SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Movies and television shows are full of blunders, some more noticeable than others, and each with their specific guild of victims. Ornithologists fume when British period dramas are overdubbed with American birdsongs. Government employees will tell you that the supposed main White House staffer in Contact has a nonexistent job. Archeologists hate movie shipwrecks, and marine biologists are already mad about the zombie sharks in the upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean installment, which, as cartilaginous fishes, should not have ribs—even ghostly ones.
But these are merely occasional grievances. There's one group of experts who can barely flip on the television without being exposed to egregious, head-on-desk mistakes: chess players.
"There are a ton of chess mistakes in TV and in film," says Mike Klein, a writer and videographer for Chess.com. While different experts cite different error ratios, from "20 percent" to "much more often than not," all agree: Hollywood is terrible at chess, even though they really don't have to be. "There are so many [errors], it's hard to keep track," says Grandmaster Ilja Zaragatski, of chess24. "And there are constantly [new ones] coming out."
[...] Peter Doggers of Chess.com notes another Dramatic Checkmate move: the felled king. "Tipping over your king as a way of resigning the game is only done in movies," he says. (See Mr. Holland's Opus, in which Jay Thomas slaps his king down after being owned by Richard Dreyfuss).A normal chess player will just go in for a good-game-style handshake. "This falling king thing has somehow become a strong image in cinematography," he says, "But chess players always think: 'Oh no, there we go again...'"
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:45PM (10 children)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWBahvjEUps&list=PLD2CE5FFA0835324D [youtube.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:53AM (4 children)
Lexx season 4 episode 18 The Game
"A grippingly executed chess game derived from The Seventh Seal."
The entire episode consists of one completely genuine chess match.
Parent post is a counterexample to the "news" piece.
The moderator who marked it Spam is a FUCKING IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT.
Which is perfectly NORMAL for SOYLENT MOTHERFUCKING IDIOT NEWS.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:05AM
And if you had put that all that in the post, then it would not have looked like spam.
No one here is going to click on some random unlabeled youtube link.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:45AM
The moderator who marked it Spam is a FUCKING IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT.
I did it. I am Spamacus.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:59AM
Let's see here:
1) Single word as title = +1
2) Non-descriptive link = +1
3) Link goes to javascript only site = +1
4) JS-req link posted without warning at a site with an above average percentage of users with JS turned off = +1
5) Video-only with no warning = +1
6) Non-described url posted as AC = +1
Total = 6.
Yup, I'd classify that as spam as well. Next time, provide context/description for your url (heck, we even warn for microsoft.com when it comes to JS, so "it's youtube" is no excuse)
Only way you could have posted that worse would have been with a url-shortener.
However, the content (assuming the description is apt, I don't know since I don't visit js-laden sites nor video-sites) was appreciated. So, keep it up and please warn for JS and video in the future and post a (short) description with the link.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:05AM
big-ol'-whiner.js
(Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:56AM (4 children)
The initial set up had the queens on the wrong colors. Corrected when they changed to heads.
The colors of the squares were initially reversed, too. Also later corrected.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:30AM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:20PM (2 children)
And the white king moved into check after mate was called. There's no intrinsic reason the rules should forbid that
The principle of chess is to take the opponent's king, but it is chess etiquette for the loser to resign as soon as he sees that as inevitable. "Check Mate" is when the inevitable is just one move ahead. The better the player the further ahead they can see the inevitablity.
As a brilliant player myself, I can see that I am going to be beaten so far ahead that I always resign after my opponent makes his very first move.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday March 24 2017, @07:54AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday March 25 2017, @07:32PM
A good chess player I knew played against an early implementation of computer chess. He beat it, but even though in checkmate the computer continued to play. So my friend took its king, but the computer still did not give up, continuing to play! My friend then took all the computer's pieces, whereupon the program crashed.
Obviously the programmer did not know the rules of chess entirely and/or assumed his program would never be beaten.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:01AM (14 children)
Let's start a list of the things that Hollywood doesn't take liberties with...
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:02AM (4 children)
... starting with the way movies are made.
Hollywood doesn't even depict itself accurately in movies.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:05AM (2 children)
Not enough of the casting couch for your taste I reckon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:22AM (1 child)
... there are specialty sires for that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:27AM
To sire: procreate as the male parent of (Merriam-Webster)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:17AM
Well, given that their portrayal is that wrong, quite obviously they have no clue of how film making works. ;-)
Or maybe they actively mislead in order to keep competition away? :-)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:41AM (7 children)
Real people are bad enough. I had to beat the shit out of a person I was playing chess with because they tried to switch their king and rook around toward each other. He insisted that it was a real move but he also insisted that you can switch out a pawn when it reaches the other side -- chess isn't fucking checkers.
Good jokes are fun every now and then, but people who make up the rules as they go along and are just assholes. Chess also isn't fucking Dungeons and Dragons, there's a strict set of rules that apply regardless who's playing.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:53AM (1 child)
I've been advised to play a special version where you can't rip people's arms off when you lose.
Makes hyperspace travel quite boring.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:58AM
I'll just stick to Chessboxing [wikipedia.org].
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:00AM
I especially enjoy the episode where Ethanol-fueled gets raped up the ass and gives birth to an alien shit monster.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:33AM (3 children)
Chess also isn't fucking Dungeons and Dragons
I can add rules to it that'll fix that. Chess with spellcasting and player combat is much more fun than your boring move-the-pieces around version.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:54PM (1 child)
Pieces gain experience and level up? A pawn with two kills can be knighted?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:07PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightmare_Chess [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:58PM
If you're bored with regular chess, you should check out Baroque/Ultima. It's kind of an inversion of regular chess and requires more concentration IMO.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:20PM
Better, yet. Let's worry about the whole "it's OK to violate the Constitution, Due Process, and the Geneva Convention 'cause you're really sure that's the bad guy" trope, first.
Normalizing that abuse is a bit more of a concern that a miss-aligned chessboard.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:11AM (19 children)
How come almost every Sci-Fi set has sparks shooting out from something? After you realize this you'll see it in almost anything Sci-Fi.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:24AM (5 children)
Yeah, and how come the Star Trek had a black woman phone operator who was somehow a competent electrical engineer? That was just beyond belief.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:49AM (3 children)
They compensated for that later on when Worf and his exoskeletal BBC were in the rut [wikia.com] and he broke into Troi's quarters and bit her on the neck while savagely violating her in her own bathtub.
The crew may have been restored to their current evolutionary state, but that in later episodes Worf and Troi grew close is no accident. This was back in the days of Heavy Metal-style [heavymetal.com] primal fetishism before it devolved into cheesy image macros of captions and pregnant white women overlaid with reproductive system diagrams.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:58AM (1 child)
Rule #1: Kill Ethanol-Fueled dead.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:21AM
He'll just come back as zombie Brains-Fuelled.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:11AM
constantly reminding one of a pet Targ.
Or is that 'easily beaten like a rented Targ'?
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Friday March 24 2017, @02:15AM
You do realize that Star Trek was appointment TV for MLK? Back in the '60s, the few black woman on TV were maids, and she was a fricken *Star ship officer*. Nichelle Nichols wanted to quit Star Trek so she could pursue a Broadway career, but MLK talked her out of it.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:25AM (11 children)
Never understood why it was even possible for consoles to explode in Star Trek.
In addition to seat-belts, the also lost fuse technology, apparently.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:31AM (2 children)
The fuse became lost technology during World War 3.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:21AM (1 child)
Well, not exactly lost, but the fuses became that expensive that they figured it would be cheaper if they just replaced the screen. ;-)
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:30PM
This one actually makes sense - if your ship has replicators and a hefty excess of energy available it would be faster and easier to just rip the panel out and pop in a new one rather than locating and finding the fuse.
Similar stuff actually often is done at high-reliability installations - keep a backup unit of anything likely to break and when it breaks replace with the backup, order a new backup, and ship off the broken unit for repair.
But yeah - in the real world they keep an extra fuse/breaker to avoid the star-trekky.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:11PM (6 children)
It's not just fuse technology, it's bizarre electrical design. Why would you route so much power through a bridge console? These are control devices; they only need a minimal amount of power for lighting up and displaying information on the screens. The high-power stuff is located elsewhere on the ship, and can be controlled through these devices with network connections, probably over fiber-optics.
Honestly, as an EE, the exploding consoles (which even kill people sometimes) is easily the most disappointing thing about Star Trek to me. It just makes no sense at all, and was clearly put there for drama only. There's plenty of other ways for crewmembers to get injured or killed, especially during a battle (perhaps the inertial dampers failed or had a brownout during a torpedo hit); there's no reason to resort to a plot device that anyone with a basic understanding of electricity, and who knows what a "relay" is, would immediately see is BS.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:45PM (2 children)
But they *do* have an answer for that. "an overload". You see, the consoles are not designed to route that much power.
Or are us saying any overload should only blow the relays that will obviously be needed?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:13PM (1 child)
Yes, an overload should only blow out relays. There shouldn't even be any power connections to the consoles capable of routing anywhere near that much power. Fiber-optic cabling can't route any power at all, at least not electrical power, only a tiny amount of light used for signaling. Even if you designed a ship like that with modern electronics technology, and for cheapness's sake used Ethernet cable instead of fiber, 30 gauge Ethernet wire isn't going to route any power at all; the wire would simply vaporize somewhere, probably close to the overload spot. The wire itself would act as a fuse. Modern cars even do this, and have for a long time; instead of using fuses in some places, they use "fusable links", which is nothing more than a short section of wire of small diameter which will burn up and fail first.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:39PM
Well, some PHB might have overheard that "standardizing makes everything simpler" and later asked if the panel's power-req could be routed via the turbolift power system cables... or maybe they decided on using phaser-grade electrical system.
I mean, we are talking about a universe where most stuff is virtually free and superconductors are readily available - the potential for PHBs to run amok with no budgetrestrictions are scary.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:53PM (2 children)
perhaps the inertial dampers failed or had a brownout during a torpedo hit
It would be rather amusing to have one of the bridge crew fail to shout out "captain, the inertial dampers have failed!" fast enough during battle, captain orders a maneuver, and immediately the entire crew is smeared across the nearest wall.
Next episode: "Captain Drake taking over, here. After replacing the crew, I am inspecting my new command..."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:08PM
Yeah, the inertial dampers can't fail that badly or else all the humans will be dead, and probably the ship will be crushed too. Even in ST:TNG, they had the concept of the "structural integrity field", which you can read about in the Technical Manual, and actually has to be running any time the ship is moving. They realized that with the g-forces in the maneuvers the ship was supposedly doing, that anything remotely like normal materials we have now would not be able to maintain structural integrity, so they invented the SIF to make it work. So when you see the crew being thrown around, the inertial dampers and SIF haven't actually *failed* outright, they're just not operating at 100%, so you could call it a "brown-out".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:31PM
How come the anti-gravity control never gets knocked out?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:03PM
Never understood why it was even possible for consoles to explode in Star Trek.
'Cause the Heisenberg Compensators failed to reverse the polarity of the dilitium crystals, DUH!!
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:42AM
I have seen that happen in real life exactly once. It was a tape deck from the '60s.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:30AM
...you can hear a kookaburra laughing [tvtropes.org].
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:55AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWBahvjEUps&list=PLD2CE5FFA0835324D [youtube.com]
Lexx season 4 episode 18 The Game
"A grippingly executed chess game derived from The Seventh Seal."
The entire episode consists of one completely genuine chess match.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:13AM (6 children)
Incorrect bird song?
Incorrect job title?
Incorrectly drawn shipwrecks or sharks?
And an incorrect chess move?
Wow, you think that is bad? That's nothing compared to TV channels that are dedicated entirely to spewing incorrect, retarded, drivel about some made up magic sky fairy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:11PM
Say what you will, Sky News has been around for 28 years.
(Score: 4, Funny) by lx on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:57PM (3 children)
That's no way to talk about Superman just because he wears tights and a cape.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:31PM (1 child)
What is with all the hate for tights anyway? As any remotely-serious cyclist or runner these days will tell you, tight-fitting pants are great for wearing during exercise. They allow freedom of movement, they don't get in the way, they're comfortable, they help regulate your body temperature and keep your muscles warm (cold muscles cramp), and they're lightweight. I see men wearing running tights all the time now when running or hiking, and cyclists have been wearing them even longer for good reason (baggy clothes get caught in the mechanism).
Capes, on the other hand, really make no sense at all unless you live in a primitive society where they haven't invented water-resistant fabrics for jackets. Unless your cape can turn solid and let you glide like Batman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:41PM
Robin Hood, is that you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:14PM
Well SuperGIRL, on the other hand, hmmm I would watch and wank a 24-hour a day TV channel about her and her Super Tits.
Bullet proof but still bleeds for three days a month? Go figure.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday March 24 2017, @04:15PM
Yep, they should only teach Catholic doctrine.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:24AM (3 children)
It is just a question of style or etiquette. Depicting an animal with no ribs as an animal with ribs IS 'head-on-desk' misinfomration.
Some other favorite movie lies:
-- Sound in space.
-- "Laser" weapons with light pulses that travel slower than a lead bullet.
-- Young adults with no apparent source of income living in luxurious apartments in New York and San Francisco.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:55PM (2 children)
-- Young adults with no apparent source of income living in luxurious apartments in New York and San Francisco.
All the characters on Friends and How I Met Your Mother have jobs.
Phoebe is a masseuse, Monica is a chef, Joey is an actor, Chandler works in an office, and Ross is a paleontologist at a museum.
Ted is an architect, Robin is a news anchor, Lily teaches kindergarten, and Marshall and Barney work in offices.
I would assume that, if not explicitly stated, most episodes are set after 5pm or on weekends.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:15PM (1 child)
There's no way in hell they could afford *luxurious* apartments on those paychecks. Perhaps the news anchor, *maybe* (maybe) the architect, but definitely not a masseuse, actor (he's not an A-list one obviously), paleontologist, kindergarten teacher, or random office drones.
However, the OP did call this a "movie lie", and Friends was not a movie, but a TV show.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:50PM
I wasn't contesting the "luxurious" part; I was contesting "no apparent source of income." Fair enough.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:41AM (12 children)
If you're a specialist of something, you're bound to notice Hollywoodisms and errors when your particular area of expertise if being shown in a movie.
Gunsmiths cringe when the hero fires hundreds of rounds from a single charger, operates a Minigun one-handed or when baddies fly 20 feet backward when hit by bullets.
Ham radio operators cringe when they hear bullshit morse code, or when some guy listening to morse code writes down 3 sentences for every 5 dits and dahs they hear.
Pool players cringe when the supposed pool shark has a completely incorrect stance and shaky bridge, or sinks the money ball on a foul and wins the game.
Computer engineers cringe when they see computers going beep-beep when someone types, huge PASSWORD screens that get defeated in 5 keystrokes while the hacker is being shot at, or when the computer talks back to the protagonists.
Car designers cringe when all cars invariable explode 2 minutes after an accident.
etc etc etc...
Hollywoodisms should die. But the thing is, people expect them in movies for some reason: cars can't just stay a twisted mass of metal after an accident, a computer can't show a tiny password prompt, baddies can't just drop dead on the spot. It'd just seem wrong to most people.
As for errors, if the director ensured the entire movie was correct in all aspects, the budget would shoot through the roof. Just take 2001: A Space Odyssey for instance: this movie was hugely expensive because Kubrik wanted the physics of things in space to be 100% correct. But 2001 only dealt with a very limited number of possible scenes, actions and settings. You can't really expect that level of obsession in a movie in which there are many protagonists doing many things in many areas.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:02AM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExplosiveInstrumentation [tvtropes.org]
If it doesn't go boom/zap/sparky, how will the audience know it broke?
A burned-out fuse under a panel (27 hex screws to access) just isn't going to do it.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by danmars on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:25AM (1 child)
100% agree. My area of highest expertise is in identity documents (driver's licenses, IDs, passports). When there's a spy movie and there's a spy waiting to see if his fake passport makes it by the border guards, and there's a clearly camera-based device with flatbed scanner-style lights moving around inside it, actual border or TSA people (and I) notice but nobody else is likely to. And when every single character ever has a license you can see and it's clearly completely fake or an ancient version of a card, only the people from that state who are watching closely (and I) are likely to ever notice. It's just the nature of having expertise and being around people who are clearly just faking it. That's what suspension of disbelief is for, anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:29AM
there's a clearly camera-based device with flatbed scanner-style lights moving around inside it
That's an ancient technology called a photo copier. It was used to create a piece of paper with the details of who passed through for archiving. It didn't actually check anything, though, that was done manually by the guards.
As such, it may just be a simple mistake by an older film director, who remembers passing such a border back when they still used photo copiers, and expects modern technology to be an evolution of those.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:39AM (3 children)
I would much rather all the money spent on CGI was spent on making a movie without CGI and all the explosions and junk, and focused on cinematography that showed you that the car was broke, the person was injured, the bullet-hole doesn't kill you immediately, etc. etc. etc.
Sure, action movies sell. But not everything has to be an action movie.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:36PM (2 children)
Mad Max: Fury Road
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:50PM (1 child)
how is the road furious?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:34PM
For me, it was when the road had to put out the fire on the War-rig, by dumping sand into the intake manifold. Seemed like a bad idea to me, but, hey! The rig kept running!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:31AM
Sometimes you need to adjust reality slightly for narrative purposes. Sometimes you do it simply because you're lazy. The first kind is fine, even laudable. We watch films for entertainment and that always includes some fantasy and escapism: if we wanted to experience a world exactly like the one that we live in, we wouldn't be watching the film.
The second kind is the annoying one. Morse is one good example of this: it's really tedious to watch someone transcribing morse, but it's not that hard to edit the film in such a way that it's clear that some time elapsed. Not doing so is lazy. The Matrix was another good example: the original scripts talked about humans being used as a distributed computing system, but they replaced this with some nonsense about perpetual motion machines made of humans (oh, and some fusion, so why do you need the low-power-output humans anyway?) because they thought it was less confusing. It's insulting (anyone who passed science at school knows that you can't generate power from nothing like that) and it's also lazy (if you can't write a couple of sentences of dialog to explain that concept to an audience, then you shouldn't be writing scripts).
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:05PM (1 child)
Indeed. Chess players think chess in movies is bad? Well, just look at the physics [intuitor.com] in movies!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:44PM
It must be worse for physicists, because every movie has physics in it but only a few have chess.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:37PM
Gunsmiths cringe when the hero fires hundreds of rounds from a single charger, operates a Minigun one-handed or when baddies fly 20 feet backward when hit by bullets.
Car designers cringe when all cars invariable explode 2 minutes after an accident.
I don't have to be a gunsmith to understand the basics of bullet physics (a tiny object does not have enough energy to pick up a human body and propel it 20 feet), or to know that cars don't explode routinely. The car thing is really bad, because most people (in the US at least) own and drive cars every day, so you'd think we'd know a few things about them. And plenty of us have been in accidents, or known people who were, or have seen accidents in traffic, and would know that it's not at all common for cars to explode after one.
Most people use computers these days too, and should know perfectly well that computers do not make beep-beep sounds when typing, and don't have huge PASSWORD screens or talk to people.
In summary, there's no reason to assume that non-experts wouldn't be able to spot all these things.
As for 2001, that's a movie set in space, and was filmed before humans had even reached the Moon. Cars having accidents isn't something remarkable that almost no one has experience with; everyone drives or rides in cars, and making a car explode costs a lot of money on-set, whereas having a car not explode costs much less. Having a computer act like a normal computer costs almost nothing; making it make stupid beep-beep noises and have a huge PASSWORD screen costs extra money.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:47PM
Ham radio operators cringe when they hear bullshit morse code
Haven't noticed lately, but in years past when you heard Morse in a movie it almost always said something. It might or might not have anything to do with the story; sometimes it was an Easter egg, and sometimes the director just wanted to be sure he wasn't being pranked.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:31AM (3 children)
"You sneaky son of a bitch."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky19-1fuL2U [youtube.com]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:26AM (2 children)
If I could play chess (let alone, board-less speed-chess) I'd call it a mediocre game where one side goes for end-game without enough pieces to close while the other gambles everything on a single pawn not being noticed.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:03PM (1 child)
The Immortal Game [wikipedia.org] is one of the most famous games in chess history.
Though, to be far, in modern times this would almost certainly not work between two masters. The all out attack kind of play that you would see from Paul Morphy would be defended against. The game has evolved since then, though it seems like it was more fun in the old days.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:34PM
You don't need to be a master to cringe over the material losses or the weak ass play going in for end-game with only a queen.
And sure, it's history. But it's about as praise worthy as the repetitive charges of the knights of Agincourt as they were being mulled down by arrows time and time again. I'll give you the 1st and 2nd... But the third was just carelessness.
Nostalgia aside, as OP argued, weak game.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ledow on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:36AM (2 children)
King-flipping is not a Hollywood invention.
I was taught it by a number of people independently, some old enough to have learned it when they were children, from others who learned it before Hollywood even showed a chessboard.
It's not a rule. It's a convention. Even a house rule in certain households. Much like almost all the home-made rules of games.
And, to be honest, so long as Hollywood doesn't feature, say, a documentary on Kasparov doing it where he wouldn't, who cares?
It's a clear sign, a powerful image (which is why it's used) and MANY people have used it for more longer than Hollywood has ever been around.
Nobody says "check" in competition either, but I bet more chess players (not professional chess players, but people who play chess) do that than have ever not done it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:13AM
I think it boils down to that there's apparently some clique that thinks that "serious" chess players are somehow a representative sample of chess players in general.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:07PM
King-flipping is not a Hollywood invention.
I was taught it by a number of people independently, some old enough to have learned it when they were children, from others who learned it before Hollywood even showed a chessboard.
I as wondering this as well, as I was explicitly taught in my school chess club that it was the right and proper way to resign a game. Maybe professionals in tournaments don't do it, but professionals in tournaments of all fields do lots of things differently than that amateurs (e.g. how they hold pieces when they play Go).
If the article is suggesting that "real professionals don't do this, and the movie shows a supposed professional" then sure... but that's far from saying, "Tipping over your king as a way of resigning the game is only done in movies."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:04AM (1 child)
I occasionally play chess and if I give up, I tip the king. It isn't particularly dramatic though. If I wanted drama I'd yell, flip the board, started throwing pieces at the opponent, innocent spectators and the filming crew and finally pour my whisky all over the table and set it on fire.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:03PM
Ahh, the chess version of Go's Nuclear Tesuji [xmp.net]
(Yes, it is very tounge-in-cheek, but as the discussion points out, has [probably] happened at least once)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:25PM (3 children)
Backwards boards? Last I checked, turning around a board by 180 degrees made it look exactly the same as before.
Maybe they mean 90 degree rotated boards?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:16PM (2 children)
Think 3D. Flip your board over and see if it looks the same.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:18PM
On some, it looks like a checkers board on the other side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:09PM
Oh, they are playing chess on a three man's morris field? :-)