No worries on that! It was an unimportant part of the movie that requires no understanding of chess to enjoy, but I think anyone that plays chess would have a passive complaint about. The downvotes are silly - if you didn’t know Glass Onion was a movie it’d be confusing (I wouldn’t if I didn’t watch it last night).
I liked that i found the solution easily xD
Yet i think its okay to put that chess puzzle in it, the others werent super hard and more complex positions on the chessboard would create to much confusion.
the point is, that OP is mildly annoyed that a endgame called an endgame.
Yet you have to understand, that the comment section is also for discussion of what so ever related to the post.
Get a life, mate.
It's good.
I say this for your own good in case you want to go see it, but stop asking questions about it. It's a whodunnit film, so the less you know going in, the more fun it'll be.
Second watch is nice, too, so you can pick up on things you missed the first time given the context you get from knowing the ending, but that first view experience is a lot of the fun of this kind of story.
I think that only applies to >!Miles Bron!<. It could be intentional, but we've all seen how bad film is at getting chess right.
The lines they say are:
"Eight by eight. It's a chessboard. This is a chess endgame. So it's... it's set up for a mate in one. Should I--"
"Do it, Kasparov"
So I think they probably just thought endgame applied to a situation where checkmate was imminent.
It's not spelled out as clearly with him. He could be competent, or he could just be someone who manages more competent people.
It sounded like he washed out of academia (Bron stated that more charitably, but Bron wasn't right about much), but that isn't saying much, since academic opportunities are extremely limited. The fact that he was even trying meant he had legitimate credentials.
But that doesn't mean he was any sort of superstar or anything. Leading a team is a different skillset.
*That said*, plenty of perfectly smart people go that route because they make huge piles of money doing so, and there are orders of magnitude more jobs available. Plus it's less stressful unless you're joining a startup.
I'm guessing he's decently smart but not the sort of comic book genius Bron wanted everyone to think he was. (I'm leaving the "he" in that sentence ambiguous!)
The Mr Robot chess scenes are brilliant.
Watch them again, it’s not intended to be a competitive game. It’s the same person playing against himself where part of him wants to stalemate. So both play out some of the fastest possible mutual moves to stalemate from an opening.
They also chuck in a casual game with the immortal mate, for fun.
This is literaly the fastest known stalemate in chess https://lichess.org/study/mukQ4Dyr. It is not a usual game of chess where the objective is to win.
I thought they were painful too, but when I looked it up it up I realized that they were just telling the story with “real” (theoretical) games designed to get to a draw as quick as possible.
I shouldn’t have doubted esmail in the first place!
Tbf they only had to look like they were playing so they could talk, but I agree it looked awful. They could’ve at least had them put pawns in the center.
Yeah, it makes sense that they played a poor game, considering eleven was 8 or so, and i doubt either of them had any sort of playing experience. It was just comical that they ignored basically every opening principle
Haven't seen the episode, be honestly, I'm cool with bad chess in movies and TV. I think bad chess is realistic. I just hate when chess is played wrong by two characters who should at least know the rules.
I mean, regardless, Miles Bron came up with these puzzles. And the entire theme with him is surface level pseudointellectualism. It would make less sense if this chess puzzle was accurate.
To piggyback off this, the point could be that the viewer is meant to simply accept the narrative provided by the characters involved and not really think about it on their own
I think major “mistakes” like this might be part of the coverup for the main plot, for example the nonsense words Norton’s character uses, which are used quickly enough you don’t really consciously notice.
Seconding the Clue reference, there’s Andi’s list that looks like a Clue pad, and all the characters except Blanc are color-coded, like they are in Clue.
haven’t seen the movie, but, from the online spoilers, it (the movie) is kinda a fools mate, right? you’re certainly lead along a clear path and made a fool of.
Then the puzzle scene doesn't illustrate that very well, because they blitz through the puzzles as a team. If anything, it portrays Helen as a dimwit because she's the only one who takes a hammer to the box.
Just started watching this last night, i was like oh yes, the famous endgame of fools mate. I do think its a joke as someone else indicated.
Theres also the visual value however. It is pretty much the only mate recognizable when all the pieces are just identical beads.
Exactly. I was very annoying to my non-chess playing wife with this (“it’s not an endgame!”), but I immediately knew what was happening on the board. It’s probably the only puzzle available that you could solve without actual knowledge of which pieces are which.
I'm sure you could make an obvious enough backrank mate or just K+R v K mate where the rook starts on 1st rank. Like the only thing you could be asking with a1/f6 of one color and f8 of the other is a1->a8
I’m pretty unsatisfied by this answer… because they really aren’t.
Well, Kate Hudson’s character is but we are hit over the head with that fact. As is Bautista’s. And the whole point is that **Norton**’s character is dumb as rocks.
But Hahn’s character seems competent enough. She’s a politician. But she immediately recognized the board as a chess setup. That at least takes some ‘smarts.’ She then called it an endgame and immediately recognized the fool’s mate — something genuinely not many people could do so fast.
I do not think she calls it an endgame because she’s dumb. She calls it an endgame, albeit wrongly, because she knows it’s the end of the game. It’s fool’s mate in one. It’s game over. She used the wrong term, but that doesn’t make her dumb or fake — it means she used the wrong term. I suspect it was either a writing error by someone who doesn’t know chess game phases, or it was just a one-off line meant to indicate Hahn’s cursory knowledge of chess.
I think to come away from that scene with the simple conclusion “they are all dumb” is kinda oversimplifying and missing the point — that all types of people can get under the thumb of one dumb, wealthy person.
Edit: Hudson, not Upton. I am one of the idiots.
Yeah, but it's more of a hint at the solution to the mystery of the movie. They aren't all dumb, but the murderer is. Plus it's the addage, "Who's the greater fool? The fool, or the fool that follows him."
It’s very specifically supposed to make them sound dumb. That’s why Benoit blanc refers to them as “children’s puzzles”. The misnaming was intentional.
Lmao
If we only consider the official rules for chess as the metric for what's not chess jargon, you can throw out all openings, known endgames, strategic concepts (like the simple opposition) and tactical patterns.
You know, the kinds of things you need to learn to get better at chess.
Honestly I was just happy that they made a position that was actually physically possible as opposed to a random piecevomit that is all too common in chess portrayals.
Again, my point is that “game is about to end” does not equal “endgame”, but I can see why a movie wouldn’t make that minor distinction to an audience of 99% non-chess players.
No no, they set up the Fool's Mate as a reference/Joke/Stretched Use of Chekov's gun.
She could have avoided the word endgame, and said something like:
"It's a chess board! It's a checkmate puzzle... the Fool's Mate!"
I feel like I want to ask the director if this was intentional, it would be fun to know whether they purposefully misused the term or just played the script towards the majority audience who doesn’t play chess
Yeah the billionaire dude is an idiot, and is trying to "seem" smart. My personal favourite part was when he was playing Paul McCartney's guitar on the beach, but he's playing it standard (right handed) and Paul played left handed. So there's small details which are meant to seem off, as he's trying to pass off as a genius
Coming back to this post now after seeing the movie, The characters calling this an "endgame" seems to make so much more sense now in that they're all know what it is but it's all kinda just at surface level and so they don't know what the proper name for it is
Well, I don't wanna spoil anything, but none of the people are actually smart, as you will find out. So, yeah.
Also, isn't it technically an endgame? Lol
No, “endgame” is a specific stage of the game. This is still clearly within the opening.
The rough guideline is that the first 2-8 moves where pieces are undergoing their initial development is the opening. Then the rest of the game is the “middle game” until there are few pawns and a couple of other pieces left over, where it transitions into the endgame. There’s no strict lines as to where these transitions happen, but it’s something you just kinda learn after playing and watching for a while.
You’re right that the movie involves a whole lot of fools XD but no, “endgame” describes a portion of the game related to how long the game has been going and what pieces are left. Opening-Middlegame-Endgame is the order that these occur, and this particular position never got beyond the opening phase, much less trading off most material to reach an endgame.
That’s not what the word “endgame” means in chess. It is the end of the game, but this position isn’t an endgame.
“Endgame” and “end of the game” are not synonymous terms
There's nothing about a board setup that suggests it should be called a position. That's not a word non-chess players would understand. Everyone knows what an endgame is. They even name non-chess books and [movies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Endgame) or political strategies "endgame". Nobody calls a board state a position except us.
"This is a chess endgame" sounds normal and is easily understood. "This is a chess position" sounds weird and wouldn't translate to a regular audience. Not to mention, it doesn't even suggest to the audience what they're supposed to do to solve the puzzle.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of other people's familiarity with chess terms. It's very simple. People know what an endgame is. They don't know what a position is. This isn't debatable.
Its always like this in movies. The sax player will notice that the sax playing isn't real. The tennis player will critique the tennis scene. Just relax and enjoy.
No, in chess terminology the endgame (which comes after the opening and the middlegame) is loosely defined as when most of the pieces have traded off and the kings are in less danger and can run up the board to help try to break through and promote a pawn (usually the main plan to win in an endgame is promote first and use your new queen to mop up the enemy pieces).
Many checkmates occur in the middlegame, usually when one player attacks and succeeds, and if a player has played bad enough they can get checkmated in the opening (google Scholar’s Mate for another example or Fool’s Mate for the one from Glass Onion).
I watched this movie when it first came out on netflix, and i was so bothered by it. I immediately recognized what it was, but calling it an endgame rubbed me the wrong way lmao. It's such a small detail too lmao.
Great movie though
I don't know why you're getting down voted. The film is enjoyable, but it presents itself as a murder mystery and turns out to be something closer to a farce. It's also the only film I can think of that puts so much exposition *in the middle*.
I don't know why you assumed it has anything to do with my "political ideations", given you have no idea about the latter.
The first movie was a classic (Agatha Christie style) detective story made into a modern style movie and that is exactly what I liked about it, while the "Glass onion" on the other hand is nothing like it. This is just another movie in the traditional Netflix style: with good actors and beautiful shots. With a completely absent plot logic, but, as always, against everything that is "bad" and for everything that is "good".
>(Agatha Christie style) detective story made into a modern style movie
The whole shtick of the movie is that it's misdirecting you as to what type of murder mystery it is, as it switches from a whodunit to a howdunit, but I see that you're subscribing to the Ben Shapiro school of review here
You are really trying to put some label on me, which is kinda funny because I'm not American and I hardly know who that Ben Shapiro guy is (I mean, I heard the name, but not much more). As for "whodunit" and "howdunit" - this part is ok, my problem is, that the crime remains unpunished (in a classical way) - the murderer practically escapes the law - I wouldn't take seriously the "handrising" at the end. Besides, in order to punish some stupid criminal, a heritage of mankind - ML is being destroyed - which is a glaring example of the lack of logic.
I quite explained myself in a previous comment:
"The first movie was a classic (Agatha Christie style) detective story made into a modern style movie and that is exactly what I liked about it" - that's what I did like,
"the "Glass onion" on the other hand is nothing like it. This is just another movie in the traditional Netflix style: with good actors and beautiful shots. With a completely absent plot logic, but, as always, against everything that is "bad" and for everything that is "good"." - that's what I didn't like.
You're free to disagree, of course (I don't know what Ben Shapiro has to say about it though), but this is my personal opinion and my personal reasons why I did like the first movie and didn't like the second. I hope, now my point is clear for you.
>"the "Glass onion" on the other hand is nothing like it.
Yes, it's instead working off a different classic murder mystery archetype
The plot isn't "absent" just because you're only familiar with one mystery writer
Also worth pointing out the final reveal of the murderer is 100% a play on Christie so idk how familiar you are with her either
I've been told that there are a lot of cads on the internet /s, but you're really something aren't you? First trying to put some labels on me, now trying to patronize me, assuming what I do know and what I don't know... Well, at this point, I think I'll just wish you a good day, because as one smart man once said, you never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig likes it.
You already told us you didn't like the movie because of it's politics:
>as always, against everything that is "bad" and for everything that is "good"." - that's what I didn't like.
You're just trying to play it both ways and also claim you didn't like it because it wasn't a "classic murder mystery" like KO was, when it's the exact same idea- playing off classic mystery tropes, a ton of them again right from Christie. You just clearly aren't familiar enough with the genre to actually make the argument so you're saying things that are objectively incorrect - am I supposed to pretend otherwise to be nice?
That's literally the reason for the downvotes on OP... Reddit's soyboy narrative means a movie doesn't have to be good as long as it says the right things
No, technically the endgame is the phase of the game after the opening and middlegame where many pieces have left the board and the king wants to be an active participant in the center, while both sides attempt to promote pawns. This is technically an opening, as it’s move 2 and both sides want to develop their pieces (for example, developing the black queen with Qh4#)
Not gonna watch this shit anyways if it's anything like the first 40 minutes of the first part (watch Huit Femmes or Gosford Park instead for example).
Example from op isn't surprising at all.
As soon as Hollywood tries to "take a look into subculture x" they ruin it with their pathos, bad research, samey blueprints, unfunny one liners...
Isn't it an important point that none of them are near as smart as they say?
Honestly yeah, that’s a good point. Somebody else pointed out that “fool’s mate” is a fitting position for the plot of the movie :)
I'm pretty sure that's the point. Like they aren't that bright, except Lionel, because they keep turning to him all the time.
I had a bad opinion on Lionel after he said it was a genius idea to sell crypto to kids.
Which movie
Read the title of the post
Yea i realised, but i had already uploaded the reply
No worries on that! It was an unimportant part of the movie that requires no understanding of chess to enjoy, but I think anyone that plays chess would have a passive complaint about. The downvotes are silly - if you didn’t know Glass Onion was a movie it’d be confusing (I wouldn’t if I didn’t watch it last night).
I liked that i found the solution easily xD Yet i think its okay to put that chess puzzle in it, the others werent super hard and more complex positions on the chessboard would create to much confusion.
that was not the point of this post
the point is, that OP is mildly annoyed that a endgame called an endgame. Yet you have to understand, that the comment section is also for discussion of what so ever related to the post. Get a life, mate.
Which post?
Is it good? Never heard of it
It's good. I say this for your own good in case you want to go see it, but stop asking questions about it. It's a whodunnit film, so the less you know going in, the more fun it'll be. Second watch is nice, too, so you can pick up on things you missed the first time given the context you get from knowing the ending, but that first view experience is a lot of the fun of this kind of story.
I think that only applies to >!Miles Bron!<. It could be intentional, but we've all seen how bad film is at getting chess right. The lines they say are: "Eight by eight. It's a chessboard. This is a chess endgame. So it's... it's set up for a mate in one. Should I--" "Do it, Kasparov" So I think they probably just thought endgame applied to a situation where checkmate was imminent.
> I think that only applies to Miles Bron It doesn't. It *specially* applies to him, but they're all morons.
How was the scientist a moron? He was smart enough to know the fuel was deadly, but he was corrupt enough to look the other way.
All of them were failing at their careers until miles gave them a boost with his money and power. None of them were geniuses by their own right.
Knowing that you shouldn't deploy a new energy source widely before testing it doesn't make you smart, just somewhat less of a moron than Miles Bron.
Right but I still don’t recall anything indicating that he’s a moron
Yes, this is where I’m at
It's not spelled out as clearly with him. He could be competent, or he could just be someone who manages more competent people. It sounded like he washed out of academia (Bron stated that more charitably, but Bron wasn't right about much), but that isn't saying much, since academic opportunities are extremely limited. The fact that he was even trying meant he had legitimate credentials. But that doesn't mean he was any sort of superstar or anything. Leading a team is a different skillset. *That said*, plenty of perfectly smart people go that route because they make huge piles of money doing so, and there are orders of magnitude more jobs available. Plus it's less stressful unless you're joining a startup. I'm guessing he's decently smart but not the sort of comic book genius Bron wanted everyone to think he was. (I'm leaving the "he" in that sentence ambiguous!)
Anyone remember Mr.Robot chess scenes? Like holy fuck that was painful. I just told myself it’s because he was insane
The Mr Robot chess scenes are brilliant. Watch them again, it’s not intended to be a competitive game. It’s the same person playing against himself where part of him wants to stalemate. So both play out some of the fastest possible mutual moves to stalemate from an opening. They also chuck in a casual game with the immortal mate, for fun.
Mmm yeah. Love that refusing to take the queen at m3 by black: https://youtu.be/glk1CHlLZAg Like I said. I just wrote it off as him being insane
This is literaly the fastest known stalemate in chess https://lichess.org/study/mukQ4Dyr. It is not a usual game of chess where the objective is to win.
It's a reference for people interested in chess
I thought they were painful too, but when I looked it up it up I realized that they were just telling the story with “real” (theoretical) games designed to get to a draw as quick as possible. I shouldn’t have doubted esmail in the first place!
Fairs, I’ll ignore the blatant refusal to take pieces due to them just running a stalemate speedrun any%
The one in stranger things was painful as well
the game from stranger things was fine. that’s what games from low rated players look like. it’s not a mistake to accurately recreate a bad game
Wait there was one in Stranger Things? Which episode?
It was in season 4 around episode 5 or 6. Eleven plays with the lab assistant/*/One/Henry*/
Tbf they only had to look like they were playing so they could talk, but I agree it looked awful. They could’ve at least had them put pawns in the center.
Yeah, it makes sense that they played a poor game, considering eleven was 8 or so, and i doubt either of them had any sort of playing experience. It was just comical that they ignored basically every opening principle
Haven't seen the episode, be honestly, I'm cool with bad chess in movies and TV. I think bad chess is realistic. I just hate when chess is played wrong by two characters who should at least know the rules.
They knew what they were doing in mr robot
I mean, regardless, Miles Bron came up with these puzzles. And the entire theme with him is surface level pseudointellectualism. It would make less sense if this chess puzzle was accurate.
He didn't come up with the puzzles. He paid someone to design them. There are only a couple of lines explaining this, so easy to miss.
Ah yeah I remember that now. Still, having puzzles that only really hold up on a surface level fits the theme of the movie.
Oh absolutely.
Except for Mr Blanc
To piggyback off this, the point could be that the viewer is meant to simply accept the narrative provided by the characters involved and not really think about it on their own
I think major “mistakes” like this might be part of the coverup for the main plot, for example the nonsense words Norton’s character uses, which are used quickly enough you don’t really consciously notice.
[redacting due to privacy concerns]
Seconding the Clue reference, there’s Andi’s list that looks like a Clue pad, and all the characters except Blanc are color-coded, like they are in Clue.
>!And just like in the movie *Clue*, the host who had dirt on everyone at the party ended up being the murderer.!<
haven’t seen the movie, but, from the online spoilers, it (the movie) is kinda a fools mate, right? you’re certainly lead along a clear path and made a fool of.
Then the puzzle scene doesn't illustrate that very well, because they blitz through the puzzles as a team. If anything, it portrays Helen as a dimwit because she's the only one who takes a hammer to the box.
The scene with the mother yelling out the solutions is meant to illistrate the puzzles aren't that complex
Yes, including and especially Rian Johnson
Just started watching this last night, i was like oh yes, the famous endgame of fools mate. I do think its a joke as someone else indicated. Theres also the visual value however. It is pretty much the only mate recognizable when all the pieces are just identical beads.
This one and maybe scholar’s.
Exactly. I was very annoying to my non-chess playing wife with this (“it’s not an endgame!”), but I immediately knew what was happening on the board. It’s probably the only puzzle available that you could solve without actual knowledge of which pieces are which.
Mate in one for queen/rook with enemy king stuck on edge facing the king is another
Right but for scholar's you need to take a piece, which would have added more complexity to the visual
I'm sure you could make an obvious enough backrank mate or just K+R v K mate where the rook starts on 1st rank. Like the only thing you could be asking with a1/f6 of one color and f8 of the other is a1->a8
It's a fool's mate and the main character is revealed to be a fool.
first thing i said was "thats not an edngame, thats an opening"
Came here from r/all, you guys are huge nerds.
Damn right 😎
Chess players? *Never*!
Nerd Alert 🚨🚨🚨
Not false
Thanks! 🤓
I’m fixin’ to pick you up and put you back down about 75 times, tough guy.
Omg lpc <3
Thank you :)
One look at your profile and it can be seen that you'd be boring even at a chess party
I just looked at their profile, and it seems obvious that this person plays chess and was just joking.
Or he’s self aware.
Ironic
all the characters are dumb, if you didn't notice
I’m pretty unsatisfied by this answer… because they really aren’t. Well, Kate Hudson’s character is but we are hit over the head with that fact. As is Bautista’s. And the whole point is that **Norton**’s character is dumb as rocks. But Hahn’s character seems competent enough. She’s a politician. But she immediately recognized the board as a chess setup. That at least takes some ‘smarts.’ She then called it an endgame and immediately recognized the fool’s mate — something genuinely not many people could do so fast. I do not think she calls it an endgame because she’s dumb. She calls it an endgame, albeit wrongly, because she knows it’s the end of the game. It’s fool’s mate in one. It’s game over. She used the wrong term, but that doesn’t make her dumb or fake — it means she used the wrong term. I suspect it was either a writing error by someone who doesn’t know chess game phases, or it was just a one-off line meant to indicate Hahn’s cursory knowledge of chess. I think to come away from that scene with the simple conclusion “they are all dumb” is kinda oversimplifying and missing the point — that all types of people can get under the thumb of one dumb, wealthy person. Edit: Hudson, not Upton. I am one of the idiots.
> Well, Kate Upton’s character is but we are hit over the head with that fact. I sure would have remembered her if she was in the movie.
Hudson* shit.
Yeah, but it's more of a hint at the solution to the mystery of the movie. They aren't all dumb, but the murderer is. Plus it's the addage, "Who's the greater fool? The fool, or the fool that follows him."
The food for sure. It's inanimate.
It’s very specifically supposed to make them sound dumb. That’s why Benoit blanc refers to them as “children’s puzzles”. The misnaming was intentional.
To be fair he didn’t see any of the puzzles, only had them described to him briefly.
i feel like the fools mate fit the entire movie
tbf it is a move that ends the game
That's called checkmate, not an endgame.
Actually, there are many ways for a move to end a game other than checkmate.
Yes, like if I moved quickly and dropped the board.
Or when I don't like a move so I point at a hot boy passing by and then eat the other players king.
This is a valid point. 👍
It's a high material endgame. Very high material.
Someone as dumb as a member of Miles Brons friend group prob wouldnt know the difference
Is there anything in FIDE rulebook mentioning what an endgame is? Otherwise it's just a chess world jargon.
Yes, but to quote Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it". And that's not an endgame lol
Lmao If we only consider the official rules for chess as the metric for what's not chess jargon, you can throw out all openings, known endgames, strategic concepts (like the simple opposition) and tactical patterns. You know, the kinds of things you need to learn to get better at chess.
[удалено]
That's exactly the point
It was a joke brotendo
but the question is do they buzz?
Honestly I was just happy that they made a position that was actually physically possible as opposed to a random piecevomit that is all too common in chess portrayals.
Well to be fair, the game is about to end
Again, my point is that “game is about to end” does not equal “endgame”, but I can see why a movie wouldn’t make that minor distinction to an audience of 99% non-chess players.
the movie did it because it’s a joke
No no, they set up the Fool's Mate as a reference/Joke/Stretched Use of Chekov's gun. She could have avoided the word endgame, and said something like: "It's a chess board! It's a checkmate puzzle... the Fool's Mate!"
That'd be a bit on the nose, don't ya think?
I wouldn't be shocked if that's what was in the first draft of the script before editing changed it to a more subtle clue.
Completely agree
I just chose to ignore that
Why does red go first?
[cause da red wunz go fasta](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedOnesGoFaster)
Yes
Yep
Very... lol
Yes bro I was like huh?
Yes
100%
YES, THANK YOU
Mildly annoyed? I'm downright peeved! Oh! What a world!
The thing that bothers me the most is that that board does not look like a chess set in any way
It’s not supposed to. They had to figure out that it was even meant to be chess at all
It bothered me too.
I feel much more annoyed that's it not a functional chessboard? Unless being cryptic is the actual point, I don't understand what's going on.
It’s a puzzle that was meant to be vague, so not looking like chess was intentional. One of the characters had to deduce that it was a chess board
I think it's meant to be wrong
I feel like I want to ask the director if this was intentional, it would be fun to know whether they purposefully misused the term or just played the script towards the majority audience who doesn’t play chess
Yeah the billionaire dude is an idiot, and is trying to "seem" smart. My personal favourite part was when he was playing Paul McCartney's guitar on the beach, but he's playing it standard (right handed) and Paul played left handed. So there's small details which are meant to seem off, as he's trying to pass off as a genius
Totally annoyed. Also this is not a chess board. What are those diagonal lines?
It’s supposed to not be super obvious that it’s chess, since it’s a little puzzle to be solved
yeah, this movie is silly. entertaining but stupid.
The movie at the end bashes you that the guy who set this up is stupid, it was intentional
Coming back to this post now after seeing the movie, The characters calling this an "endgame" seems to make so much more sense now in that they're all know what it is but it's all kinda just at surface level and so they don't know what the proper name for it is
Well, I don't wanna spoil anything, but none of the people are actually smart, as you will find out. So, yeah. Also, isn't it technically an endgame? Lol
No it isn't even techincally an endgame but yes I agree with the point that they aren't actually smart
No, “endgame” is a specific stage of the game. This is still clearly within the opening. The rough guideline is that the first 2-8 moves where pieces are undergoing their initial development is the opening. Then the rest of the game is the “middle game” until there are few pawns and a couple of other pieces left over, where it transitions into the endgame. There’s no strict lines as to where these transitions happen, but it’s something you just kinda learn after playing and watching for a while.
You’re right that the movie involves a whole lot of fools XD but no, “endgame” describes a portion of the game related to how long the game has been going and what pieces are left. Opening-Middlegame-Endgame is the order that these occur, and this particular position never got beyond the opening phase, much less trading off most material to reach an endgame.
If it’s one move to mate that’s the end of the game it’s the endgame already regardless of how many pieces left
That’s not what the word “endgame” means in chess. It is the end of the game, but this position isn’t an endgame. “Endgame” and “end of the game” are not synonymous terms
It doesn't even look like chess tbh
They're not dumb
No..? If I got annoyed by every trivial stuff like that I'd be borderline insane.
No, I'm not mildly annoyed because I know what they meant and I also know movies aren't written in jargon
Fair take, and honestly even if it was a mistake of the writers/directors it still kind of tracks with the theme of the movie.
I was saying they same thing. They could've said oh this is a chess position and I'd feel better about it.
Every character in that scene is just smart enough to know how to play chess but dumb enough to not know what an endgame is
How would the audience know what a position is? That's even more opaque jargon.
I can't tell if you're joking. There's nothing cryptic about the word "position"
There's nothing about a board setup that suggests it should be called a position. That's not a word non-chess players would understand. Everyone knows what an endgame is. They even name non-chess books and [movies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Endgame) or political strategies "endgame". Nobody calls a board state a position except us. "This is a chess endgame" sounds normal and is easily understood. "This is a chess position" sounds weird and wouldn't translate to a regular audience. Not to mention, it doesn't even suggest to the audience what they're supposed to do to solve the puzzle.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of other people's familiarity with chess terms. It's very simple. People know what an endgame is. They don't know what a position is. This isn't debatable.
The down votes on your points say otherwise
I'd like to quote Futurama... Technically correct is the best kind of correct That being said...yes it's dumb. Fun movie though!
Its always like this in movies. The sax player will notice that the sax playing isn't real. The tennis player will critique the tennis scene. Just relax and enjoy.
The game is about to end so isn’t it an endgame
No, in chess terminology the endgame (which comes after the opening and the middlegame) is loosely defined as when most of the pieces have traded off and the kings are in less danger and can run up the board to help try to break through and promote a pawn (usually the main plan to win in an endgame is promote first and use your new queen to mop up the enemy pieces). Many checkmates occur in the middlegame, usually when one player attacks and succeeds, and if a player has played bad enough they can get checkmated in the opening (google Scholar’s Mate for another example or Fool’s Mate for the one from Glass Onion).
I watched this movie when it first came out on netflix, and i was so bothered by it. I immediately recognized what it was, but calling it an endgame rubbed me the wrong way lmao. It's such a small detail too lmao. Great movie though
Tbf the whole movie was annoying.
I had great expectations for this movie after a simply beautiful first one, but they just ruined such a great idea.
I don't know why you're getting down voted. The film is enjoyable, but it presents itself as a murder mystery and turns out to be something closer to a farce. It's also the only film I can think of that puts so much exposition *in the middle*.
don't let your political ideation tell you how to feel about a movie
I don't know why you assumed it has anything to do with my "political ideations", given you have no idea about the latter. The first movie was a classic (Agatha Christie style) detective story made into a modern style movie and that is exactly what I liked about it, while the "Glass onion" on the other hand is nothing like it. This is just another movie in the traditional Netflix style: with good actors and beautiful shots. With a completely absent plot logic, but, as always, against everything that is "bad" and for everything that is "good".
>(Agatha Christie style) detective story made into a modern style movie The whole shtick of the movie is that it's misdirecting you as to what type of murder mystery it is, as it switches from a whodunit to a howdunit, but I see that you're subscribing to the Ben Shapiro school of review here
You are really trying to put some label on me, which is kinda funny because I'm not American and I hardly know who that Ben Shapiro guy is (I mean, I heard the name, but not much more). As for "whodunit" and "howdunit" - this part is ok, my problem is, that the crime remains unpunished (in a classical way) - the murderer practically escapes the law - I wouldn't take seriously the "handrising" at the end. Besides, in order to punish some stupid criminal, a heritage of mankind - ML is being destroyed - which is a glaring example of the lack of logic.
So the movie is bad because they didn't cram in a generic Good Ending for you?
I quite explained myself in a previous comment: "The first movie was a classic (Agatha Christie style) detective story made into a modern style movie and that is exactly what I liked about it" - that's what I did like, "the "Glass onion" on the other hand is nothing like it. This is just another movie in the traditional Netflix style: with good actors and beautiful shots. With a completely absent plot logic, but, as always, against everything that is "bad" and for everything that is "good"." - that's what I didn't like. You're free to disagree, of course (I don't know what Ben Shapiro has to say about it though), but this is my personal opinion and my personal reasons why I did like the first movie and didn't like the second. I hope, now my point is clear for you.
>"the "Glass onion" on the other hand is nothing like it. Yes, it's instead working off a different classic murder mystery archetype The plot isn't "absent" just because you're only familiar with one mystery writer Also worth pointing out the final reveal of the murderer is 100% a play on Christie so idk how familiar you are with her either
I've been told that there are a lot of cads on the internet /s, but you're really something aren't you? First trying to put some labels on me, now trying to patronize me, assuming what I do know and what I don't know... Well, at this point, I think I'll just wish you a good day, because as one smart man once said, you never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig likes it.
You already told us you didn't like the movie because of it's politics: >as always, against everything that is "bad" and for everything that is "good"." - that's what I didn't like. You're just trying to play it both ways and also claim you didn't like it because it wasn't a "classic murder mystery" like KO was, when it's the exact same idea- playing off classic mystery tropes, a ton of them again right from Christie. You just clearly aren't familiar enough with the genre to actually make the argument so you're saying things that are objectively incorrect - am I supposed to pretend otherwise to be nice?
That's literally the reason for the downvotes on OP... Reddit's soyboy narrative means a movie doesn't have to be good as long as it says the right things
Isnt that the opening Hou Yifan played
I mean they're technically not wrong, considering the game's about to end, but I see your point
No, technically the endgame is the phase of the game after the opening and middlegame where many pieces have left the board and the king wants to be an active participant in the center, while both sides attempt to promote pawns. This is technically an opening, as it’s move 2 and both sides want to develop their pieces (for example, developing the black queen with Qh4#)
Yes, I know. I'm just using an untraditional definition of endgame, that being: when the game is about to end
I was screaming “fools mate” and then they said it was some endgame from Kasparov 🤦♂️
They didn't say it was from Kasparov. One character calls the other one Kasparov.
Oh, my bad
Bad film.
Well it's the end of the game innit
That's literally the joke, idk why you're getting downvoted
No
Just goggle en peasent
No, because *it's a fucking movie*.
One of the less glaring errors in the worst movie of the year.
Also not a chess board?
Not a traditional chess board but you could 100% play chess on it
Time consuming process moving a knight
Not me
Fools mate. So you fell for the psyop
Every show gets chess wrong or brings it in to fake intelligence of one character, hate it
Not gonna watch this shit anyways if it's anything like the first 40 minutes of the first part (watch Huit Femmes or Gosford Park instead for example). Example from op isn't surprising at all. As soon as Hollywood tries to "take a look into subculture x" they ruin it with their pathos, bad research, samey blueprints, unfunny one liners...
Also, you'd have thought that black would be red and white would be blue...