Last night I was captivated by the movie “Evan’s Gambit” about a chess family, Dad Paul and son’s Evan and
Owen Williams. Doing minimal research it seems there is some basis of fact to the storyline - that at least some
of the scenes were based on real life experiences. Paul Williams, the father, a chess master, has two very gifted sons-
Evan and Owen. Evan is the “brilliant one” from the start, with little desire to study the game, or to play according
to the very strict e4 disciplines imposed by his father. Thus, he is quickly as a child, driven away from the game.
Owen becomes a GM, competing for he world cup and a seat in the 2017 candidates match.
What struck me is that the dad, Paul, is depicted negatively as a domineering father because for him, there is one,
and only one passion in life, and that is not only chess, but the style in which he chooses to play the game. Paul is
100% and very narrowly focused on the game of chess. This passion, while leading to his sons becoming “stars” in
chess, destroys his entire family life, and relationships with family members. Paul is characterized as being “insanely obsessed” with the game, and portrayed as somewhat of a “villain” in the movie, as a result.
As a chess player, coach, and tournament director, I have seen several “chess families” achieve VERY high
levels of success with this “single-minded” focus. The question asked-is excellence in the game worth the price
father Paul paid. Forgive me here, but for me-yes. And for what used to be USCF, now US Chess, and the reasons for, it simply seems our federation has lost the focus necessary for the highest levels of achievement in our youths.
In the movie, it is hard for me to view Paul as anything other than a hero for chess, and for his sons.
My thoughts, and a great movie to enjoy.
Rob Jones
Interesting. Shakespeare wrote both comedies and tragedies. Relating to modern chess books and movies, it seems that Queen’s Gambit is the comedy, Evan’s Gambit is the tragedy.
P.S. In Shakespeare’s time, as I understand it, “comedy” didn’t mean funny. There were funny lines in both comedies and tragedies. “Comedy” simply meant happy ending, “tragedy” meant sad ending.
Bill Smythe
I, too, know some chessplayers and “chess families” who are single-minded about chess – up to a point. What generally happens, though, is that when the children reach college age, they go to college and transfer their focus and their energy to that rather than chess. I think this is eminently sensible, since you have to make a living somehow, and it’s almost impossible to do so by playing chess – unless you’re one of a small handful of top players, and even then nothing is guaranteed.
I’m also reminded of the quote attributed to Paul Morphy: “The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life.” If taken seriously, this seems somewhat harsh and somewhat unfair, but I basically agree with it. All the time and energy that it takes to become really good at chess – aren’t there other more worthwhile things on which that time and energy could be spent?
I’m fascinated: This was a 2019 release that seems to have gone unnoticed by the chess community.
Maybe the IMDB listing is a clue to it’s going under the radar.
The two-hour movie’s budget was $2,000.
imdb.com/title/tt9350746/
I’ve heard a variant on that supposed Morphy quote more often, one dealing with playing pool.
Our son showed early promise at chess. We supported him and encouraged him. But we were definitely more gentle parents rather than harsh and demanding. When our son lost interest in playing, we didn’t fuss. At age 36, he is a brain surgeon teaching in a medical school (Ohio State), makes good money, loves his job, and loves his wife of 15 years. I think he (and we) made the right decision. I think children need to find their own passion, not have one forced on them
“I have seen several “chess families” achieve VERY high
levels of success with this “single-minded” focus. The question asked-is excellence in the game worth the price
father Paul paid. Forgive me here, but for me-yes. And for what used to be USCF, now US Chess, and the reasons for, it simply seems our federation has lost the focus necessary for the highest levels of achievement in our youths.”
ain’t just chess though! any competitive endeavour for the most part.
cheers, …scot…
+1
I was fascinated. I thought this was a very good movie, esp, for the budget. And in a true perspective, the villain portrayed is actually the hero, who unfortunately, was rewarded with two rotten sons.
I haven’t seen the movie, but based on your description of the plot in your original post, I see no reason to consider either of the sons “rotten”.
See the movie. Well worth your dime. Both sons ended up being hostile to first their father, then to his memory, for
the love and dedication he had for them in supplying a correct focus for their lives. From some of the comments on
this thread and others, it is quite apparent that there are those who do not get that this is a CHESS not a Bingo
forum, and Quality Chess is what the priority should be, and once was in a fading past for our federation.
I totally disagree with your last sentence. Our mission is to promote the game of chess. Is quality a component of that? Certainly. But if quality means trying to create a bunch of Bobby Fischers, who are great players but not necessarily people the public would want to have their children be like, I’d say that is counterproductive to our mission. If the public perceived we were trying to create a lot of sociopaths who play chess well, I’d say the damage to our organization and to our image would be substantial. So as with most things in life, it’s not black and white. It’s quite gray.
Who’s to say that chess is a “correct” focus for any particular person’s life? If a monomaniac father tries to force his obsession on his sons, they have every right to be hostile. It doesn’t make them “rotten”. I love chess. It has been an important part of my life for over 35 years now. But it has never been the most important thing in my life, and I pity those for whom it is the only thing in their life. Obsession is unhealthy, no matter what the object.
I have not seen the movie so cannot comment on its quality. The theme of obsession is well documented in literature and psychoanalysis. The theme of chess and obsession has been bandied about both intelligently, not so intelligently, and dismissively. The issue I have is passion vs. obsession. This is not always a clear-cut call. Sometimes people treat them as the same. Sometimes they mix them up. I think it is a mistake to do either.
If one is passionate about something, it doesn’t matter to me what the something is. Chess is as good a thing to be passionate about as anything else. If something is obsessed with something, it doesn’t matter to me what that obsession is. Obsession is a sign of mental illness. The lines can blur. Not everyone is competent to tell the difference let alone pass judgment on someone they have, perhaps mistakenly, decided is one or the other. Sometimes it is clear, but not always.
As to the mission of US Chess, I think there is a lack of clarity displayed on these forums. I believe it is about the promotion of the game, best left to those who love it or are dedicated to it. This dedication must not be self-serving or it degrades the individual and the organization. There are opportunities for professionals to assist in carrying out the mission, but they need to be overseen by those dedicated to the game so that these professionals do not lose sight of the mission. No organization is perfect at this, and US Chess certainly is not. There is more to it than just the promotion of the game, but without that, it is simply a certification body. It is obviously not an educational organization and that is not the purpose of the organization.
US Chess can lose sight of its mission when people with oversight responsibilities are interested in personal financial gain or are ego-driven for other reasons. These people should not be entrusted with oversight responsibility, but they sometimes are. There are those who once had a passion for the game, but have lost it, and there are those who never had it in the first place. They are attracted to positions of oversight to pursue their financial interest or to feed their egos, by trying to satisfy their control freakish needs for example, rather than by a love for the game and an authentic desire to promote it.
The elevator pitch for my own foundation promotes both chess literacy and chess excellence. I also tell people when you give the gift of chess to a child, you give a gift that can last a lifetime. It is an educational tool for the young, a pleasant pastime for the adult, and solace in old age. It helps that my love for the game is authentic. If some develop a passion for the game, I want to help them. See the post on the NorCal Online Invitational. If others do not, that is perfectly fine. I do think early exposure to chess will benefit many who do not go on to develop a passion for it. I consider it a worthwhile endeavor on my part to help them get that exposure.
The question of whether the sins of the father should be visited on their children is also an age-old one. It too has been explored repeatedly, but still, apparently, has public interest.