s01e07 — End Game

Have we exactly watched the same TV series? He was her chess mentor all her "childhood", so to speak, and taught her everything he knew. It was thanks to him that she learned about them in general and fell in love with them so much, so I will not agree with the fact that she herself, everything herself.

And so, in general, she certainly acted like a pig. Fuck with those $10, but for so many years, never visiting him is, of course, very powerful (in the bad sense of the word).

@PaniA: there may be a thousand reasons why she didn't come, she was uncomfortable there, she had nothing to do there, she didn't think at all that someone could sincerely, selflessly love her. You can still accelerate for a long time. But why it was not possible to send 10 bucks is not clear at all.

As for the vaccination, the child sees chess, is interested in it himself, overcomes the resistance of Scheibel, who does not want to teach, gets his way, gets an education (mainly from a book) and then Scheibel, to put it mildly, does not help her to circumvent the ban. That's all. Who hasn't watched the show here?
There are already three points here: the first is interest, all Scheibel did here was play with himself, she just had to see (so there was no vaccination).
The second is that Scheibel is still a very average player and he could teach a child prodigy a very small number of things. His potential as a teacher comes down to a children's mat and timely delivery. He didn't even teach her to walk. And this is normal, to put it mildly, the average player can teach almost nothing to a good player. Therefore, she studied according to the textbook.
Well, the heroine's cute ignorance at tournaments, it's clear what it's for, but it's his jamb as a teacher, but that's so, by the way.
Well, the third point is that this whole story is canceled at the end of the first series. Years pass.

Shortly "instilled this manic love" - no. "He was her chess mentor all her "childhood," so to speak," no.

@PaniA: OK, let's say your math teacher instilled a love of science in you at school, helped you win at the first Olympiads and enroll in some Math. 15 years later, you have become an outstanding engineer and a well-known personality. I very much doubt that you will often remember about your first math teacher and come to visit her. Maybe once in a lifetime it would just happen to you, at some kind of reunion. And I doubt it.
This is life.
Teachers are given to people to open the way for them. And it's normal not to have friendly relations with these teachers all your life.

In the end, this watchman could write a letter to her along with 10 bucks, conduct a dialogue, call. But it was clear from the very beginning that they have a very emotionally closed relationship. Neither she nor he - they are not empaths, closed. He was just studying with her. I doubt they had a heart-to-heart chat over tea there.
The fact that he had a wall with newspaper clippings - perhaps it was generally flattering to his ego that he had discovered a genius. I doubt that he suffered from the unrequited love of his former student.

@rio_suerte: I agree with almost everything except the last one about the wall. I think he was genuinely rooting for her and was proud of her successes. he clearly did not have a family and, I think, in it he saw something in the likeness of a daughter or a student

@Ytzin: he taught her a lot, not just the baby mat. He gave her literature, he taught her openings, and various combinations, the Sicilian defense of the same, he taught her.
And the fact that he did not tell the nuances of participation in tournaments, well, maybe he just never participated in them?

@rio_suerte: I think so, but the wall is not just like that.

He even went out to see her off to her new parents, but he didn't say anything, just a look.
I think you're right: they don't have an open relationship, but there was an attachment. It's just that none of them clearly expressed this attachment. And I think Beth realized something similar, looking at the board and the photo, and regretted it, because she could have called/written at least once, and now he's gone. But he himself was content with the clippings, thereby showing his warm attitude, but also not particularly striving for direct interaction.

@Ytzin: you are right and wrong at the same time. All the pupils of the orphanage saw Schaible, because Beth wasn't the only one who went to the basement to knock out brushes? But only Beth was fascinated by the chessboard. She had her natural gift (and her mother, it seems, was a mathematician). On the other hand, Scheibel behaved towards her like a father to a daughter. How a real father should have behaved with her. He showed care and attention. Dryly, sparingly, strictly - as he could. And when she needed $5 for an important thing for her, he sent her 10. I am generally surprised by this reproach that she should give these bucks. He - as a father - gave his daughter money. Simply so. Not in debt. To the tournament. And compare : neither both fathers nor both mothers of Elizabeth T gave the girl anything "for free". Her mother dragged her, dragged her, wanted to push her off on her father, it didn't work out and set up an accident. The shelter is her home, Scheibel is a real father. A friend from the orphanage is an older sister. This is her sister. And family members give money just like that. And therefore she should not have given these 10 dollars, insulted the old man. He would not have accepted it, he would have been offended. And about "what he gave her" - this. Parental support and care. And he taught the girl well. A genius teacher doesn't have to be a genius or a grandmaster. The teacher guides, helps, supports. Teaches learns. Looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the student and gives him tasks.

@RenEsme: He sent $5, she promised to return twice as much. And she didn't keep her promise, that's all. Whether he would be offended or not is his business. In fact, we only know that she cheated. The fact that he treated her with attention does not mean that she could consider him her father, take money and not return it. You have a strange attitude to other people's money. That's how some debts were not returned to me, apparently they consider me their sister.

@Resiente: she asked and promised - he sent. And he didn't remind me. And the foster mother promised to take care of her, but spent even the crumbs that the orphanage sent for Beth's maintenance. And she took a percentage of winnings and expenses from her daughter - she didn't drive her at her own expense! And the foster father, who took on the obligations of her upbringing, robbed her a second time. He did not come to his wife's funeral and forced her to buy the house, calling her low words: a foundling, for example. And I should have cared! It was after THAT that she went on a binge, almost losing her gift. The whole film runs through the theme of caring and betrayal of a child. How cruel and indifferent to her are the adults who are obliged to take care of her, and how unexpectedly generous are random and outsiders - real people! How much time Benny devoted to her, how Jolene rushed to her! And the wall decorated with her photos in Schaible 's closet ? This is what gave her the strength and self-confidence to win in the USSR. It is this wall, it is this recognition of her right to life. It is he who is her named father, who is like all parents absolutely! - gave her "on loan!". And she owes him an irreplaceable debt, as we all owe our parents. It's just that in the movie it's expressed through 💰, because it's an American movie. For the American audience. It was important to emphasize this, as well as the fact that in the USSR they pay a scholarship/salary for chess. This is at the "symbolist level" of meanings. And at the level of the plot: in order to return the money to Schable, it would be necessary to come to the shelter. But there, with sadistic pleasure, she was forbidden to play her favorite game for a misdemeanor that was not her fault, the fault of an eight-year-old girl put on tranquilizers. Should I send it by mail ? Dryly chop off the life-giving sprout of self-recognition in this world? His $5 or $10 is a letter from God. A gift from higher powers, unexpected, undeserved for the "impostor and foundling"

@RenEsme: Why remind me? And what does everyone else have to do with it? What kind of life-giving sprout? Accept the norms by mail, but not return them? Yes, she has simply forgotten, and you have heaped up "symbolist" excuses and also implicated my imaginary loved ones. To borrow money and not return it is ugly and shameful, how not to twist it. If they borrow from me, I prefer that people realize this, and not write me down among their relatives, hiding behind all the unknown troubles of the world, a difficult childhood, stars and cataclysms. And I'll tell you more, a successful super chess player, besides degeg, she could also send a gift to a poor lonely employee of a boarding school.

@Resiente: I have "built up symbolism" according to the text of a symbolist novel - an absolutely fictional story. Yes, this is a novel, it makes sense, it is written precisely so that people would think and read the meanings. And most importantly, Beth is no match for Schable. She is not his "girlfriend", she is not his age. She is 40 years younger than him, and she is a minor orphan. In the film, she was adopted at 15, in the novel - at 13. The orphan asks the old teacher for $ 5 and not for lipstick and clothes - for a tournament! This is not to borrow $ 5 from friends of the same age for household needs, as you compared. Yes, and I was equated with your (as it turned out, fictional, not real) friends. And it's not just my inventions: that's what adults do. In "French lessons", the teacher not only throws money to the child, but also risks her career. And then the boy writes a story about her. And Beth insists on a story about him in a magazine.

@RenEsme: firstly, the meanings that you read are not equal to the meanings laid down by the author. Your theory has a place to be, but it is only a theory. Secondly, I did not equate you with friends (unlike you), and you were not talking about friends, but about "daughter or student". I said that you have a strange attitude to other people's money, and, in addition, to the concept of "borrowing". Everything that you continue to justify (boys, teachers) has nothing to do with the very concept of debt, which by definition must be returned, otherwise it is not a debt, but a gift. I will assume that her teacher did not expect to earn an extra five on Beth, and perhaps even recalled this episode with a smile, which again absolutely does not justify Beth's act. To think that it was just nice for someone to give you money, to attribute "related" feelings to someone, to perceive the fact of the absence of a reminder as "oh, well, then" is all unacceptable, even if you don't transfer into any novel with meanings. I don't know how else to explain such a simple position as "debts must be repaid, you can't/forgot - say, ask, apologize."

@Resiente: you have switched to a personality, and this is a loss of face. Yours. And the meanings read by the reader or the viewer are equal. That is, yours, just like mine, is just an interpretation. Neither yours is the ultimate truth, nor mine. And no one (except you) thought otherwise. This does not give you peace of mind that it is allowed to interpret the plot in different ways. It's important for you to accuse Beth of immorality - ok! However, in substantiating your point of view, you brought your friends and me. I, on the other hand, described the course of reasoning, gave examples from the same plot (which builds just the logic of the author, and not my fantasies) and, just like in literature lessons, gave similar examples from other works. The teacher-student relationship and the concept of duty, gift, gifts. This is called a "literary discussion." The transition to the personality and scandalous phrases, the accusation of the interlocutor of immorality is called "scandalize". That's the fact. And I'm not interested in that.

@RenEsme: You cited some points and interpreted them based not on the logic of the author, but on your own logic. I didn't interpret the meanings, I voiced the fact. She promised, borrowed and did not return. There is no need to guess, we were shown this. And I didn't get personal, my comment was initially "personal" and was addressed specifically to your logic of the relationship with money and debts, and not to the author you are hiding behind. So I don't know what angered you so much that without thinking twice you went down to my level and even lower, because I was talking about you and your attitude, and you climbed into my family and, funny, you still seem to imagine yourself a highly spiritual and moral person who is "about literature" and the rest not interesting.

That's a strong word 👌🏽

@PaniA: I agree that she should have come to him, as I agree with those who say that there were a thousand reasons why she didn't. The bottom line is that this is a very vital situation. Unfortunately, this happens and it does not happen out of malice or ingratitude. A person in his worries sometimes forgets about important people. Yes, it's bad, but it happens. I think many people can remember similar moments with friends or even with themselves.

I have a friend, his grandfather was a history professor and an interesting person in general, but after the grandson grew up, he did not communicate with his grandfather. He somehow didn't even think about it, because he has a job, a career and important things. It was only when his grandfather was gone that he realized that he could have spent more time with him and that he missed him.

There is a very important moral in this moment. I think it is clear enough, but still be more attentive to your loved ones (not even by blood).

The best TV series I've ever watched! Always in my heart💕

@kwarg2: for example?

@Elves: https://www.chess.com/ru/article/view/shakhmatnye-netochnosti-v-seriale-khod-korolevy

@Elves: But my main complaint, and this is not in the article that I threw off, is to the organizational part of the tournaments. Two of the strongest chess players in the world, Soviet and American, decide which of them is the best in one game. Seriously? White has an advantage in this game, because of the first move, and for black it is considered a success to reduce the game to a draw, not to mention to win. At least look at how the World Championships are played - in 2018, 12 games were played between Carlssen and Caruana, and all of them ended in a draw, after which a tie-break with shortened control (rapid chess) was played, where Magnus won 3-0 and defended the title.

@kwarg2: Do you think most viewers would be interested in watching 12 games in a row? Of course, simplifications were made, such as the fact that she had the "strongest" opponents at the end, this is still a work of fiction, not a documentary.

@kwarg2: you gave a link to an article in which it is written in LARGE BOLD TYPE that "CHESS IS SHOWN CORRECTLY." And at the end of the article it is written that "this series is very good, and chess is shown in it excellently." Written, apparently, by a specialist. According to you, you are not an expert. Therefore, it is not surprising that from your point of view, "the chess part is very weak."
In general, there is a difference between "I have questions about something" and I read an article somewhere "where someone had some questions." Oh, yes - 6 or 7 inaccuracies are not a LOT at all against the background of a 7-hour series.

Well, to argue that the tournament was improperly organized in 1968, because in 2018 they play differently.... I don't even have words for the level of argumentation. This is if you forget that this is generally a fictional story in which the author can come up with ANY conditions for the tournament.

@kwarg2: is it okay that this is not a fight for the world title at all, but only a prestigious exhibition tournament?

@Nog: it's not clear why you were hinted at, you wrote it absolutely correctly

If he had won according to the plot, maybe he would have agreed)))) So there's not much need for acting, the role is not difficult))

She would hardly have found a company to compete with. The watchman did introduce her to his friend and she was tested at school. It is not known then how it would have developed so quickly without him. She's not social at all. He doesn't know many basic things. Therefore, I would not be able to go out normally to joint parties with other people. So I think the watchman helped her a lot in this.

@AlexandraRabets: I read the book in order to deal with this moment (and for enjoyment, of course :)) she couldn't (there was no time), and most importantly, she didn't believe. She did not believe that she was loved and appreciated. That she's important. She hadn't talked to Jolene in all these years either-and Jolene had been collecting all the clippings, too. It's very sad, it hurts! In the book, Jolene says: they were supposed to support you in chess! And Beth remembers with what sadistic pleasure the headmistress forbade her to play.

@RenEsme: and it's a pity that the series missed to explain it. a very important explanation

Come on, the whole series is about how she doesn't know empathy. she has not observed it in relation to herself and therefore does not know how to manifest herself. it is more comfortable for her to build more or less contractual relationships with people, such psychological protection. again, the fear of being rejected (and in fairness, the watchman had already rejected her, even, perhaps, betrayed her then in childhood)

Как Вы правы.. я тоже об этом задумалась, когда Бет зашла в тот подвал - это очень грустно, ты думаешь - «я бы обязательно его навестила на ее месте», а через минуту понимаешь - в самом деле в жизни каждого есть люди, которых мы оставили в прошлом, и не потому что они плохие/мало сделали, а просто из за своей внутренней борьбы с самим собой...

and for what reason?😀

@chakheinz: yeah, especially the waiter boy delivering vodka... I smashed my face with a facepalm, at work now they think that someone fucked me up =(

@Hierarch: Damn, I'm yelling from your comment) I hope it's true about bruises))

@rio_suerte: thanks for the reasoned answer, I'm changing my mind)

@rio_suerte: there in the end, the Baltic artist of the old man plays Juozas Budraitis. I thought it was obvious, but no :)

@rio_suerte: and it was also nice to see how Borgov and the second gray-haired chess player who was in front of Borgov accepted their defeat - with a smile on their face and sincere delight, in a kind way

@rio_suerte: grandfathers are good, but dressed like Germans in 1945, in some kind of windings all)) google photos of Moscow in 1968, it's not so bad there :)

@rio_suerte: And how nobly the best chess players of the USSR behaved, losing to the heroine. The KGB official was shown to be frankly unpleasant. And Russian chess players are the very nobility.

@oftu: ну хорошо, а почему мальчик предложил? и вообще - почему официант - ребенок?

@Хейхель: фейспалмом лоб пробила например.

@Хейхель: и одна и та же женщина в павлопосадском платке раза четыре в разных сценах в массовке.

А здесь вы зря, видели свиту, что на валдае с сильными мира сего «рыбачила»?а потом по всей стране каталась?))

@poohlaya: это была сотрудница КГБ... :):):)

@pp_iks: and they demonstrated this fact again when Beth saw during the break of the penultimate game how the Russian players, including Borgov, got together and discussed the game, looked for solutions and helped her opponent - and she returned to the number one and took out her board alone.

And then such a contrast with the last batch, where Towns and Benny and the guys come to her aid - the message about how important the team and support are is stunningly shown.

@chekunkov: I'm watching Ted right now (he's just a darling!) and I really like it, thanks for the recommendation.

Думаю, вы верно подметили. Белая королева (ферзь) , самая сильная фигура в шахматах

@Saen: Думаю, это было сделано намеренно, особенно если присмотреться к её нарядам в предыдущих сериях - она проходит путь от пешки до ферзя.

Очень классно. Респект создателям, что даже это продумали

@Saen: А вы галерею костюмов фильма видели? https://www.thequeenandthecrown.com

Не только наряды. В финальной партии также был ход с превращением пешки в ферзя, явная параллель с общим сюжетом

@Hannah_Abbot: Прямо с языка сняли

@Saen: а я подумала, что это не только наряд ферзя. Но и наряд Снежинки, как её Джолин называла

@Saen: ты ничего не выдумываешь)

@Baronessa: какой шикарный сайт, спасибо!!!

That's how he behaved unmanly. They say you chose to drink rather than be with me, I'm offended now and don't call me anymore, I won't help

@vk347742: sorry the author finished 4th grade

@bazaltika: а в чем, собственно, решение? Она хотела оставить Бет ее отцу, тот отказался, тогда мать устроила аварию. Ок, она сама не хотела жить по своим причинам, ее право, но так распоряжаться жизнью ребенка, уже отдельной личности - это слишком. Нечем кормить - наверняка можно было сдать в приют и без аварии. Или довезти до ворот приюта и оставить. Или еще что-то придумать, а не таранить другую машину с ребенком на заднем сиденье. К тому же, в своем желании совершить самоубийство, мать Бет даже не подумала, что она может убить и водителя встречной машины. Так что решение, честно говоря, ну так себе...

@Rielsey: Вообще-то мамаша была немного куку. И это много раз говорилось. Она, насколько я поняла, хотела убить и себя и дочь. Но доча выжила в итоге.

Депрессия, знаете ли, сложная штука.

@irene_ks: сложная. Но это не дает права забирать/пытаться забрать чужую жизнь.

@bazaltika: ну если подход "нечего есть, значит, убью себя и дочь заодно" для вас нормальный, то ок, я вашу точку зрения поняла, можете больше ничего не доказывать, все равно каждый останется при своем.

@Rielsey: слова про ошибки и решить задачку. Очень неплохо такое описание подходит к шизофрении и шизотипическому расстройству, что даже вероятннее. Да и обособленность от людей, склонность к уединению. Как человек наблюдавший за своей мамой, которая пыталась решить "тоже одну задачку" суицидом (все закончилось хорошо, больницей), рискну не осуждать героиню, а понять на 100%. Люди не логичны. Они поступают так как решают что правильно для них в настоящий момент.

@bazaltika: не было такого.
"- Мама была из богатой семьи. И вышла за богатого.
- Тогда как вы до такого докатились?
- Это сложно."

@Иерарх: учитывая, что ее мать была доктором наук и писала научные статьи - очевидно, что она не из простой семьи, скорее всего тоже профессорской династии. Тут, кстати, возникает вопрос - а где бабушка с дедушкой со стороны матери?

@id150317179: moreover, Emmys and Golden Globes have been more interesting to follow in recent years than Oscars)

@Dark_Alice: I didn't see any torn hats. And I paid attention to the chess they played with. I have exactly the same wooden ones from the 70s. And a king with a queen with the same bumps on top. Exactly. My father was playing.

@Dark_Alice: Not cold, but an ordinary autumn or spring. Some NY is shown exactly the same according to the weather.
There were no ragged hats there. And what happened is reality. We really dressed like that, especially the elderly. How should they look in your opinion?
Just very kind, warm, nice showed Soviet people. Good smart, kind, happy people. What's wrong?

@rio_suerte: this is the installation of "strangers are enemies, everyone is trying to mock and parody us", do not pay attention, maybe someday our people will get rid of it

@rio_suerte: plus for you, I also liked the way the Soviet people were shown, especially the fact that they rejoiced even at the "alien" victory and admired Beth's talent and cheered for her. They showed a nation crazy about chess - isn't that a compliment? :)

@Annie10792: Да, повсюду были шахматные клубы. И в школах тоже. А в парках были такие шахматные столики, садись и играй. Хоть в шахматы, хоть в шашки.
Всё на волне успехов наших шахматистов и популярности шахмат.

@Annie10792: в Харькове есть станция метро, в вестибюле которой до сих пор стоят такие шахматные столики. И периодически там собираются поиграть вот такие же старички)

@Polly_D:cool!!!

Была в этом году в Кисловодске, там такие дедульки сидели с ряд, только в нарды играли )

@rio_suerte: можно еще про жучки подумать, тк Багров выбрал вариант, который они не рассматривали)

@rio_suerte: тогда непонятно, что ж ее по улицам одну погулять отпустили в конце? И как она добралась в аэропорт? За ней бы тогда "гуляли", а так, машина с охранниками уехала.

Простите, но ХЛАМ Василия Блаженного - я не могу остановить смех уже минут 5

Там был бесконечный Кремль, да. Красивая панорама. 😅

@AiaBerezko: )))))) действительно смешно получилось

@Ytzin: конечно, я согласна с тем, что она - шахматный гений. Но лично для меня это не меняет сути, хотя бы потому что она сама говорила о том, что шахматная доска для нее - безопасное место, в котором она может все контролировать и подчинять себе. И к тому же, шахматный мир для нее предсказуем, чего не скажешь о реальном мире. Из этого я делаю вывод, что для нее это своеобразная форма побега.

@Ytzin: Последовательность Бэт в ее стремлении уйти от реальности - шахматы, алкоголь, наркотики - делает слово "бегство" более чем уместным для описания ее отношений с действительностью. Более того одержимость, а речь именно о ней, с реальностью не сочетается в принципе.  

@night_and_day: Нет такого ряда "шахматы, алкоголь, наркотики", шахматы тут лишние. То что ее сначала подсаживают на транки, а потом и на бухло - это обстоятельства среды (этой самой вашей "реальности"), а не способ куда-то убежать.
То что человек математического склада ума смотрит на мир под специфическим углом и в первую очередь интересуется профессиональным - не признаки "побега", а просто специфический взгляд и увлеченность важным.
Не надо опускать интересного и неординарного персонажа с высоким уровнем интеллекта и твердым целеполаганием до кухонной психологии. Вы выглядите, как та ее одноклассница с ребенком.

@Ytzin: она же сама вроде как сказала, что шахматы были её побег от реальности. Её мир.

@Ytzin: Раз уж была затронута тема психологии - Вы пишете не о Бэт, а о себе. Ваш технический склад ума не оценили те кому точные науки не интересны, а это большинство, в следствии чего Вы рассматриваете предмет нашей дискуссии не с философской и не с психологической точки зрения, а с социальной, и видите в словах "Бегство от реальности" принижение персонажа.

@Хейхель: она говорила журналистке, которая ее домогалась таким же бредом, который несет выше и ниже night_and_day, что дескать на шахматной доске ей все понятно, а в окружающем мире - нет.
Это, мягко говоря, немного другое.
Можно например послушать саму Тейлор, она достаточно подробно в интервью описывает особенности персонажа.

@Ytzin: https://youtu.be/2Szk_OUAp0E Netflix UK&Ireland 1:02 "But the show is also about how the all-consuming game of chess can be a refuge for troubled minds and from the outside world".

https://youtu.be/QSmprUBKj_A Аня Тейлор-Джон говорит в своем интервью "You should know that Beth is somebody who does not find interactions with human beings particularly easy or enjoyable, whilst she DESPERATELY seeks them. And in seeking a world in which she can understand something a little bit more, chess takes that position very firmly and she finds a lot of security in that".

@Ytzin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpFEU1Ug74 Аня Тейлор-Джой говорит: "She's desperate to connect and yet has been taught through her childhood that everybody will abandon her and nobody will be there for her. And I do think that's why she gets so involved with chess, she gets such a sense of security from being able to predict what's gonna happen."

"То что ее сначала подсаживают на транки, а потом и на бухло - это обстоятельства среды (этой самой вашей "реальности"), а не способ куда-то убежать."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpFEU1Ug74 Из того же интервью: "And it was very important for both Scott and I that you understood as the audience "Oh, this is Beth drinking because she's lonely", "this is Beth taking pills because she feels too much".

@Destiny_Ocean: спасибо, никогда нельзя недооценивать трудолюбие людей в поисках аргументов.

@thomas_sawyer: Вы забываете что на экране 60-70ые, а не 2020. Тогда мало кто был открытым геем, это было опасно.

Это было ещё и незаконно)

@id150317179: вот да. При этом перед тем как в номер пришел тот парень, Таунс ее практически поцеловал, по крайней мере так решили показать создатели от этого и непонятно кто этот Таунс на самом деле.

@Rennaes: но он так и не сказал, что хочет быть только другом же? Какая-то непонятная ситуасьён с этим товарищем )

@moon: вот, нашла цитату из последней серии. Он говорит: "But, um, what I really wanted was for us to be friends, and you kind of broke my heart."

О! Упустила этот момент! Спасибо ))

Классно, конечно, он ей разбил сердце, тем что любит мужчин, она ему разбила сердце, тем, что влюбилась в него ))

Зачем тогда добавили такой интимный момент пред самым приходом парня в номер - Таунс практически ее поцеловал. Видимо создатели сделали это намеренно для интриги

@moon: он еще говорит: "I will admit I was a little confused. You really are something."
Видимо, поддался на мгновение магнетизму Бет и засомневался в своей ориентации :) она-то явно хотела большего с ним. Но пришел парень, и все в голове Таунса встало на свои места.

@Rennaes: видимо да, так и есть вы правы - это логично )

@Rennaes: Спасибо за эту ветку ответов. Этот вопрос тоже оставался в воздухе после просмотра. А после прочтения обсуждения все встало на свои места!)

@moon: Мне кажется этот "напряженный момент" - это фантазия зрителей и самой Бэт. По сути он просто сидел рядом, они болтали, а вот Бэт пожирала его взглядом. А он-то просто смотрел.

@rio_suerte: нет, Гарри же сказал, что он видел в журнале потрясающие фото Бет, которые как раз и сделал Таунс и подумал, что они вместе. Она тогда отвернулась, и сказала, что нет. Так что, никому ничего не показалось. Момент был и безвозвратно был упущен.

@duende: нет, близнецы там тоже были.

@id150317179: да, вы правы, перепутала с парнями в кафе.

@veraserz: мне показалось, что это подразумевалось и в итоге ход был другой, не по плану.

@veraserz: Это просто Шахматы все же, а не политические игрища. Сомневаюсь что КГБшникам дело есть до этого настолько. Максимум почему ее могли прослушивать - чтобы она или ей не передали какую-то важную политическую инфу. А тут девочка болтает с друганами про шахматы, пфффф.

@rio_suerte: в СССР все было политическими игрищами, впрочем как и сейчас. Так что все было подслушано и опробовано, как и попытки ее подпоить.

вы, видимо, ничего не слышали о юдит полгар, например ?

Спасибо за ответ) да, скорее всего так и есть. Очень жаль, что так, он прям хорош)

Да, особенно, когда она встала с Борговым и они обнялись 🥺 а ещё меня очень умилило, что старики все называли ее Лиза вместо Бет, это как-то так по-советски в хорошем смысле 😊

@msv_alena: Каждый раз, когда Алехина называют Алёхиным, тот переворачивается в гробу.

@rio_suerte: Я с вами совершенно согласна, я там тоже пожила какое-то время, действительно, они относятся к нам хорошо, но это обычные люди. А вот создатели фильмов-сериалов - это уже другая история, они нас как только не снимут, иногда смотреть больно, а здесь смотреть было приятно)

@vk684069: Забавно, если всё настолько просто)
Там несколько раз упоминали про кгб, я предположила, что её охрана связана с тем, чтобы помешать вербовке :D
Но возможно, вы правы, а я всё слишком надумала))))))

@Frankie_sho: я вообще в истории не шарю, во всех этих штучках кгб и вербовке, и совсем не понимаю, зачем бы она им нужна была))) но мне кажется, что перед турниром ее так охраняли, чтобы ее мб никто не подкупил, не переманил, она не слила турнир и тд

@smetana_sg: да, понимал и уважал, поэтому искренне радовался ее победе, ведь знал, как она ценна для Бет и какими силами получена)

@karin_che: Это как с последним сезоном Игры престолов было. Почему-то на первых сериях, абсолютно фанфиковых и проходных, народ в комментах по инерции нахваливал. А на последних хороших сериях (не всех, но в сравнении), эта инерция догнала и начался необоснованный хейт.
Предыдущие заслуги/неудачи часто не дают адекватно взглянуть на текущее положение дел. Это нарабатываемый навык.

@БеатаКатамадзе: Нет, для этого надо выиграть на Чемпионате Мира по правилам ФИДЕ, а это был международный турнир Moscow Invitational.

@DNK11: thank you

@Хейхель: это стёб, дружище, молодёжный такой)

@Хейхель: Это довольно старый мем, когда в сетевой переписке кто-то написал:
"Во 1) хуле ты мне сделаешь 2) вовторых пошел нахуй в тетьих 3) что ты мне сделаешь, я в другмо городе. За мат извени"
Но мем не самый известный, да.

@msv_alena: А противостояние то здесь в чем? 🤦🏼‍♀️

Представьте что в последней серии она бы свела партию к Боргову к ничьей. Это бы как-то повлияло на концовку? На мой взгляд не особо.

Потому что никакого соперничества со стороны Боргова не было, он просто был сильнее. Линия с Бенни была более более интересной, потому что он считал себя лучше и не воспринимал ГГ за соперника.

А Боргову было все равно. Он что до проигрыша, что после относился к ней нейтрально.

@msv_alena: Наркотики не оказывали на неё разрушительный эффект, а наоборот стимулировали. По сути благодаря транквилизаторам она развила такое игровое мышление и реакцию. И эта концепция заложена с первой серии и продолжается до последней.

минус - самый быстрый и простой способ показать, что ваше мнение не разделяют 🤷🏼‍♀️