Pioneering Female Chess Champ Sues Netflix over "Queen's Gambit" Slight!!!

BREAKING NOW:

This is Barney-Boondoggle, Chess News Reporter, with an astounding scoop!!!

Nona Gaprindashvili, renowned Woman Chess Champion, has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles, for millions of dollars, claiming that her career and reputation has been harmed by being misrepresented in the Netflix series "The Queen's Gambit".  In the popular series, comments were made by characters announcing on the protagonist's games that GM Gaprindashvili "had never faced men".  

The historical record clearly shows that to be inaccurate.  GM Gaprindashvili has in fact, played against, and defeated many elite professional male players, before the date in the episode in which she was mentioned.

This report is based on an article in today's New York Times, and can be read in full for more details here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/arts/television/queens-gambit-lawsuit.html

Interesting. What do you think of this, Barney?

On the face of it, it looks like her claim is factually accurate, but whether, and to what extent it caused damages to her that require monetary recompense will be up to the courts.

Also, her lawsuit stipulates that the offending line either be struck from the episode, or altered to reflect reality.

As to what I think of this?

As my readers know, This Reporter never, ever editorializes in my extensive, ground-breaking Chess News Reporting.  However, after painstakingly researching online law sites this morning, This Reporter thinks GM Gaprindashivili is gonna hit this one outta the park! 

Nice.

Hmm... nothing appearing in Most Recent comments yet.  That's most likely because This Reporter got the scoop (again) on chess.com, regarding exciting, breaking Chess News.  They're embarrassed, that's cool.  Pretty obvious they are holding off on letting this article go public before they can get one of their overpaid, asleep-at-the-wheel "reporters" to write a lame, hack, story on their "official" chess.com "news" page.

What a character says in a TV series is one thing, but it's true that Gaprindashvili played some events against male players. The claim in the complaint states that "By 1968, the year in which this episode is set, she had competed against at least 59 male chess players (28 of them simultaneously in one game), including at least ten Grandmasters of that time". Mentioned in this list of Grandmasters she had supposedly faced in 1968 is Anand, which is a bit unfortunate given that he was not yet born. Otherwise she does have a point.

At the same time, Olivia de Havilland sued a tv series in 2018 for having "herself" in it, uttering various things she never had said, and lost that case. So far from certain that a character saying something about someone has to be factually correct in a case like this, but we will see.

Good points.  Another notable aspect of the case that's mentioned in the NYT article is that "rewriting" history in the service of a fictional female chess pioneer could, in fact, have a negative effect on the perception of when women began to be recognized as excelling in chess.  Again, how the legal system will handle this remains to be seen, it could get very interesting.  

Yup. Five minutes ago, chess.com's tabloid "Official News" page just published an "article" on this story.

But as you can see, This Reporter's article appeared an hour ago.

To quote Kristen Wiig's "Penelope" character on SNL. "So....."  

Chess.com stole my story!!!  Imma sue!  What are you gonna do chess.com??? Mute me again?!?  Chess.com, you don't scare me anymore!!!

Hmmm ... reading up on the Olivia de Havilland lawsuit, there do seem to be some parallels, but also a few significant differences.  That said, the de Havilland suit will very likely be brought up by the defense as a precedent in this matter.

Also, for anyone very interested, checking the actual filing document of this case,

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21063359-gaprindashvili

is quite a read.

According to This Reporter's prodigious, internet-acquired legal expertise, the plaintiffs make a starkly compelling argument.  

Thanks for the props BISP.  Also, it was like everyone at the middle and lower ratings was suddenly playing the Queen's Gambit opening all the time on here.  It was pretty amusing.  

As far as the merits of the case, This Reporter has spent the last 45 minutes on Legalzoom.com and will soon deliver a thorough analysis and evaluation of the matter at hand.

Incidentally, there is a lot of clucking in the henhouse over on the so-called "official" (read hack) putative chess.com "news" page.  A whole bunch of self-proclaimed, armchair legal "experts" mindlessly pontificating on the lawsuit story in the comments section.

At least over here we are having a rational, measured discussion based on the lofty ideals of research, reason, and rationality.     

This is Chess News Reporter Barney-Boondoggle with real-time Breaking News:

Chess.com "News" Page Article Explodes with Escalating Flame War!

Today, we are keeping eyes on the developing story re the Nona Gaprindashvili lawsuit article on the main "news" page of chess.com.  In a continuing battle of invective, flawed reasoning, and sheer belligerence, a motley scrum of misogynists, feminists, and assorted rag-tag legal "experts" are facing off in the comments section in what seems to be an epic, unmoderated melee!

We will try to keep you updated on this offshoot of the main story!    

Thanks, Barney.

Thank you, Aun.

That's not to say, though, that any one should actually go and read their "news" article on the lawsuit.  And forget about reading the comments, many would find them offensive.  Better to let This Reporter cull what is relevant, and bravely act as a bulwark against being exposed to what a majority may find distasteful.

You can get all your well-vetted, meticulously fact-checked Chess News right here, Dear Readers, reported faithfully by yours truly, Barney-Boondoggle.   

Nice to know.

It's really going off the rails over there on that comment section, folks!  Total bedlam.  It seems to be a miss-mash of vague conjecture with sprinklings of random legal jargon, blathering semi-literate rants peppered with the laugh/cry emoji, and posts full of toxic vituperation.

In other words, a typical thread on chess.com.

My guess is nothing will happen. From what I can tell Queens Gambit is fictional, loosely based on some real life people. But it's dramatized. And in the past many fictional, dramatized movies, plays and recordings have mentioned real life people with no recourse for that real life person. 

I think it's going to be VERY difficult to prove any harm. By being famous, (as if you could call being a chess player famous) people have to accept things will be said about them, even if they are often false. I give this lawsuit a 1% chance of going anywhere. 

Thanks for your comment, IPG.  So you're saying, it's like America suing Amazon Prime for the "Man in the High Castle", for creating a fictionalized universe in which the U.S.A. "was once a strong country, but never really stood up to Germany and Japan."

Or the estate of Neil Armstrong suing a producer for an alternate reality movie where "Armstrong was a great pilot, but never made it to the moon."

Actually, scratch that second example, since apparently there are a lot of people who really believe that.

Yes, the bar is set very high for recourse. Anyone can sue anyone, but the odds of winning in this case are going to be very small. By being famous, it's very very difficult to complain about other people talking about you (even if the conversation isn't true). If anything, in this case the opposite of what is claimed might be true. 

It's entirely possible the person suing has actually made MORE money off the free publicity. In any case, it seems like there needs to be proof that anything said (true or not) was meant to cause harm. In the normal course of making a movie and dramatizing fictional events that's incredibly difficult to prove. The best the plaintiff can hope for is a small out of court settlement. And pray there isn't a countersuit.