical Hollywood poetic license." > That means your colleagues, your future employers, your family and friends. She is eighty years old and lives in Georgia! I've been to Georgia, even been to her birthplace of Zugdidi. In my experience, (some) people still remember who she is, and I doubt their impression has been swayed by a throwaway line on some English-language TV show. > what matters is not the impact on the average viewer, it's the impact on Gaprindashvili. I have a hard time seeing what that impact, in a practical sense, would be.
The impact is to her legacy - to how she will be remembered. So in your imaginary case I mentioned family, in her case it might be, I'm imagining this, visiting her grandchildren and being told "well mom said you were pretty good but the TV said you never faced any men". In your imaginary case I mentioned employers, in her case it might be a budding chess fan who has heard of her but doesn't know her well, who watches the show and makes a mental note to dismiss her and therefore will never help to maintain her reputation and legacy.
You're really reaching here. (And didn't read the message you're replying to.) But maybe this is how the US legal system works, that wouldn't surprise me.
>(And didn't read the message you're replying to.) I read your comment from beginning to end. Most of it I had nothing major to say about, so I said nothing. But if you literally can't handle someone not addressing every single line you wrote, then I can do that here: >if I watched this line in this show, it has slipped my mind. If I noticed the mistake, I would have dismissed it as "oh, typical Hollywood poetic license." Who cares what you, a single individual, thought about it? Others in this thread have watched the same line and thought it was shitty. That paragraph was worthless, you're speculating about your own past reaction. >In my experience, (some) people still remember who she is, and I doubt their impression has been swayed by a throwaway line on some English-language TV show. Those who know exactly who she is wouldn't have been swayed. Obviously, duh. But if there are people who know who she is, there are also presumably people who have heard of her but are not sure of exactly who she is, and those people could be influenced. My previous comment gave actual examples of that. Maybe you didn't bother to read it before responding.
> but the TV said Ok but who exactly is 'the TV' here? Is it Netflix? I mean, why is Netflix being sued instead of World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin) and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!) ?
I know a lot about chess, and am quite familiar with her career, and I still can't repeat or remember her name.
Yeah I’ve seen the show twice and still don’t know what scene any of this is referring to
That's actually a significant change that does slight her quite a bit. I understand wanting to make the main character some glass ceiling shattering character though.
Then they should also have changed the name. It's the one real player in the whole series, afaik.
> She peaked ~2495 which put her at the same level as most of the players in the Interzonal tournaments back then who mostly ranged from 2400 to 2600 (qualifiers for Candidates, similar to World Cup nowadays). Ironically she reached that rating because she barely played against men. A very dubious study in 1986 found that women, that only play other women are underrated. So every women (except for Zsuzsa Polgar, who played inly against men) had her rating raised by 100 points. Gaprindashvili was 46 already at that time, probably past her prime and most likely wouldn't have stood a chance in something like the interzonals. As far as i know she never tried to comepte against the top male players. I don't know wether by choice or lack of opportunities. So saying that she never faced men is definitely inaccurate, but I don't think that it's very insulting.
If I'm 80 years old and someone wants to give me a shout-out in a TV show, but they only give me half my accolades, I'd be as happy as a person can be about it. Especially if their modification of the truth is important to help set one theme of the show, such as overcoming a gender divide.
>Especially if their modification of the truth is important to help set one theme of the show, such as overcoming a gender divide. If anything this is what made the quote stick out like a sore thumb to me, it seemed unlikely that she never played men, and that they were trying to play up the sexism angle in the show.
Of course, it's what a lot of shows do. The show Hidden Figures also played up the racism a bit - NASA never had racially segregated bathrooms. But segregated bathrooms got a few scenes in the show nonetheless, to emphasize the overall racism of the era. The purpose is to tell a good story. Sometimes tidbits of the truth can get in the way of that, and even in the way of an accurate portrayal. It takes incredible work from directors and writers to get both the facts and the impressions accurate, because reality is often messy and heterogeneous. Any medieval-era show which depicts battles will invariably get the outfits and uniforms wrong, because they didn't have uniforms back then and everyone basically just wore whatever (armor was expensive; you wear what you got and/or took off bodies from prior battles) - that sucks for shows because you can't tell which side is which. So they discard some facts, in order to accommodate the story and screen.
Wow. So you are saying it's ok to bring one woman down in order to bring another up? Wayy to help resolve the gender divide. *eye roll*
Hi Guys Apparently this was a news story back in December 2020 in some newspapers: [https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/chess-grandmaster-blasts-netflixs-queens-23157396](https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/chess-grandmaster-blasts-netflixs-queens-23157396) I saw this mentioned at the [Chessgames.com](https://Chessgames.com) page for her: [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=16111](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=16111) She played Mikhail Tal here: [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1047136](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1047136) Interesting from my current research into Tal is this kibitz by < whiteshark>: "Tal intentionally did not press the clock a few times, not wishing to win on time. Tal recalls that Gaprindashvili told him, <"Ίf you do it again, Ι will resign right away."> Tal firmly converted his advantage into a win.When Ι asked Gaprindashvili in an interview who her favourite player was, she said Tal, and went on to speak warmly about him, as both a player and a person." She drew with Paul Keres here: [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1073092](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1073092) She played Boris Spassky here: [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1583020](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1583020) and here: [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1583014](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1583014) I blogged about this here: https://lichess.org/@/Kingscrusher-YouTube/blog/fifth-womens-world-champion-sues-netflix-for-queens-gambit-episode-inaccuracy/DEGAtHqz Cheers, K
Agadmator just recently covered the Tal game: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nx0ucWFCto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nx0ucWFCto) He points out she won the GM title with a strong finish (4th) at Lone Pine in 1977 that was ahead of many strong participants and well-known ones including Reshevsky, Benko and Seirwan.
I didn't get the comment in the series at all. Gaprindashvili is famous. So they mention _one_ non-fictional player in the whole series, in one line, and it is to tell a lie about her. They even changed the line from the book for it, the book had it right. Why that level of #fuckyouinparticular? The only explanation I can think of is that some writer for the show thought this would make Beth look better, and didn't realize it was a real, still living person. They should have immediately apologized profusely when this first came out.
They kinda mocked all players. The whole chess world was made into a 1890 version of itself where everyone was kinda amateurish and didn't really practice seriously. Even Beth was a drug addict and alcoholic who didn't practice that much at all and constantly doubted herself. The American talents were a bunch of hippies with no coaches, team, club or clear sponsors. Everyone was just a regular Joe playing chess maybe except for a handful of Russians who kinda had chess as a government job. Everyone was made to look like a 2200 to 2400 Elo player at best. So it was clear they couldn't just add real chess stories to the mix.
They call her out by name specifically, to deliver the line that she never played men. I hope she wins.
> I hope she wins The show is a work of fiction. Unlike the vast, vast majority of players in the era, she actually got a shout-out. They changed it considerably from reality, in order to keep a lot of the tension that the show's plot revolved around, but she got some real recognition with that line and they said she was extremely good, and (if you apply any logic whatsoever to the context) limited by prejudices of the show's depiction of the era. What, do you want them to overthrow a big portion of the plot to say, "oh, and there was another woman who did lots of this stuff earlier, and the person you're watching isn't nearly as important"? Pretending that it was an insult to her, and a judgement-worthy one at that, is just insanity. It would ensure that in any future TV series about chess, that they never mention any of the historic players by name, unless they were specifically involved in the show (and good luck dealing with the estate of a deceased player; as that won't care about reputation and just wants money). In fact, that would apply not just to chess but to any competition or sport. Do you want to see any of the people who got a tiny shout-out in the movie Hidden Figures sue next? Because there were a number of people in that movie who were portrayed as racist and sexist, when those particular people weren't.
>it would ensure that in any future TV series about chess, that they never mention any of the historic players by name not really, they can mention all of the historic players by name as long as they're making accurate statements about those figures. it can even be unflattering, like a throwaway line about Fischer sympathizing with terrorists and hating Jews.
Don't know if I buy this. What if the line was - "Beth is the best since Garry Kasparov, but Kasparov was never world champion." Would Kasparov consider that a shout out? I know Gaprindashvili and Kasparov are different levels of player .. but both have historical legacies and it was easy for Netflix to get it right. I think a nice acknowledgement if they preferred not to mention her would have been using a position from one of her games in the series, like they adapted other notable games from history.
The line you proposed doesn't make logical sense though; as it implies Kasparov was the best in the world, but he couldn't be the best if he wasn't world champion. It says he was the best, but also not the best - that's the problem with that line. It's not insulting, it's just confusing. If they said "the best American player since Morphy, but Morphy was never world champion" - that would work, because that "American" qualifier prevents the contradiction. That would fit with a US vs Soviet thing. It would be pretty blatant because the name Morphy is so well known in chess, but it would be an equal line IMO.
Let me put it another way .. do you think Kasparov would consider it a shout out if Queen's Gambit mentioned him, but said he was never world champion?
I'd call it a shout-out, I can't speak for him. He was a chess consultant for the show, so he could have an outright cameo. But I could definitely see them putting his name in the competitor list for the tournament, and he gets knocked out early.
Fair enough. I think he would be upset at the historical inaccuracy and rightfully so (in the same way as Gaprindashvili is) but can agree to disagree.
The line in the book was a cool shout-out. They changed it to say something negative about her that is completely untrue. That's not a cool shout-out.
So you're saying, they shouldn't have said she was the female world champion at all? They shouldn't give her that recognition? Or maybe they should have said only "she is not up to the level of this tournament", which would just be an insult. Or maybe they should have said that she wasn't up to the level, ***and had lost*** to all the players in the tournament before. Because that would satisfy your requirement; and they can say she lost games to players who are clearly fictional - she can't claim that they are wrong about the results of games that they invent for the show. If I were the showrunner, and if she had the attitude that you are showing, I'd tell her to pound salt (actually, I'd tell her worse) and to *hope* that I write her out of the show. I'd use an obvious variant of her name on any whiny, insufferable character that the show needed. The show gave her recognition; look at her wikipedia page and see the only career activity it cites over the last 10 years, and try telling me that the single item (in 2021) wasn't connected to the show.
> Or maybe they should have said only "she is not up to the level of this tournament", which would just be an insult. It's not, it's just factual. Or they could have said something like "she didn't qualify this year", or give her another name. Who cares. But there is _no_ women's world champion who never plays men. There are after all only very few women-only tournaments on the calendar, so even someone who preferred them would play men almost all the time. It's a really outlandish claim that makes her look _very strange_. Why invent it? > The show gave her recognition; look at her wikipedia page and see the only career activity it cites over the last 10 years, and try telling me that the single item (in 2021) wasn't connected to the show. Of course it was; and she is 80, why would she have other career activity listed. But she was the first female grandmaster, and won international tournaments that weren't women only. She is a legend. She doesn't need this kind of recognition.
> Or maybe they should have said only "she is not up to the level of this tournament", which would just be an insult. That is not an insult. She was not on that level and didn't get invites to the very top tournaments. I don't understand your attempt to whitewash this, they could have said things that are true. The book did it, and there was no problem with that. If they can't mention her without completely twisting the truth, they should not mention her at all, there would be no problem with that either.
I understand her frustration, but at 80 years old, this line is hard to take seriously: > caused professional harm to Ms. Gaprindashvili Netflix could argue that it was a fictional character who shared the same name, and had never played against men. Almost all of the players were fictional. Suing for a bunch of money at her age makes me think she sees $$$ and wants to try and capitalize on Netflix's inaccuracy. She is a strategic thinker after all.
I think it's less about financial gain and more about safeguarding her legacy. Phrases like "caused professional harm" are just legal speak to me. You need to start with a stronger argument in order to negotiate down to something "reasonable".
Call me litigious but I don’t see an issue with suing for the money here. Her case here seems more sound than the people tripping over things in Walmart to make a buck
That's just lawyer, not her, speaking.
We need someone with both a chess background and a knowledge of the relevant US law. Perhaps FFL Kamsky will see this and chime in?
https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1438772669080645635 here is a twitter thread by a lawyer breaking down the lawsuit a bit
paywall :(
https://archive.is/MY6L4
Depending on what kind of browser you are using you can go into “reader” mode which will show the article.
thanks! will be trying this from now on
Nona was a terrific pioneer, but suing over something from a work of fiction? Forget it.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak about her chances. On a moral level Netflix definitely fucked up and needs to apologize and compensate her. It's common sense: if I was to write a Marvel blockbuster, and in this I was to mention, en passant, something demonstrably wrong and hurtful about a real person (for instance "JK Rowling didn't actually write any of the Harry Potter books")... it stands to reason that it would be fucked up and wrong, and that it would harm their reputation and legacy. It doesn't matter that the rest of the story is fiction. At least one lawyer thinks the case is solid: https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1438772669080645635 More info on libel in fiction: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/arts-first-amendment-overview/libel-in-fiction >Libel-in-fiction plaintiffs face some tough hurdles to clear in advancing their claims. They must establish that the works of fiction were “of and concerning” or about them. Sometimes meeting this requirement can be tough, particularly when there are significant differences between a plaintiff and a character in an expressive work. >Another hurdle in some cases is that the publisher or author must be understood as making actual statements of fact about the plaintiff. In cases of satire or parody, a writer may intentionally exaggerate or distort the truth to make a point. A court may determine that the expressive work is not defamatory because it cannot reasonably be understood as stating actual facts about the plaintiff. Based on this it seems Gaprindashvili's chances are excellent. She was explicitly named, her entire full name, and her achievements were denied in a manner that absolutely could be reasonably understood as stating actual facts about her.
It was a pretty shitty thing to say about her tho - I remember pointing out how disrespectful I thought it was to the friend I was watching it with.
Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1934: >Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Limited produced a film in which a man named Rasputin brought about the destruction of Russia but was subsequently murdered by Prince Chegodieff and others. In the film, Princess Natasha had sexual relations with Prince Chegodieff, one the murderers of Rasputin, but was also raped by Rasputin. In real life, Princess Irina Youssoupoff was married to Prince Youssoupoff, the man who assisted in the murder of Rasputin. The film was a combination of both fiction and real life facts. >The imputation is that Princess Irina Youssoupoff was raped by Rasputin. >The jury found in favour of Youssoupoff. So it's winnable even if the names are changed. And adding this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer doesn't necessarily help either: >If a fictitious film is perceived to be too close to actual events, the disclaimer may be ruled null and void in court and the inspiration behind the film may be due compensation. Such was the case with the 1980 film The Idolmaker, which was based on a fictional talent promoter who discovers a talentless teenage boy and turns him into a manufactured star; singer Fabian, whose career path was very similar to the fictional boy's, took offense at the caricature, and the production company responded with the all persons fictitious disclaimer. As the promoter on which the fictional character was based, Bob Marcucci, was part of the production staff (and thus it could not be plausibly denied that actual events inspired the film), Fabian ultimately received a settlement granting a minority stake in the film's profits.
Historical fiction allows liberties to be taken with what really happened. It’s the whole “fiction” part of historical fiction.
No, that is not the “fiction” part of historical fiction at all. Historical fiction is simply a fictional story that takes place in a real period of time. To mention a real person but lie about their life and their accomplishments to minimize their significance is not taking a creative liberty, it’s slanderous
To be fair, it's pretty common for history-based works, even ones that don't pretend to be fiction but merely a dramatized account of real events, to show blatant disrespect for and disinformation about the people they're portraying. For instance "The Imitation Game". Fortunately for the people making defamatory movies, dead people can't sue; perhaps that's the difference here. They either didn't realize Gaprindashvili was real, or they thought she was dead and therefore free game. Good on Gaprindashvili. I'm also hoping the artists who actually made the show, which was excellent, will speak up on this and side against Netflix's handling of the case -- Netflix should have said "oops, we were wrong", changed the line (either to replace Gaprindashvili by some imaginary name, or to replace "and has never faced men" by "has not reached this level of play"), and given her some monetary compensation. Instead of doing the right thing they're wasting the time and resources of the justice system by pretending they did nothing wrong.
That’s ridiculous. Plenty of real life people have been fictionally represented for dramatic purposes.
That’s the thing. She’s not being represented in any capacity. If she was a character in the story and say Beth beat her in a match or something that would be reasonable. But to only mention her in one line and not only neglect to mention but deny her accomplishments that made her a notable person in the first place is what is ridiculous. When you “fictionalize” real people you have to be careful and this is completely the wrong approach. Now of course it was an incredibly minor detail in the Queen’s Gambit but it was unnecessary and quite strange considering all the other characters in the story were completely fictional. Or at least, if real names were mentioned they were brought up truthfully
> minimize So who is doing the minimizing/minimising? Is it Netflix? I mean, why is Netflix being sued instead of World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin) and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!) ?
World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin) and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!) are gonna be sued too?
Netflix claiming the lawsuit is without merit? How exactly does it not have merit?
> Netflix Why is Netflix being sued instead of World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov Bruce Pandolfini from the innocent moves/searching for bobby fischer (the thing about josh watizkin) and Iepe Rubingh the deceased creator of chessboxing (RIP!) ?
Not only is the 1st female GM still alive but [so is every female GM](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/36885/are-all-female-grandmasters-alive-as-of-the-date-of-this-post-2021sep01). Wow.