03 Mar 08
Originally posted by adam warlockit was about susan. well the parts about polgars that is.
Been watching this at googlevideo and goraning for half the time. What a bunch of crappola!!!
Are they talking about Susan or Judit in it?
Not to mention the misrepresentation of a lot of facts.
Phewwwwwwwwww! Feeling better now that I've vented. Thanks for listening. 🙂
what do you think was misrepresentation?
03 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI know it was about Susan but the way they talk about her chess achievements seems more like they are talking about Judit.
it was about susan. well the parts about polgars that is.
what do you think was misrepresentation?
Misrepresentations:
-Introducing Paul Truong as a strong blitz player and blitz as an ultimate way of evaluating chess knowledge.
-Say that she played wit Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer in an equal footing. I mean, come on! Once again it feels like they got the wrong Polgar sister.
-The journalist doesn't seem to know much about what she's talking and don't seem to have done a good research into the field of chess.
-Presenting their father as a leading psychologist.
I was so pissed I couldn't see the whole thing (stoped at the garden experiment. The fact that a conclusion is achieved with just one experiment and with a very limited number of participants really ticked me off).
Now I'm seeing Fermat's Last Theorem video. I'll try to see it again and write down my criticism but I won't do it today. I don't want to ruin my mood again.
03 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodI agree there were some "inaccuracies" in the show. I think what they tend to ignore like deeply calculating or logical thinking are essential to chess, as well as pattern recognition.
it was about susan. well the parts about polgars that is.
what do you think was misrepresentation?
03 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by adam warlockah, true about the chess content, but it isn't very surprising because the document series is not about chess, nor targeted at chessplayers. however all of the sister are extremely strong players, so I can't see how using susan instead of judith makes much difference?
I know it was about Susan but the way they talk about her chess achievements seems more like they are talking about Judit.
Misrepresentations:
-Introducing Paul Truong as a strong blitz player and blitz as an ultimate way of evaluating chess knowledge.
-Say that she played wit Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer in an equal footing. I mean, come on! O nd write down my criticism but I won't do it today. I don't want to ruin my mood again.
I watched the fermat documentary as well, it was fun.
but these documentaries are first and foremost popularisized science. in other words, entertainment. their purpose is to let the curious layman peek a little behind the curtains of academia, without requiring the theoretical background. some things have to be cut out or padded. I don't think it's reasonable espect them to deliver scientific accuracy or deep insights on the subject.
but I understand how you feel. I've had my share of fits watching documentaries. 🙂
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by wormwoodI see what you mean but it is stronger than me. 😳 And I can't really tell why but this type of things really sets me off. I even stopped reading pop science books because of that. 🙄 😵
ah, true about the chess content, but it isn't very surprising because the document series is not about chess, nor targeted at chessplayers. however all of the sister are extremely strong players, so I can't see how using susan instead of judith makes much difference?
I watched the fermat documentary as well, it was fun.
but these documentaries ...[text shortened]... ect.
but I understand how you feel. I've had my share of fits watching documentaries. 🙂
Yes all of them are very strong players. In a thousand games with queen odds Id expect maybe to draw 50 or so.
About the washed down version of things I just don't like it when they give people a false sense of understanding. I know that false sense a lot cause I had it big time. I memorised things and thought that I knew things. Then I got into college and got a mental wooping. Thank God I had a real good teacher that made me realise the error of my ways. I don't expect things to get nitty-gritty but it wouldn't hurt the general audience to know that things a lot more dirty than what they first may seem.
But when I'll rule the world I'll take care of that. 😵
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by adam warlockWell, Susan is the senior of the three sisters, and despite the fact that Judith has become the better (the best woman ever to play chess really) of the three, Susan's achievements are as they are depicted in that video. I can give you games between her and Fischer or Karpov, but you can find them yourself too. Just do not judge too fast if you don't know all the facts.
-Say that she played wit Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer in an equal footing. I mean, come on! Once again it feels like they got the wrong Polgar sister.
03 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2What I'm contesting here is equal footing. Just that. I know she played with those guys, but the equal footing part seems to be a slight exageration.
Well, Susan is the senior of the three sisters, and despite the fact that Judith has become the better (the best woman ever to play chess really) of the three, Susan's achievements are as they are depicted in that video. I can give you games between her and Fischer or Karpov, but you can find them yourself too. Just do not judge too fast if you don't know all the facts.
I admire the Polgar sisters and all the conventions they broke. I admire their fparents courage. But that documentary wasn't very accurate.
03 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlocka guy studying math in the university once told me: "the first year in uni I learned that everything I'd been taught about math before, was wrong." 🙂
I see what you mean but it is stronger than me. 😳 And I can't really tell why but this type of things really sets me off. I even stopped reading pop science books because of that. 🙄 😵
Yes all of them are very strong players. In a thousand games with queen odds Id expect maybe to draw 50 or so.
About the washed down version of things I just don than what they first may seem.
But when I'll rule the world I'll take care of that. 😵
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by adam warlockShe didn't claim to be equally good as these players. But she played them as peers in tournaments, not just in friendly games or simuls.
What I'm contesting here is equal footing. Just that. I know she playe with those guys, but the equal footing part seems to be a slight exageration.
I admire the Polgar sisters and all the conventions they broke. I admire their fparents courage. But that documentary wasn't very accurate.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by wormwoodThat's what happened to me to. 🙂
a guy studying math in the university once told me: "the first year in uni I learned that everything I'd been taught about math before was wrong." 🙂
Mainly with physics but a lot with maths too. With math I mostly felt that I had got the wrong impression all along. It can be fun and extremely addictive.
With physics I just thought that I was a shmuck and should have know better. 🙂
03 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2You're claiming that Polgar played Fischer in a tournament?
She didn't claim to be equally good as these players. But she played them as peers in tournaments, not just in friendly games or simuls.
Anyway, I watched the documentary when it was shown in the UK and there was definitely misrepresentation here. *We* know it's a fact that Polgar played these people one on one - and therefore on equal terms (i suspect the reference to playing Fischer is a game played when he stayed with the Polgars or something like that) -
however, I'm sure the average person watching the programme would have taken away the belief that Polgar was as good as these players.
I accept your point the programme didn't actually say this but it definitely implied it.