As a chess player myself, there wasn't much drama in this scene. Anyone of the “villain-kid”'s level would've seen and calculated this sequence far in advance, just as Josh did.

Also, no player, unless they're really short on time will make these important moves at blitz speed (a form of very rapid play), and especially more so in the endgame.

Of course, there are many more people who don't play chess than do so it makes sense the filmmakers (who employed an International Master to craft the moves, if I remember right) needed the drama of pacing and surprise to punch up what is normally a boring spectator sport.

My two cents.

As usual, excellent content.

I think they actually had to change the scene to match the acting abilities of the actors. I don't think those two kids could pull the weight that the written scene was trying for.

Can you imagine having a bunch of kids running in the room cheering and having the boy not be convincing over and over again. I would chop it out too.

I also played chess, and the drama in the scene wasn't supposed to be the chess game. It was the boy's decision to put something else above winning. That decision was the crux of the movie, as everyone was pushing him hard to develop a "killer instinct."

He made a choice. After that, the game and reaction weren't that important. I think that the scene could have been much better if they kids were more experienced actors.

I dunno, I'm not really a chess player... but found the scene full of tension.

Thrilling when the "villain kid's" Queen got there first!

In the wrong hands this story could have easily been the cliché of a stern father wanting his son to play a “real” sport like baseball instead of chess, or something trivial like that. It's a very adult film even though the main character is a child. It's also very interesting in terms of point of view. We're not really seeing this story through Josh's eyes, or his father's or his mentors'. We're observing all of these characters but Zaillian doesn't take anyone's side until the very end when he reveals Josh's decision.

There's no clear-cut right or wrong or good guys or villains. Even Poe is not a villain. His viewpoint isn't in opposition of Josh's. He's portrayed more as a victim than a bad guy. His character serves a function as an opponent in the final game, but it could have been anyone, really.

Compared to the script, the film is even leaner and Zaillian seems to have really made a point of eliminating all unnecessary dialogue and replaced it with visuals like reaction shots and close-ups of important gestures and objects. There are many places in the film where there could have been more exposition, but Zaillian chose to do it the subtle way. He doesn't dumb it down for the audience. Everything is very subtle and that permeates throughout the picture.

The drama lies in the four different approaches of thinking what's best for Josh. Like Modemstring said, the decision is the crux, however, they didn't all want him to develop that killer instinct that Bobby Fischer was known for. His mother opposed it and even threatens to take him away from the father if Josh is forced to lose his “decency”, and his father eventually comes to realize that the mother was right. In the end, Josh shows these four adults that you can remain true to yourself and still succeed. Come to think of it, this story is viewed through the eyes of the parents. This story is an argument that the mother won.

I don't think this movie could get made today. This was made before Bobby Fischer completely lost his marbles and wrote fan letters to Osama bin Laden complaining about the “Jewnited States.” But not only that, it's more intelligent than the films Hollywood makes today. Watching this film I don't get the sense of a worried producer looming over the director's shoulder demanding to clarify plot points. Obviously Zaillian is an amazing writer but this being his directorial debut, he sure showed everyone how it's done.

I'm glad they removed the opening lines:

JOSH: I'm offering you a draw.
POE: You've got to be kidding.

Instead, the clip begins with:

JOSH: You've lost, you just don't know it. (removed: "I've got you beat")

POE: (removed: "You've got me beat?") I've Lost? Look at the board.


The clip opener is much more to the point - the game is lost. It's clear. I'm not sure "I'm offering you a draw" is what a young boy would come up with, especially out of the blue in the middle of a game, without first declaring that the game was lost. In the script it would have made more sense to offer a draw after a declaration of the loss, which is what they did in the clip. But where the clip really stood out for me was that the offer of a draw was made with the gesture of the extended hand. Showing the offering rather than saying it was much more effective.


JOSH: I have. (removed: It's mate in sixteen and it's going to kil you.") Take the draw, we'll share the championship.


Note that it is "take THE draw", the offer having been made with a gesture instead of an offer. Much better.


Also, I found that the scene was much more realistic and tense in the clip, with those lines removed. The "you've got to be kidding" response is old and cliche, and just makes the character more off-putting than he needs to be.

The "I've got you beat" "You've got me beat" exchange just invites a defensiveness that is nowhere near as effective as a simple statement of fact: "You've lost. I've lost? Look at the board". These words are much easier to say in a matter of fact way without a defensive attitude. I can just picture the scene with the deleted words included: POE would come off as a precocious sarcastic bully, rather than a competitive boy very confident in his abilities.


The best deletion, though, was the "it's mate in sixteen and it's going to kill you". Talk about deflating the suspense of the entire scene!

And thank goodness the end of the scene with the crowd was removed. That would have been way to Hollywood. Had all those lines not been deleted, though, then yeah, have the sarcastic little bully run down by the cheering crowd. It would have been a typical cheesy scene we've seen a million times before. What we have in the clip is a thousand times better. It's classy. It's subtle. Subdued.

Just my 2 cents.

@Lise: Completely agree. It's interesting, one thing you notice when you read a bunch of scripts and compare to movies, the scripts are almost always overwritten. I think that's in part because movies are a visual medium and we can't really know how they will play out until we see them... you know... visually.

So the writer does the best they can to convey the movie as they see it in their minds, that all gets shot in some fashion, then thousands of feet of virtual footage ends up on the cutting room floor because movies often don't need all that script 'stuff.'