Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Importance grading

The grading was recently lowered with the argument consistent with other appearances of chess in entertainment media, low importance to wikiproject chess. That does not engage with what I wrote in Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries)/Archive 1#quality grading. The supplied argument presupposes this series is no different in its impact on chess. However, I see a possible counter-argument I would like ventilated: "the impact of every other series about chess pales into insignificance compared to this one, both in general (popular culture) and specific (to chess)". What do you think? Wikiproject Chess members especially invited. CapnZapp (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

People might well have said the same thing about Pawn Sacrifice a few years ago, or Searching for Bobby Fischer before that. Sure it was a good (if flawed) series, sure it got a lot of people interested in chess, but how many people are actually going to put in the work needed to become a good player before they move on to the next trendy Netflix series? We don't really know yet. I don't see it as uniquely worthy of a higher importance rating than other chess-related entertainment. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The question here is: is the notability and impact of this show such that it should be covered by a traditional encyclopedia? While most shows about chess quite rightly are deemed only a subject of specialist interest (to a chess-focused reader) is this show an exception? CapnZapp (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No and no. Chess in the arts is rightly listed at a higher level than this show. Cobblet (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a borderline low/mid-importance topic. Pawn Sacrifice was commercially unsuccessful. Searching for Bobby Fischer was quite successful, I guess, but there's no mention of it having any impact on getting fresh blood into chess, short-term or long-term. In contrast, The Queen's Gambit is—for reasons beyond my comprehension—one of the most successful Netflix miniseries of all time by viewership in any genre and has seen an enormous surge in popularity of the game. But none of these are as important as, say, a super-GM or some part of the theory, which transcends just one generation, and we have to put this into context within chess's hundreds of years of history. — Bilorv (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess my question would be, if The Queen's Gambit is not at least Mid, then what does it have to do, to be Mid? I don't understand how it was placed in the same bucket as Pawn Sacrifice or Searching for Bobby Fischer, what exactly is the correlation? TGQ literally set viewership records on Netflix and was a cultural phenomenon. TGQ has won a significant amount of major industry awards and isn't done yet. TGQ has had demonstrably positive and sustained effects on widespread interest in chess. All these facts are well sourced. This is not run-of-the-mill chess in media. Show me one thing that is comparable. --SubSeven (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

What matters is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Assessment#Importance_scale. Is the Netflix show Contributes more specific or less significant details, or is mainly of specialist interest then it is of Low importance. Alternatively, if Adds important further details within its field, with some impact beyond it describes it better, then it is Mid importance. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I don't think the WP:CHESS importance rating has any significance outside the chess wikiproject. With that in mind, chess editors are probably the ones to make the determination although everyone is welcome to express their opinion. The chess project importance ratings are a bit odd in my view and are heavily weighted toward the low importance side of the scale. The chess wikiproject has rated more than 82% of the chess articles as Low or Bottom importance (not counting ~110 chess articles that have not been rated). So although I would say that The Queen's Gambit qualifies as Mid importance by definition, by the numbers it is not in the top 20% of chess articles by importance which would make it Low. I would prefer to have chess article importance ratings follow a normal distribution centered on Mid, but that's not the direction the chess project has taken. I have come to terms with it by ignoring the Importance rating itself as being of Low Importance. I would also say that it's probably too soon to make a final judgment about the importance of the series to chess and in the short term it's easy to overestimate. I enjoyed the series immensely, but it is not going to be as important to chess as for example The Seventh Seal, no matter how popular the series was in 2020. Quale (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You make a number of assumptions here I would like to scrutiny: "not in top 20% so low" creates a rule which just isn't there. "final judgement": luckily we don't have to make one - we can and should edit the Importance rating now, and then others (or us) can revisit it every couple of years. Moving on, do I detect a (well-meaning) lean towards a conservative rating here? With respect, let's not second-guess the project's rules and aims. Let us use the criteria they have provided. If the project does not comment or revert, let us assume a silent consensus. Thank you for your feedback. CapnZapp (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

We are not in a position to assess whether the show is "important" or "less significant" six months after it premiered. I think the closest analogue to this show is Hikaru no Go, which is high-importance to Wikiproject Go. The lead of that articles says, "It is largely responsible for popularizing Go among the youth of Japan since its debut, and considered by Go players everywhere to have sparked worldwide interest in the game, noticeably increasing the Go-playing population around the globe." If we could say something similar about TQG and chess 20 years later, this would also be a high-importance article. If it becomes clear the show has had some sort of medium-term impact even just four years from now, i.e., if in 2025 people are still talking about how TQG has led to more people playing chess, by all means please raise the rating to mid-importance. Cobblet (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing it yet, but consensus is consensus. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, Cobblet, but just let me point out two things. First, you reverted with the edit summary I don’t see a consensus for this change. But. You reverting is what indicates the lack of consensus. Sun Creator's edit stood unopposed for eight days. Without your opposition I see no lack of consensus. Thus, a more accurate edit summary would have been "I contest this change". Which brings me to my other issue. You do not get to impose a four-year moratorium on importance upgrades. We are in exactly the right position to assess the show. If an article subject appears important right away but has faded into obscurity after a couple of years, we change our assessment. Unless you're willing to argue otherwise we do not anticipate the final assessment in some undetermined future and then limit ourselves to that vision. Now then, you are making a few other points, and Max' "consensus is consensus" is ambiguous to me, so out of courtesy I'm holding off until everyone's got a chance to discuss further. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"Consensus is consensus" simply means I accept the result of the discussion. It's not a huge deal whether Wikiproject Chess rates the article as low or mid importance. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

My reading of this discussion is that Max, Quale and I consider low-importance appropriate for Wikiproject Chess. You and SubSeven consider mid-importance appropriate. SunCreator also considers mid-importance appropriate but has contributed nothing to the discussion. Bilorv thinks it's borderline between the two. The initial assessment was low-importance. People who want to change it to mid-importance need to obtain a consensus for that change. My position is that if a topic has no long-term importance to the Wikiproject then it was not important to the Wikiproject to begin with. We have better things to do in terms of actually editing Wikipedia articles than to engage in reevaluations of importance assessments on a year-by-year basis. Cobblet (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

My position is that if a topic has no long-term importance to the Wikiproject then it was not important to the Wikiproject to begin with. I don't know what that means, and how you go from it to "this topic should be low importance", which is what is relevant here. We have better things to do Yet you are here... :-) You are free to switch your !vote to silent consensus anytime you believe you're wasting your time. Please do not argue we aren't allowed to re-evaluate assessments. I agree we should not follow a contentious discussion like this with another one in two weeks or even two months. But this is actually the first discussion. Previous grade changes has been either routine or uncontested single-editor changes! As for your thoughts on others assessments, I think it's best they speak for themselves. Max clearly states something different than what you say. Quale has not responded since the 22nd, and has not met any of the issues with his arguments I bring up. I have countered most if not all of your and Quale's arguments for keeping the rating as being based on procedural grounds, and not very convincing ones at that. I might come across as opinionated but believe it or not I do keep the door open for a low rating, such as if the project members explain more clearly the criteria for a mid rating to exclude peripheral subject matter which this after all is. CapnZapp (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "we have better things to do" is a non-argument, and rather rude. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if offence was taken; none was meant. I should have said "I" rather than "we". However, offering a counterargument or getting in the last word in a debate is not the same thing as establishing a consensus. Your counterargument does not convince me to change my opinion. I am not capable of imposing a moratorium on anyone: but my opinion remains that I cannot personally support listing anything that's existed for less than five years as something of mid-importance to chess. The game's history runs far, far longer than that, and any importance rating for any chess-related topic should be assessed in the context of that history. If everyone who bought chess boards or took chess lessons in the last six months loses their appetite for chess in another six months, then I do not see what lasting impact the show will have made on the game, and I do not see how it would be anything more than a "less significant detail" in the context of chess history, one that would be "mainly of interest" to "specialists" in the intersection of pop culture and classic board games like chess. Put simply: I do not currently find myself in a position to assess whether the show is anything beyond low importance to the chronology of the game. My opinion is unlikely to change until I see players inspired by Beth Harmon showing up and sticking around in tournament halls. Cobblet (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As for Max, that he accepts the outcome of the consensus once established (as do I) does not mean that he believes the article should be rated mid-importance, as he made explicitly clear here. As you can see, Max has solicited more input from others involved in Wikiproject Chess, and Rhododendrites expresses mild support for mid-importance. As this is becoming a relatively contentious issue, I'd suggest waiting the suggested 30 days after this discussion was opened, and then taking the matter to WP:RFCLOSE. Cobblet (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. It's really hard to have a constructive discussion with people who invent their own personal guidelines. My point here is that every procedural argument so far seems to be plucked out of thin air. Either that or y'all have access to assessment guidelines I don't. I don't think RFCLOSE is even close to warranted, but I'm tempted to find out if there's a general "... for discussion" board on quality and importance assessments somewhere since I think we can all learn a lot from having someone knowledgeable take a look at this talk page discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Your justification for the rating change was, "it appears obvious to me the series had had an impact in the chess world like no other." SubSeven said, "TGQ has had demonstrably positive and sustained effects on widespread interest in chess." These are your personal opinions, to which I am simply responding with the observation that a mere six months after the fact, we are in no position to judge whether something has had "sustained" and "widespread" impact (is there any sign of its impact on the popularity of chess outside the English-speaking world?) on a game played in every corner of the world for at least a century. If it cannot be shown that TQG has had a lasting impact on popularizing the game, it will be no different from any other series about chess in terms of its importance to the game, no matter how good the show was and how many accolades it won this season. Chess was already experiencing a popularity boom within months of the start of COVID-related lockdowns, before TQG came out.[1][2][3][4] It too has had an impact on the chess world (English-speaking or otherwise) like no other historical event. According to the guideline you invented, is COVID-19 pandemic then also a mid-importance article to chess? Cobblet (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you believe should be the standard for a piece of chess entertainment to be mid-importance? --SubSeven (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

To repeat myself: evidence of "lasting impact on popularizing the game". "If in 2025 people are still talking about how TQG has led to more people playing chess, by all means please raise the rating to mid-importance." I think that's fair, given that if we raise this article to mid-importance, we are saying that this one TV show is roughly as important as the article on chess in the arts as a whole. Cobblet (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The practical consequence of a rise in importance rating is supposed to be, more editors from that project are attracted to work on it, right? What would they be doing? Right now, almost all the activity on this article is people updating the Accolades. Those aren't people in the Chess project anyway. What sort of editing would be done on this article, if there were more chess-knowledgeable editors working on it? Bruce leverett (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I suppose there are a few areas where Wikiproject chess editors who don't normally edit entertainment articles could contribute. There's the section on reactions from the chess community, and maybe a few corrections in terminology, e.g. a game is not a "match", not every top player is a "prodigy". But I'm still not seeing how this series is uniquely significant to the game of chess rather than a passing fad. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)\

OK. I don't know how such a thing would be measured five years out. --SubSeven (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, source please on the "five years need to pass before an upgrade to Mid can be considered"... :-/ CapnZapp (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

CapnZapp, if you reread the discussion, Cobblet said that "my opinion remains that I cannot personally support listing anything that's existed for less than five years as something of mid-importance to chess". Here is the source: [5]. Whether or not 5 years is the perfect amount, I agree with the others here that it too early to determine whether the show will have a lasting significance for chess overall, and that there would not be a benefit to the article by raising its importance level. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well Anna Taylor-Joy agrees with Cobblet that we should wait: I’ll probably understand this year in about five years. I think that’s when it will probably hit.[6] P-K3 (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert: Do you really not have anything better to do than to troll your fellow editors... Sigh. CapnZapp (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

CapnZapp, please comment on content, not other editors. I have also left a message on your talk page about this. I hope this will be the end of that behavior from you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Do tranquilizers really "Enhance" a person's "visualization skills".

I don't know the answer to the question, but I suspect it's pure BS. If that's true, then it gives the reader the impression that Wikipedia is claiming that tranquilizers are a "performance enhancing drug" for chess players, which obviously will encourage people to try them and find out. If that's a fictional, and false assertion by the TV series, Wikipedia should have some kind of disclaimer. If there's some truth to it, that should be the focus of that idea's assertion, rather than breezing past it as part of the general narrative. As it is right now, the voice of Wikipedia is saying "Drugs will make you a better chess player."68.206.248.178 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

In the book, Tevis doesn't say anything about the effect of tranquilizers on her visualization skills. In the TV series, we see her taking tranqs, and we see the (rather hokey) "visualization" scenes in which colored pieces are hanging from the ceiling, and the viewer might think (as I did at first) that the implication is that the tranqs were enhancing her visualization skills.

Of course, that's a pretty ridiculous idea, and if the producers really intended that, it's annoying. But I am not sure they did; anyone else want to comment on this? If we are misunderstanding what the producers had in mind, then we should remove the part about "visualization skills ... enhanced by the tranquilizers". Bruce leverett (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The sentence in question reads She quickly becomes a strong chess player due to her visualization skills, which are enhanced by the tranquilizers. Now, I agree the precision could be better, and so I am not opposed to rephrasing, but the following points are what I believe we should attempt to carry across:

• Wikipedia is not claiming that tranquilizers are a "performance enhancing drug" for chess players. Wikipedia is claiming that the show makes that claim, at least for its protagonist. That is, it is to me fairly clear that a) she's taking tranquilizers and that b) they enhance her performance.
• Now, the visualization is just a visual means to make this point come across on the screen. I don't think we can claim it is BECAUSE she visualizes (the chess board onto the ceiling) she is a strong player, nor should we claim it is the visualization performance the drugs enhance. The drugs enhance her performance (most likely they help her reach her full performance potential rather than raise her actual performance, perhaps by letting her concentrate or by dismissing any nervousness, but everything I just said is OR and is offered as an aside only) and this is conveyed by the show by the visualization.

Perhaps this is an acceptable variant: "She quickly becomes a strong chess player, something the show visualizes by having her project a mental chess board and pieces onto the ceiling. Her addiction is deepened because of how the tranquilizers enhance her chess performance." CapnZapp (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't actually know that they enhance her play, only that she believes that they do. That might be enough. Gah4 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't know what she believes. There is no dialogue about the tranquilizers and her skills. We have to infer everything from what we see. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a silly concept that tranquilizers (or any other drug) would enhance your chess visualization skills, and therefore over the board strength, but this is a work of fiction and it does seem to be implied throughout the series. I've only skim read the novel, is the same connection made there? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Tevis does not make the connection. His treatment of addiction is matter-of-fact, e.g. there is no dramatic scene of flushing the last pills down the toilet, no special connection between pills and/or alcohol and chess, and so on. (However the quotation "I've been flirting with alcohol, now I'm going to consummate the relationship" does appear in the book, except it's spoken or thought by Beth rather than her mother.) In the book, the tranquilizers enable Beth to get by from day to day, but have no particular effect on her chess. After watching the TV series, I remembered the visualization scenes as being connected with the tranquilizer scenes, but perhaps that's just an accident of memory? Bruce leverett (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, discussing whether drugs really help is beside the issue. And there's no need to get stuck on the drug-visualization connection: it's likely only a well-meaning editor's attempt to summarize the work for our readers. Any thoughts on my proposed improvement? CapnZapp (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The original complaint by the IP editor, which is not without merit, was that 'the voice of Wikipedia is saying "Drugs will make you a better chess player"'. Your alternative doesn't address that problem. If indeed the TV series is saying that drugs will make you a better chess player, then it's necessary to untangle the voice of the TV series from the voice of Wikipedia. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I said Wikipedia is not claiming that tranquilizers are a "performance enhancing drug" for chess players. Wikipedia is claiming that the show makes that claim, at least for its protagonist. That is, it is to me fairly clear that a) she's taking tranquilizers and that b) they enhance her performance. Do you have an issue with this? My participation is pointless if people doesn't engage with my comments. CapnZapp (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Just removing the contentious statement is a simple fix... but possibly too simple. It's like we're not having this on-going discussion on how to improve the article. Note: I don't know if we actually disagree, MaxBrowne2 - if you disagree with anything I have written, you have not said so. Assuming good faith, maybe you were just tired and wanted to quick-fix the article while waiting for this discussion to arrive at a more permanent improvement? CapnZapp (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's original research to claim that Beth's chess playing or visualization skills weres enhanced by the tranquilizers. The novel didn't claim this, and it wasn't made explicit in the series. Thanks to the IP for raising this. And CapnZapp, I'll give you credit for not edit warring, but can you please tone it down? You come across as very aggressive in talk page discussions. It's all about improving the article, just focus on that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear from the series that her visualization skills are not simply enhanced by the tranquilizers, but almost completely depend on them. To remove this is absurd. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP very rightly asked "Do tranquilizers really enhance a person's visualization skills?"

This led to the bolded part in "She quickly becomes a strong chess player due to her visualization skills, which are enhanced by the tranquilizers." being removed with the edit comment "going to remove this per discussion".

But I have three times now pointed out that this misses the point. The drugs help her performance (how is irrelevant), not her "visualization skills". Likewise those "skills" isn't what makes her great at chess. The previous sentence claimed:

Drugs --> "visualization skills" --> performance

But now the text says

"visualization skills" --> performance

I keep saying what we should say is instead

Drugs --> performance

It is the visualization skills we cannot and should not make any claims about. Those skills might only exist in Beth's head for what we know. What we can establish as facts are instead 1) drugs and 2) performance. She A) does take drugs. She B) does win at chess. She definitely C) associates the latter with the former.

What she never discusses with anyone is those "visualization skills". That's a made-up thing that we should only mention as something on the show, but not as something quantifiable as existing in the show's world. We can claim those "skills" exist for the benefit of the viewer, but we can't say anything about how those skills interact with the world, or if they have substance in the world at all.

CapnZapp (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in the dialogue, or on the screen, to suggest that she "associates the latter with the former". Am I missing something? It seemed that when she took tranquilizers, it was for no other reason than a deep, addictive, craving for tranquilizers. This is just another version of the same argument.

I am going to revert your change. I see that you have also added a description of how the visualization is depicted. I will throw out that baby with the bath water, but if you want to add some such description, without the additional baggage of "... enhancing her performance/visualization", it could be discussed separately. I thought that the depiction of chess visualization using glowing colored pieces hanging from the ceiling was rather hokey (chess players don't visualize that way), but it was memorable, and it served some purpose or other, so perhaps it would be worth mentioning. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The question is not if tranquilizers enhance visualization skills. The question is in the series the tranquillizers were shown to enhance visualization skills, and that is most certainly so. Many scenes in which we see her imagining the chess pieces on the ceiling come to mind. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

So what is the connection between those scenes and the tranquilizers? Bruce leverett (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm getting frustrated by not getting anywhere. Bruce, you're reverting without responding to my arguments. Can you please engage with my arguments?

As I see it, the original editor of the paragraph She quickly becomes a strong chess player due to her visualization skills, which are enhanced by the tranquilizers. wanted to accomplish the following:

1. tell the reader she's good at chess
2. tell the reader the show used the visual technique of having her project the chessboard onto the ceiling
3. tell the reader she does drugs

Do you agree with all three, and if not, which one do you object to and why?

I'm fully open to rewriting each part, but I object to removing the third part entirely. It was removed because the OP made the somewhat technical complaint "is #3 really improving #2". We can and should mention the tranquilizers - we just shouldn't claim they enhance the visualization. That's just in her head, and it could just well be the show's attempt to visualize her chess genius to us viewers..!

Now, you write "when she took tranquilizers, it was for no other reason than a deep, addictive, craving for tranquilizers". I think it is entirely obvious her whole existence revolves around her chess performance, and thought it was uncontroversial to connect her drug use to how they help her play chess - I'm willing to discuss the distinction between being "just a druggie" and someone who's anxieties are allayed by winning at chess, and therefore she'll do anything... to win at chess. To me it was obvious she hooked so hard at the drugs because they helped her be good at the only thing that's important for her. But again - let's discuss.

At least I hope we agree we should move away from a "technical" explanation connecting the visualization to the drugs! To me that sounds incredibly OR. In fact, to me that sounds completely made-up.

CapnZapp (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Your bulleted list is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't have anything about "enhancement", so it doesn't cover everything that the text said, in particular the part that has been removed. (I didn't remove it, but I suggested the removal and agree with it.) But perhaps this was just an accidental omission.

Where we really appear to disagree is your claim that "her whole existence revolves around her chess performance". The movie is full of scenes where she does things that don't revolve around chess performance: romantic scenes (even with non-chess-players), learning about stylish clothing and accoutrements, caring for the house (and negotiating over it), conversing with the women from the Christian Crusade, and so on. Perhaps I shouldn't refer to real life here, since this is fiction after all, but one can easily verify by reading the chess news that even the strongest chess players do not have their whole existence revolving around their chess performance. I have been acquainted with chess GM's who were addicted to alcohol, and in each case, it would never have occurred to me that they drank for their chess performance. That's not to say that the phrase "performance-enhancing drugs" hasn't come up in chess. But nothing in the movie suggests to me that the main character takes tranquilizers as a performance-enhancing drug. Was there something that you saw that suggested this to you? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone could watch the miniseries and not come to the conclusion that Beth Harmon thought that the tranquilizers were necessary for her to calculate better. ("Visualization" isn't the terminology I would use here. The chess pieces on the ceiling were the show's way of visually representing Harmon calculating variations. I think it's reasonable to watch the show and conclude that Harmon did actually visualize that way, but it could also be seen seen as way to dramatize an internal mental process that can't be seen by the viewer rather than being taken completely literally.) The main point of the show's climax was Harmon's realization during her final game with Borgov that she didn't need tranquilizers in order to calculate complex variations and win. That said, this seems like the kind of thing that would be better sourced to a WP:RS review or analysis of the show rather than just added on the strength of a Wikipedia editor's interpretation from watching. Then you could still argue that the RS should be discounted because it was wrong to claim that Harmon thought that tranquilizers improved her chess playing, but that would be strange because the show made it clear that the character did believe that. I agree that ascribing that effect to tranquilizers doesn't seem to make sense in the real world, but it is a fictional work after all. Quale (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

But nothing in the movie suggests to me that the main character takes tranquilizers as a performance-enhancing drug. Was there something that you saw that suggested this to you? Pretty much everything is what suggested this to me! The notion that she is two wholly separated things a) a chess player and b) a drug addict is baffling to me. Why would the show add two random character traits... when it is so clear that one drives the other?! But that just goes to show our differences and I'll accept that you consider this connection to be OR (despite being "sky is blue"-levels of obvious to me). You still haven't addressed my complaint: that by removing the part about the tranquilizers, you... removed the part about the tranquilizers! I would say it behooves you to come up with an alternative that mentions them but in a way you find acceptable because how can I otherwise proceed (without just making edit after edit for you to shoot down which is not constructive to me) I can't read your mind Bruce and it's not that I haven't tried. It is not enough to say what you don't like. You need to help me get what I want too - how can I mention the tranquilizers in a way that does not fall foul of your concerns? Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Quale, we seem to be in agreement. (I don't understand how "tranqs can enhance chess performance" can be controversial. She's obviously finding them great for her anxieties and concentration, rather than they directly "enhancing her visualization" (which, for the fourth time, is nonsense). However, you are basically repeating exactly my arguments... so why do I get the feeling nobody is reading my comments?! CapnZapp (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I like User:Quale's idea of quoting, or paraphrasing, one or more reviews from the world of Reliable Sources; has to be better than reviewing by committee as we are doing here. I have googled "review the queen's gambit" and looked at a few reviews, but I don't know who's who among movie/television series reviewers, so I have a ways to go.

In the mean time I am still trying to grasp what you have in mind (likewise what Quale has in mind). "Everything" suggested this to you? "Everything" suggested to me about the opposite. Can you be more specific?

The alternative that you ask for is already there. One sentence says, "As was common during the 1950s, the orphanage dispenses daily tranquilizer pills to the girls to "balance their disposition",[6][7] which turns into an addiction for Beth". So there's the part about the tranquilizers. The next sentence says, "She quickly becomes a strong chess player due to her visualization skills". There's the part about chess. This looks fine to me. To add something at this point, connecting the tranquilizers with the chess skill, we would need some fairly clear statement of that connection in the movie. The world is full of addicts, and the world is full of talented people, and there are many people who are in both classes, but there are many more people who are not, so I do not normally assume that there is a cause/effect connection. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. For the umpteenth time: her visualization skills does not (necessarily) make her a strong player. It's equally possible they're the technique Netflix is using to show us how strong player she is by having her project the board on the ceiling. It's a way of showing, not telling, things like "she thinks about chess all the time" (which indeed helps make you better). So The next sentence says, "She quickly becomes a strong chess player due to her visualization skills". There's the part about chess. This looks fine to me. suggests to me we're still at square one and you haven't read my posts here at all. I have made this argument so many times!

Instead, I held (and hold) the belief that she quickly found that the drugs really helped her play chess (whether by putting her brain in overdrive or simply by letting her focus and ignore distractions like anxieties is immaterial) and that was why she, out of all the orphans, was literally caught with her hand in the jar, setting up her life-long battle.

Anyway, whether she actually needed - or benefited from - drugs is beside the issue. To me it's obvious she did not think she would do as well without drugs. (The alternative which to the best of my comprehension goes something like "I do well at the board and don't need any help but still just like a hit because I'm also a druggie" is genuinely baffling to me.)

So. I think the current phrasing is dead wrong. Removing the tranquilizers but not the visualization is even more wrong.

Remember, we're having this discussion specifically because someone asked Do tranquilizers really "Enhance" a person's "visualization skills".

My answer is: Of course not. Beth certainly believed she needed the drugs, but whether she did so because they "upgraded her visualization" (whatever that means) or whether the visualization is just Netflix's way of showing us how good/focused/gifted she is, and she found that the drugs helped her [calm down/focus/whatever/did nothing but acted as placebo] we can't know. CapnZapp (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion for a compromise is to mention something along the lines of she did drugs because she felt them help her overcome her difficulties so she could do better at the one thing that mattered to her. Obviously drugs have a back side, but it's not necessary to make sure every single sentence on Wikipedia cautions against drug use. CapnZapp (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And, oh, to repeat myself again: mentioning the visualization gimmick is perfectly fine. It would be strange to omit one of the most striking and memorable visual images of the show. CapnZapp (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. In all my contributions to this thread I have tried to respond directly to your arguments, but evidently it has not worked. Perhaps we're doomed to talk past each other, but since you're still trying, I'm still trying too.

I do not know where you are getting the idea that "she quickly found that the drugs really helped her play chess ...". Of course, anything that makes you feel better can be said to help you play chess, but that is not a very interesting observation. In the movie, Beth doesn't take tranquilizers before playing with Shaibel or Ganz. She takes one at the high school simultaneous display, and that scene illustrates her desperate craving for tranquilizers, but it doesn't connect tranquilizers with chess; presumably she would have had the same desperate craving at that moment even if she were in some other activity. She wasn't working on chess when she went to raid the pharmaceutical room. Later, when she hits bottom at home, she isn't playing any chess at all.

In the larger picture, as editors of this article, if we're going to make statements about Beth's motivation, we have to get them from the movie, not from our own heads. "It's obvious that Beth thought ..." is not sufficient.

I also disagree with your characterization of chess as "the one thing that mattered to her". It's a coming-of-age story, and there are lengthy and important scenes involving social life with members of both sexes, romance, legal and moral issues, finance, and so on -- as you'd expect in a coming-of-age story. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Capn, you're going too far out on a limb to assesrt that Harmon uses drugs because it makes her play better chess and chess is the only thing that matters to her. I think what is shown is compatible with that interpretation, but I don't think it's the only explanation that fits and it might not even seem the most likely. I disagree strongly with Bruce about whether the show indicates that Harmon uses tranquilizers to improve her chess because the show makes it abundantly clear that the character thinks she needs tranquilizers to in order to calculate. I disagree strongly with you that Harmon uses drugs only or even primarily because it makes her better at chess. It seems more likely to me that Harmon started using drugs because they provided her some relief from a dreary or painful childhood in an orphanage and then continued as a teenager and adult for probably several reasons, chess being only one of them. I am also not sure that chess is the one thing that mattered to her, although it certainly is the central point of her life. One of the interesting things about The Queen's Gambit is that Harmon rarely verbalizes what she is feeling, so the show invites the viewer to try to figure out what is going on inside Harmon's head based primarily on observing Taylor-Joy's performance. (Many viewers and critics enjoyed this, but I think some liked it less.) I don't agree at all that the article should claim "she did drugs because she felt them help her overcome her difficulties so she could do better at the one thing that mattered to her". If you can find a WP:RS that says that it might be used in the article, but there's no way a wikipedia editor should make that claim themselves merely based on their interpretation from viewing of the show. Quale (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

From the sources I've found, most seem to make link between the tranquilizers and the visualizing/calculation:

• On the advice of her friend and fellow orphan Jolene, Beth starts saving her pills for bedtime, where she quickly discovers that they help her visualize the chess board she’s just started learning about from Mr. Shaibel....From the beginning, her brilliance at the game is presented as intrinsically connected to her use of substances...[7]
• As a child in an orphanage, Beth is given daily green pills, which she soon begins to abuse. She stockpiles the pills, taking a handful at once so she can stay up and hallucinate games of chess on the ceiling of her room.[8]
• Beth takes large doses of xanzolam before bed in order to see chess pieces on the ceiling, which allows her to work through strategies. It's unclear in The Queen's Gambit if Beth is hallucinating, or if the drugs simply allow her to unlock her own mental potential.[9]
• Beth's nightly routine of playing chess with giant pieces skittering across a checkerboard on her ceiling seems pretty far-fetched. However, hallucinations are one of the reported side effects of the real-life drug Librium.[10]
• For Beth, that means that they put her in an altered state; once she is introduced to a chessboard, the pills allow her to hallucinate the pieces on her bedroom ceiling, mapping out moves late into the night.[11]

It may be better to quote some of these sources rather than using Wikipedia voice though. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

These sources change the picture for me. From my POV, "tranquilizers as performance drug" was too wack to discuss, but apparently the rest of the world thinks it needs to discussed. Thanks to PK3 for finding these. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued discussion. Just to make a short comment: from the first quoted source, I far prefer the second phrasing over the first. That is, I find Beth starts saving her pills for bedtime, where she quickly discovers that they help her visualize the chess board fails to address the question "is the visualization there as a technique used by the director for us in the audience to understand that the drugs help her performance, or do they literally make her brain project the board in her mind?" (In other words, I answer the thread starter's question with "no, that's unknowable")

In comparison I could easily get behind From the beginning, her brilliance at the game is presented as intrinsically connected to her use of substances as something we could assert either way as something central to the show. That's just the first example. CapnZapp (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear in The Queen's Gambit if Beth is hallucinating, or if the drugs simply allow her to unlock her own mental potential. Exactly my point! Halleluja! CapnZapp (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I encourage you to go for it. After all, only one of us has been repeatedly ignored/reverted, so excuse me if I am not going to spend the time repurposing review sources into a section that normally aren't using quotes. I will certainly re-engage once the basic structure has survived any initial rounds of reverts, and the chances of that happening seem to be much greater if one of the reverters are actively showing, not telling, us what's acceptable. CapnZapp (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is happening. It's almost as if people are satisfied blocking other people from contributing while feeling absolutely zero obligation to contribute themselves. No wonder Wikipedia has troubles attracting new editors... CapnZapp (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Such comments are also not conductive for a good atmosphere... As to the issue of this thread, you have written so much, that I don't even understand what your point of view is here. You have even managed to confuse me as to what the question is. I though the question is whether we can say that the series shows that Beth's visualization skills are improved by tranquilizers, and I hold that yes. Now what do you think the question is, and what is your answer to it? 20:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

I have written out my issue possibly three full times (timestamps 18:20, 1 July 2021; 13:49, 9 July 2021 and 16:49, 13 July 2021), I cannot see any benefit in doing it a fourth. PLEASE read what is already here on the page - if you read a single section in isolation rather than quickly scanning the whole page I am certain you will find it digestible (each of my such attempts started with an outdent). On the other hand, if you ask specific questions I would be happy to answer them. CapnZapp (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I asked a specific question, you refuse to answer it. You are generally not being helpful here. You clearly have a problem with working on a community project. No point in continuing this discussion. My point of view os clearly stated in my previous post. Any body want to discuss further, please, otherwise, this is closed and status quo remains. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Debresser, now you are Sealioning me. If your notion of asking a specific question is Now what do you think the question is, and what is your answer to it? I can't and won't help you. (Hint: your question resets the discussion to square one. It is basically the most generic and least specific question imaginable!) If you are unable (or worse, can't be arsed) to comprehend my point of view despite me trying no less than three times, even if you disagree I do hope you are able to sympathize if I consider any further attempts to be a fucking waste of time. Again, please understand I'm not more than mildly irritated here - if you can be bothered to at least show you tried to understand one of my attempts (by asking questions specific to that attempt, such as "what do you mean when you say NNN?") I would love to respond. Have a nice day and please don't take it personally just because I won't let you off the hook. CapnZapp (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please notice that you utterly useless and mildly hostile reply had as only effect to completely stop any discussion altogether. You might want to reconsider editing a community-based website, if you are not at ease interacting with other people. And you might want to consider replying to my question after all. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Just ask a specific question like I asked you to. I'm not going to answer Now what do you think the question is, and what is your answer to it? since it basically resets this entire talk discussion. Choose any one of my three attempts at explaining my point, and tell me what about it you find unclear and I will give you a reply. Deal? CapnZapp (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

the real BH speculation

Found this:

"The latest NiC [New in Chess, published in the Netherlands] includes an article about the debated question of who if anyone was the real-life model for Beth Harmon in The Queen’s Gambit. Prevailing views have included Lisa Lane, a US champion of the 1960s, or a feminised version of Bobby Fischer. But the article by GM Larry Kaufman offers strong evidence that the real model was Dianna Lanni, board two for the US in the 1982 Lucerne Olympiad and thus known to the book’s author, Walter Tevis.

Harmon’s portrayal as a player who jumped from novice to master has been criticised, but this happened to Lanni, whose surge took her from beginner at age 19 to her peak result, an Olympiad draw against the legendary Nona Gaprindashvili, women’s world champion from 1962 to 1978."

Does someone have access to this article? CapnZapp (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned the little-known Diana (correct spelling) Lanni in the Beth Harmon article, maybe we can work it into this article too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Online I found Batgirls Chess.com blog about her and Shahade's podcast. What's needed are sources Wikipedia considers reliable (not self-published), hence my interest in that Dutch mag. (Since there seems to be very little info published about Lanni, maybe she isn't independently notable but we can still mention her as a possible model for Tevis' character if we can just ref it) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To be honest the Beth Harmon article is fannish and more or less duplicates the current article. I wouldn't be opposed to deleting it. I cited Jennifer Shahade's podcast (the poker grid) which seems like a reasonable source to me. Shahade also wrote about Lanni in her book "Chess Bitch". Sarah Cohen (Batgirl) is also quite well regarded for the quality of her research. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look entirely sound to claim that Lanni was the inspiration for Beth Harmon, on the basis of interviews with Lanni. We aren't supposed to be relying on autobiographical information, right? Not that it couldn't be true, but with Tevis being deceased, and the book having been written almost 40 years ago, we're skating on thin ice. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Note:: Please keep the Reflist-talk template at the very end of the section. I've added the supplied editor comment to help out with this. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to claim (with our editorial voice) "Lanni was Harmon". What we can do is report on notable speculation. For instance, if we find the article written by that GM in the Dutch mag, it strikes me as a potentially credible source, perhaps worthy of a mention. That does not mean we should phrase it as truth (=as something our editorial voice confirms). As for batgirls and poker grids, podcasts and blogs aren't admissible sources per WP:RS, but if we can track down a reference from Shahade's book that could be promising. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, WP:RS makes no mention of podcasts specifically. They are potentially just as much a source as any other published media. What it does refer to is self-published sources, potential objections to the Shahade and Batgirl articles. I would argue that they are both acknowledged experts in the field of women's chess history. Disparaging Sarah Beth Cohen for her pen-name shows ignorance, as does referring to the well-established NiC as "the Dutch chess mag" as if it's some obscure publication. A more serious concern is that Lanni is a living person with a troubled past, so anything we write on wikipedia about her needs a solid source per WP:BLP. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a talk page, Max. No need to get upset by my informal language. CapnZapp (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to get upset by my disrespectful language. Fixed it for you. And if someone indicates to you that they're annoyed by your behaviour, you don't get to tell them they shouldn't be. So cut that shit out. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Max but I mean zero disrespect when I talk about that Dutch mag (a magazine I didn't even knew existed). I really don't. I was the one bringing up New in Chess, so I certainly do not think it is obscure or not sufficiently established. In fact I brought it up because I thought y'all would appreciate the potential source. And I'm not telling you you shouldn't be annoyed. I'm telling you you don't need to be annoyed. Why? Because there's no intent here. Trust me, I would know. CapnZapp (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop making ridiculous judgement errors about every topic in the thread then — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:7601:7D57:18F:9263:CBAA:C41A (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assessments of Shahade, Batgirl, and NIC as reliable sources. I am still skeptical of the idea that "X was the model for character Y in novel Z" is something we can say ourselves in this situation, even citing those sources. I would be surprised if Tevis did not get ideas for Beth from several different "models". It is tempting to draw parallels between BH and, for example, Lanni, just because it makes BH look like a realistically drawn character in spite of her unusual life story. But it's quite another thing to say, "Lanni was the model for BH". The authoritative answer to the question of who, if anyone, was the model, I would say, must come from primary sources. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear there will likely never be a time when it's a good idea for us to say "Person X was the inspiration for Beth Harmon" or similar. What we're discussing here is the possible inclusion of a statement along the lines of "Several persons have been suggested as chief role models for Tevis' character. In New In Chess Grandmaster Kaufman posits Diana Lanni as the main inspiration, noting the following similarities between Lannis and Harmon's careers: X, Y and Z". Just to make up an example. So "X was the model for character Y in novel Z" told by our article's editorial voice was never on the board (not to me anyway). CapnZapp (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is actually proposing that we write in wikipedia's voice that Lanni was definitely the model for Harmon. What we can say, and reliably source, is that there are certain parallels between the two, that Tevis almost certainly knew Lanni personally, and that she was a possible inspiration for the character. No doubt Tevis also drew on his own experiences dealing with feelings of abandonment as a child and alcohol dependency, and his own experiences as an amateur (club level) chess player. I seem to recall Pandolfini (who knew Tevis and was involved in both the novel and the mini-series as a consultant) explicitly said that Harmon was not based on Fischer. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've found another batgirl article which includes a reproduction of a 1983 interview with Tevis by Marcia Soltis (Andrew Soltis's wife) for Chess Life. I think it's quite relevant in that he denies any of his characters were based on real life people. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a copy of that old issue of Chess Life (May 1983 in case anyone wants to check it out), and what do you know, Tevis says that the book was ... autobiographical! He mentions specifically the pills and alcohol, introversion, time spent in an institution, and talent (but his was for writing, not chess). I would still be interested in seeing what Kaufman says about Lanni, because I actually played a game once with Lanni (late 70's or early 80's), but according to Soltis, "... [Tevis] emphasizes that he made no effort to portray any real chess personalities in his novel. In fact, he did not speak to any female chessplayers as part of his research. ... he went out of his way in The Queen's Gambit to avoid having any man or woman in the chess world thinking that he or she was being used as any of the lead characters." Bruce leverett (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

All of this is great and to me there seems to be enough substance to have a subsection about Harmon's identity (provided reliable sourcing, as always) CapnZapp (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the right place to talk about this is in the article about the book, rather than the article about the movie. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

We should acknowledge that the vast majority of inquiries about "was Harmon based on a real person?" is after the show, triggered by the show. Seems natural to me this article needs to address the issue. That doesn't mean we need to duplicate our info. We could use {{main}} for instance to write a short blurb that mostly just refers to the other article. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay so no takers of the NiC article. Found what I believe is the same info in Tatler instead; Beth Harmon updated. CapnZapp (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

References

It's fiction

I think it should say that it's fiction straight away in the Lede and not make the reader dig into the body in order to figure it out.68.206.248.178 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It says drama, and later in the sentence says novel (of the same name). As well as I know, both drama and novel imply fiction, though sometimes there is docudrama, fictional but based on a true story. I don't know the actual origin of this story. There have been some surprising young chess prodigies, which might have inspired the story. If one clicks on the link to the book, it says fictional on the first line. Gah4 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That's nice, but the Lede should still broadcase FICTION in the first sentence and not weasel-around with "drama", and as far as "inspiring" young chess prodigies, the basis of the show is that the protagonist chess player illegally takes prescription narcotics in order to gain her "super" chess abilities. That's why it needs to say FICTION in the first sentence of the Lede, so that there is no doubt that the story is FICTION. Because a young person reading this Article might not interpret "drama" to mean FICTION, and this is FICTION and so the word FICTION should be used to convey the fact that it is FICTION.68.206.248.178 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

How would they interpret drama, if not to be fiction? Drama = fiction. --SubSeven (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I oppose that for another reason. We do not try to convey any messages to people. It is not our job t avoid youth making the wrong decisions here. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think if Wikipedia can censor the names of mass murderers for the purpose of denying them publicity for their political beliefs, Wikipedia can also call describe FICTION, using the word "FICTION". Further, "drama" can mean anthing. It's not a choice between drama or FICTION. There's a whole lot of grey between the two. For some reason I sense people kind of LIKE the idea that the show conveys the idea that taking illegal narcotics will make teenage and young women better chess players, and that's the only reason for opposing this suggestion.68.206.248.178 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. Personally, I oppose almost all censoring. By the way, use italics to convey stress, not capital letters. See MOS:EMPHCAPS. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note - the MOS applies to article space, not talk space. For talk page guidelines, please see WP:TALK. Most germane section might be WP:SHOUT, but note how it does not prohibit emphasis, it only recommends against excessive use of it. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I’d argue those guidelines not only prevent the overuse of emphasis but also recommend rarely using caps specifically2603:6010:7601:7D57:C9CC:2843:54C1:8FEB (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The claim that editors aren't saying "fiction" because they have some twisted ulterior motive is unreasonable. Also see WP:GOODFAITH. Most of the editors of this article were simply trying to make it a better article. It would be silly to try to fit the word "fiction" into a paragraph whose first sentence includes the phrase "coming-of-age period drama miniseries based on Walter Tevis's 1983 novel". Very few articles about television miniseries, if any, find it necessary to use the word "fiction". Adding wholly redundant material does not make it a better article. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it should say that it's fiction straight away in the Lede and not make the reader dig into the body in order to figure it out. I sincerely believe not figuring it out just from the lede is sufficiently rare that we do not need to spell it out. I do think it is possible (and can happen to anyone) to go into an article with preconceived notions and be annoyed when those aren't addressed. That kind of bias can be incredibly difficult to realize yourself. But in this case I genuinely believe "Queen's Gambit is historical fact until Wikipedia says it isn't" is not a notion we need to dispel directly/explicitly. CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"Drama" directly entails fiction. 65.27.204.252 (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to write in their respective leads "David Copperfield is a work of fiction", "War and Peace is a work of fiction", "Star Wars is a work of fiction", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a work of fiction" etc etc? This is absurd. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

the full story

I believe their should the full plot like you get to see other movies and TV shows have here it is t in detail maybe add more detail Ameershahul29 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually there is currently too much detail in the episode summaries. They should only summarise the main plot. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Gaprindashvili lawsuit

WP:NOTNEWS warns against describing every twist and turn in the ongoing lawsuit in the Wikipedia article about the miniseries:

While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

The recent decision by a judge to allow the lawsuit to proceed looks to me like an example of what not to cover. As User:CapnZapp has suggested, we should wait until the lawsuit is concluded before summarizing it. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

A comment, to User:Michuk: your edit immediately following mine amounts to a stealth revert, adding back pretty much the same info I pruned, just phrased differently. Please use the built-in undo functionality when doing that so it is obvious to me you are objecting to my edits. If it hadn't been for Bruce starting this topic, I could easily have missed it. Also, "Added links" is a wholly unsatisfactory edit summary of such a revert-y edit. Finally, I have cautioned you on your talk page on the (mis)use of the minor edits check box. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why it must wait until the lawsuit finishes, the mere fact of it is ironic being a female-centered series snubbing a female chess master - whatever the result of the case. Dudanotak (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The article has already mentioned the start of the lawsuit. There's nothing wrong with this. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are perfectly clear, Bruce. Dudanotak, if you look at the edit history you will see what content is being contested here. The basic fact "she sued Netflix" is not in contention. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact the lawsuit was not immediately dismissed it noteworthy, in addition to a summary of the legal teams of both sides of the case is clearly note worthy given the level of coverage given in RSs.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"a shame, of course"

I can't find the "a shame, of course" quotation in the relevant citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:4080:A330:8481:F0EF:DBDD:F50A (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It's in footnote 92, which is a Russian-language article by BBC Russia. (I don't know Russian, but I looked at a translation.) There is a general policy, WP:NONENG, saying that English-language sources are "preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance", but I haven't checked what is available at this point. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the Russian word translates as "a shame" as in "disgraceful", rather than as in "unfortunate". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the quotations pending input from someone fluent in Russian. I expect this situation to be temporary only. CapnZapp (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've seen Gaprindashvili as an occasional guest commentator on chess24, she's fluent in Georgian and Russian but not English. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but my concern was over our (=the collective of editors of this article) ability to properly translate sources in Russian. Since the veracity of the quote(s) was questioned, I pulled them. I expect and hope this will only be temporary until someone fluent in Russian can check what's what. Specific to this talk section, the question is: would "a shame, of course" be correct and appropriate? (Note: machine translation can be great for understanding, but probably aren't when it comes to providing quotes. If I had considered that a good idea, I would have checked the original Russian myself.) CapnZapp (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice to figure out the proper idiomatic translation, but your temporary solution looks OK, until and unless. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the original BBC Russian interview. The word she used, обидно (obidno), means "offensive", or in the context "I'm offended". The root word is обида. "конечно" (konechno) is a common filler word in Russian meaning "sure", "right", "of course". Seems to me "a shame of course" is a poor translation. "Sure it's offensive" would be closer. It was actually the BBC interviewer who introduced the word, she just repeated the word and added "konechno". She was basically just agreeing with the interviewer. So it's not especially quotable. We could possibly cite the BBC Russian interview, and say she described it as "offensive" (cites don't have to be in English). But that's more or less covered in the other quote, and probably isn't needed in the article. (See you don't need to be fluent in Russian to do research). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

lol (Thank you for the lesson Max :) CapnZapp (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW is apparent here. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

---

The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) → The Queen's Gambit – Obviously the primary topic for "Queen's Gambit", without the definite article, is the chess opening, per long-term significance, and I'm aware of what might be a WP:RECENTISM bias, but I kind of feel like this might be an appropriate case for applying WP:SMALLDETAILS, and avoiding the need for a disambiguator. Obviously the opening can be prefaced with "the", but in common usage it often isn't, and when I Google for the term including the definite article, it seems like almost all the results I get relate to the Netflix series. Currently The Queen's Gambit points to a disambiguation page (with no other entries actually titled that way), and I'd definitely envisage a hatnote to the opening on this page, so readers will still be one click away if it's the chess page they want. Finally, FWIW, the miniseries dominates the opening in terms of page views. Again, that's not an argument I'd use for moving Queen's Gambit, but might be relevant here.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The primary meaning of "Queen's Gambit" or "The Queen's Gambit" is still the chess opening. No problem with disambiguation links. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is there not also the novel with the same title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.182.12 (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It would be a bit strange to disambiguate the novel but not the tv show when they share the exact same title... (not my main argument against a move, just an observation) CapnZapp (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. 162 etc. (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. CapnZapp (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Note we already have a specific hat note on Queen's Gambit leading here (as opposed to just being included in the list at Queen's Gambit (disambiguation) so I think we're good. CapnZapp (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose while the miniseries does get more views (68,921) it does seem likely the chess opening (21,206) and novel (8,506)[[12]] are primary by long-term significance. I agree with the OP that the chess opening isn't likely to be searched for with the definite article it does seem like the novel has enough long-term significance to challenge the fairly recent miniseries. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and speedy close the chess move is generally capitalized so this move would really be unhelpful to anyone looking for the long term encyclopaedic subject. Also unhelpful to anyone looking for the miniseries. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per DISAMBIGUATION and COMMON NAME. Please close this. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Luchenko described as her penultimate opponent in Moscow

In the Cast and Characters section Luchenko is described as "Beth's penultimate opponent in Moscow." In the series she plays Flento after Luchenko, perhaps the original editor meant her penultimate opponent excluding Borgov? Given that as I understand it Borgov did not play in the tournament in Moscow, only facing the winner, however Beth still does play against Borgov in Moscow, so would that not make Flento her penultimate opponent? Luna Wagner (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Quite right, Luna Wagner. Whether the proliferation of sources calling Luchenko her "penultimate" opponent ultimately is because of our article, I don't know. Anyway, I didn't just remove the secondary phrase. I kept the "and..." replacing his description with an adjective that refers to how he is the only one that appears to respect her. (Feel free to improve further). CapnZapp (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember off-hand what is said specifically in the show, but the chess world is commonly organized in such a way that there is a tournament of "candidates" to decide who gets to challenge the champion. Luchenko would then be her penultimate foe in that tournament. But given that our article doesn't go into such detail (explaining the difference between the candidates tournament and then subsequent championship match for the title) we can't claim Luchenko is her penultimate opponent "in Moscow" since both the tournament and the match happens in that same city. CapnZapp (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

In the series she always seems to get her most challenging opponent in the last round, and it's always some kind of "final". This is done for dramatic purposes and is not realistic. High level tournaments are usually all-play-all (round robin) format and the order of opponents is decided by random draw. This was even more the case in the 1960s, well before the recent fashion for knockout match tournaments like the World Chess Cup. There's also no suggestion that this is a Candidates Tournament for the World Championship, otherwise Borgov wouldn't be in it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about realism isn't relevant; this is a tv show that might well put drama before realism. In this case, however, her last opponent before Borgov is Flento, an opponent the show quickly glosses over with no drama or fanfare. So we could argue that particular trope is rather subverted in this particular case (even if it is not in Harmon's earlier tournaments) if she's participating in a Candidates-style tournament to see who gets to play the champion for the title: her last opponent in that tournament would then be Flento, someone the show doesn't focus on.

The point Luna is making here, however, is that describing Luchenko as the "penultimate" opponent is true in the likely original context of "...before facing the Champion Borgov" (a distinction precious few web sites make), which makes sense (again) if she's participating in a Candidates-style tournament to see who gets to play the champion for the title. Somehow, though, this ended up as Luchenko being described as "Beth's penultimate opponent in Moscow," which is NOT true, since she faces everybody in that same city, the three last ones being Luchenko, then Flento, and finally Borgov. Hope that clears it up CapnZapp (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)