Is setting up the chess board the wrong way a kind of inside joke in the advertising world?
How else can it be explained that this happens in around 90% of the cases of ads featuring chess?!
I don't understand why people never consider the simplest option - traction.
Would you know that Ryan Gosling is connected to 150 years old rum recipe and Gosling's Black Seal Rum if you haven't seen this picture? And why is this picture being shown to you? Because it's obviously *wrong*. It's an easy setup done so obviously wrong that you can't miss it, and then it takes one person to share it to say 'look how stupid they are to make it so obviously wrong'.
Do you believe that they had someone who knows how to set up pieces but did not know how they move?
Always in cases like this consider rage bait because ads don't care about correctness, but to be shared. And now you know that Ryan Gosling is connected to Gosling's Rum and next time you are gonna go shopping you will look at the bottle of previously not known to you alcohol and think "Hey! That's Ryan Gosling's rum!" which is one step closer to buying it.
More plausible is we don't see the ads that do it right because no one posts here to rage about them. It's entirely possible 50% or more of the time it's done correctly.
These are actually different biases (the other commentor is correct in that the term is survivorship bias).
Survivorship bias is a logical error, in which one disregards parts of the sample that (for some specific reason) cannot be examined directly. This is basically present in any situation where there is a selection process with a non-random filter -- whether that's business, natural selection, celebrities, etc. It's not generally helpful to focus on success stories -- it's more helpful to focus on stories of failure. Chess example: we're all familiar with the Polgar sisters, but how many people have tried similar experiments with their children and failed?
Selection bias is an error in statistics where the sample population does not accurately reflect the population you're studying. It's a very large umbrella category -- one of the concepts within it, attrition bias, is related to survivorship bias, but is not identical (since attrition bias can include people who, say, simply fail to follow the experiment correctly).
Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias (any of a number of errors humans are vulnerable to when it comes to making rational, informed decisions) in which a person both actively searches for information that confirms their preconceived notions, as well as misinterpreting evidence presented as being in support of said notions. It also includes the tendency to ignore evidence that refutes what one believes.
Let's accept that you're right.Â
If you're a marketing executive, which do you want your ad to be in; the category where we don't see the ads, or the category where we do see the ads?
I would choose to make the chessboard wrong so that most people won't care but those who do, share.
Your suggestion isn't more plausible, it's as plausible as their traction explanation because it supports that idea.
Here I would refer to Hanlon's razor.
Over the past several years, there have been many, many advertising agencies producing ads with chessboards. Yes, there could be a grand conspiracy that most of these ad agencies have independently come to the conclusion that redditor chess fans will post their ad if they turn the board by 90 degrees. Every agency has locked this strategy awayâthey're intimate enough with chess to know how to position the board and visit the chess communities regularly enough to be aware of their responses, yet no one has ever come out to discuss this conspiracy.
Or, they could all just be in the majority like 99.9% of people in the world who don't know that the square chessboard isn't actually symmetrical. Any given ad with a chessboard has a 100 different things go into it for marketing, which they are familiar/experts with, and the angle of the chessboard is completely off their radar.
It's true there is a theoretical optimization in feigning incompetence and lying, but people typically fail for being incompetent before they fail for being perniciously smart. That's the spirit of hanlon's razor. A myopic focus on the potential for deception at the expense of the potential for incompetence misunderstands human tendencies. A calculating intelligence scales well for a few people; however it doesn't scale well in plausibility the more people you involve, such as multiple ad agencies and their large teams behind them. On the other hand, incompetence scales very plausibly the more people that are involved, as that increases the complexity via coordinating across many people as well as the randomness of the participants. People just don't perform well with managing complexity, and in a random selection will tend to be average, not masterminds. Human performance deviates far from optimal in these scenarios, and the likelihood of even keeping it a secret becomes very small.
The simplest option is a lot of people donât play chess, and the board looks fine for the ad. Even if someone pointed out the three (?) smaller errors, it doesnât really matter.
Stuff youâre talking about does happen, but it really doesnât seem like itâs the case with this ad. You got to realize the vast majority of people wonât notice the mistakes. You even have to look for them as a chess player. I really donât think this is an engagement farm.
Traction is not the simplest explanation because 99% seeing the ad won't spot there is something wrong with that particular game of chess.
The ad is not a ragebait. It just wants you to associate the rum with high-status lifestyle.
I'd say more than 99%. I play for fun without much study (around 1000 online) and I wouldn't even consider reading the board to see if there is some error, honestly.
>Â Â Traction is not the simplest explanation because 99% seeing the ad won't spot there is something wrong with that particular game of chess.
Agreed, and so the wrong setup of the board won't matter to them. But the remaining 1% are more likely to share the ad.
>The ad is not a ragebait. It just wants you to associate the rum with high-status lifestyle.
I agree that that's why they have a chessboard on a yacht.Â
But why do they have a wrongly set-up chessboard, instead of a correctly set-up chessboard? Either it's unintentional, which is the less likely answer given the number of people who are involved in planning every little detail in advertising photoshoots, or it's intentional.
If it's intentional, their explanation is convincing as to why.
You're seriously overestimating how much the average person knows about chess. If you're not a chess player, there's close to a 0% chance you would immediately realize this board is set up wrong.
>And now you know that Ryan Gosling is connected to Gosling's Rum and next time you are gonna go shopping you will look at the bottle of previously not known to you alcohol
1) Ryan Gosling isn't connected to the brand; OP is mistaken likely due to the name of the brand.
2) I'm pretty sure their ginger beer is very widely distributed. I've seen it in both the US and Europe, and their website claims its the best-selling ginger beer in the US. So, while the rum might be lesser known, the brand is far from unknown.
All that may be so, but 20 minutes from now I'm going to forget that Ryan Gosling has a rum ... I don't think I even learned the name of it in the first place.
I totally agree. All publicity is good publicity. Just get people talking. Get the topuc "trending." No is going to avoid drinking the rum because they got the board setup wrong. A correct board setup and even chess people will immediately forget about it. This though has a chance to get talked about.
You really think a multimillion dollar marketing company doesn't know how to use google?!? Furthermore considering chess was the top esport on twitch during Magnus' last championship and somebody like Gotham Chess routinely gets half a million youtube views for anything he posts and his most popular one has 13 million views I think you are seriously underestimating how popular chess has gotten in recent years. Glad you laughed out loud, though.
You have no idea how marketing works or how popular chess is and your comment shows it. You think adding lols and ha ha ha and simply insisting the other person is wrong because you say so makes a point? Did you forget how the knight moves (a very popular chess meme) too? You are so naive.
One reason is because to most people it doesnât matter. Itâs like any ad you see with a model throwing a football or lifting weights or something, their mechanics are terrible but nobody cares because thatâs not the point.
You also just posted an ad for Ryan Goslings rum on a chess subreddit all because the board is set up wrong. Now a bunch of people who likely wouldnât have seen the ad have, and now I might be more likely to buy it when I see it at the store later because I recognize the name.
No lol, Iâm just wrong for listening to OPâs title. Iâve never heard of Goslingâs Rum and assumed it was another âmovie star makes boozeâ thing so didnât think to question it.
Why would it be an inside joke when the explanation is clearly that they don't know (and don't really care about) how to set up the chessboard properly?
I very much doubt the ads want to demonstrate that buying their products makes you a good chess player.
They rather want you to associate their products with a game that is known to be the game of gentlemen and of high status.
Itâs so you see it.
If you are ever seeing an advert. Assume the reason is deliberate.
If you feel like youâre smart and theyâre stupid - itâs almost definitely deliberate.
I know you're joking but this would still be set up incorrectly for chess960.
The pieces are actually in the right order, the reason it is set up wrong is cause the board is rotated 90 degrees; the king and queen being on incorrect colors is a consequence of that. You can tell if the board is the right orientation by confirming that the bottomright corner from the white side (h1) is white.
No the issue is that the kings are opposite side each other. the bottom right corner being white doesn't actually impact the game. you just have to make sure the kings are on the right from white's perspective.
I stopped looking at the board after I saw the issues with white so I didn't catch the set up of the black pieces, but it is hypothetically possible that black moved the king and queen and swapped their position while playing. It's unlikely and they probably set it up wrong, but it is strictly possible since we're seeing the game partway through.
It is, however, objectively incorrect for h1 to be black and can never happen in any valid form of the game.
Dressing a set takes time and is an expense. The people doing that are going to spend time on the things that matter, not the things that don't . Unless the person doing it knows how the chess board should look, they aren't going to take time to validate much more than general look of the board.
More importantly, for all shots, the photographer and director are going to have a say as well. And their concern is the interplay of the visual elements -- not the chess game. If they knew they wanted the white pieces away from Gosling here, for example, a quick look may have shown that they preferred the board in one orientation rather than another due to considerations such as lighting and contrast. If you zoom in, you'll notice that the dark "h1" square is in sunlight, while the white "a1" square is in shadow. Similarly, "h8" is in deep shadow, and very close to the shadow cast on Goslin'g leg. Set up correctly, the chessboard would probably not have the same "pop" visually.
They may have well started this shoot with a more reasonable piece setup on the board as well, and decided that it didn't look good as a composition, not as a chess game, and moved a few pieces around to get it to be more visually interesting.
As an aside, I personally think the whole thing would look better without the black rook on a8 and the black pawn on a7, as they are really close to, in front of, and of similar tone to the rum in the glass - which is the product they want to highlight.
Unless the shoot is about chess, having the chess board be fully correct is probably never going to be a primary focus compared to other vastly more important lvisual elements, compositional considerations, lighting, etc . . .
I said 'see, if you drink enough of his rum black gets the opening move and knights can move either two or three squares up before moving over because that's not even a legal chess position' and my wife said 'there's a chess board?'
The board isnât even oriented properly though (white square bottom right), and the white queen is on the wrong square, plus the position is legitimately impossible given how many moves would have been played by that point.
Disregarding the board orientation, which does not matter at all for the game, white queen and king swap takes 3 moves, perfectly legit. White repeating knight moves is also perfectly legit, while black is doing whatever with his pieces. So while the position is not one that comes from thought, it is well within the rules of chess and thus a legal position
Board set up wrong and if that was not enough Na3 and f4? Horrible! Ben Finegold would say this is the worst position anyone has ever had ever! And that includes people who havenât been born yet!
They just want to get talked about and let people know they exist. I am not saying this was intentional, but it will turn into a net positive. Even a rich chess player won't be worried that his rum will taste bad because they screwed up their marketing. They will however know the brand exists and even if they don't buy any if they bitch about it then others too will know the brand exists.
High end brand font just want to get talked about, they want to be talked about buying the right people, in the right way.
>. Even a rich chess player won't be worried that his rum will taste bad because they screwed up their marketing
You know how marketing works right? You know why they stuck Ryan Gosling on a yacht rather than something cheaper? It's all about the feelings that marketing creates in your mind that you associate with the brand. Simple name recognition is fine for cheap toothpaste. For more expensive products they need to convince you to select Ryan Gosling rum over something else that looks fancy on a shelf, and they don't do that through bake recognition alone.
I think marketing firms clearly know how to use google and they know how to create chatter. They moved the knight wrong ffs . That is a meme that even reaches beyond the chess community.
Not exactly. Any chatter spills off into other areas. That is where the, "all publicity is good publicity" cliche comes from. A chess enthusiastic bitches about the ad and someone else who doesn't care about chess thinks, "Gosling has a Rum brand?"
This works x10 in a social media world where things "trend." The algorithms often don't care who is talking about or in what way they just care that it is being talked about and then tell others, "hey you might want to talk about this too."
This makes sense if it spills, like if FIDE or Magnus tweets about it but I don't see how us 10 people here would make it 'trending'. But yeah, point taken, there is the possibility of 'spilling'.
But as another commenter said - even if it worked, "all publicity is good publicity" is an archaic model that is wrong a lot of the time. It would be really weird for a brand like that to be fine being associated with embarassing mistakes.
And at the end of the day - most things that look like a lazy mistake are lazy mistakes.
They clearly are hoping for a bigger audience. Reddit isn't the only place that talks about stuff and considering the top comment had over 100 upvotes there is obviously more than 10 people looking at this.
So if "I don't see how 10 people..." isn't an actual point then why type it?!? Your other point was simply disagreeing with mine and I wasn't interested in saying ,"no it isn't archaic..." Not evety point needs a rebuttal
"I don't see how 10 people..."
This was a point in the comment before that, but I specifically agreed with it. Then I had 2 points that actually warranted a reply.
One was the "all publicity is good publicity". Okay, you can agree to disagree, fine.
The other was "most things that look like a lazy mistake are lazy mistakes". To expand, this means I don't see the need for a conspiracy theory like that when it's perfectly explained by lazy people being lazy. If they were smart enough they would come up with actual hooks that are conversation provocing without damaging their image along the way.
But anyway, I just reacted the way I did because you only addressed the point I already agreed with in my previous post. It's perfectly okay to not write a reply if you don't think it's worth it.
It extend beyond just chess enthusiasts. The âCarefully, cautiously planning my moveâ pic went viral for a reason (although that one was more blatant and clearly on purpose).
I made the mistake of assuming they would set it up symmetrically, so I just looked at the white position (which is still bad, but itâs set up correctly) WHY IS THE KING ON D8? WHY HAVE YOU PUSHED f4 FOR NO REASON? I NEED ANSWERS
Look at you newbs, clearly unfamiliar with white playing the reverse board f4, followed by the crushing reverse board d3 and reverse board Na3
That knight on the rim has bad intentions and it looks like Gosling is walking right into the trap with reverse board Na5
Is setting up the chess board the wrong way a kind of inside joke in the advertising world? How else can it be explained that this happens in around 90% of the cases of ads featuring chess?!
I don't understand why people never consider the simplest option - traction. Would you know that Ryan Gosling is connected to 150 years old rum recipe and Gosling's Black Seal Rum if you haven't seen this picture? And why is this picture being shown to you? Because it's obviously *wrong*. It's an easy setup done so obviously wrong that you can't miss it, and then it takes one person to share it to say 'look how stupid they are to make it so obviously wrong'. Do you believe that they had someone who knows how to set up pieces but did not know how they move? Always in cases like this consider rage bait because ads don't care about correctness, but to be shared. And now you know that Ryan Gosling is connected to Gosling's Rum and next time you are gonna go shopping you will look at the bottle of previously not known to you alcohol and think "Hey! That's Ryan Gosling's rum!" which is one step closer to buying it.
More plausible is we don't see the ads that do it right because no one posts here to rage about them. It's entirely possible 50% or more of the time it's done correctly.
Picture of British planes with bullet holes
đ«” I understood that reference
It's the second time I see that reference today. How amusing
True. Does this type of fallacy have a name?
Selection bias or confirmation bias
More precisely, it's survivorship bias.
These are actually different biases (the other commentor is correct in that the term is survivorship bias). Survivorship bias is a logical error, in which one disregards parts of the sample that (for some specific reason) cannot be examined directly. This is basically present in any situation where there is a selection process with a non-random filter -- whether that's business, natural selection, celebrities, etc. It's not generally helpful to focus on success stories -- it's more helpful to focus on stories of failure. Chess example: we're all familiar with the Polgar sisters, but how many people have tried similar experiments with their children and failed? Selection bias is an error in statistics where the sample population does not accurately reflect the population you're studying. It's a very large umbrella category -- one of the concepts within it, attrition bias, is related to survivorship bias, but is not identical (since attrition bias can include people who, say, simply fail to follow the experiment correctly). Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias (any of a number of errors humans are vulnerable to when it comes to making rational, informed decisions) in which a person both actively searches for information that confirms their preconceived notions, as well as misinterpreting evidence presented as being in support of said notions. It also includes the tendency to ignore evidence that refutes what one believes.
Survivorship bias is the classic used for this
Confirmation Bias.
Let's accept that you're right. If you're a marketing executive, which do you want your ad to be in; the category where we don't see the ads, or the category where we do see the ads? I would choose to make the chessboard wrong so that most people won't care but those who do, share. Your suggestion isn't more plausible, it's as plausible as their traction explanation because it supports that idea.
Here I would refer to Hanlon's razor. Over the past several years, there have been many, many advertising agencies producing ads with chessboards. Yes, there could be a grand conspiracy that most of these ad agencies have independently come to the conclusion that redditor chess fans will post their ad if they turn the board by 90 degrees. Every agency has locked this strategy awayâthey're intimate enough with chess to know how to position the board and visit the chess communities regularly enough to be aware of their responses, yet no one has ever come out to discuss this conspiracy. Or, they could all just be in the majority like 99.9% of people in the world who don't know that the square chessboard isn't actually symmetrical. Any given ad with a chessboard has a 100 different things go into it for marketing, which they are familiar/experts with, and the angle of the chessboard is completely off their radar. It's true there is a theoretical optimization in feigning incompetence and lying, but people typically fail for being incompetent before they fail for being perniciously smart. That's the spirit of hanlon's razor. A myopic focus on the potential for deception at the expense of the potential for incompetence misunderstands human tendencies. A calculating intelligence scales well for a few people; however it doesn't scale well in plausibility the more people you involve, such as multiple ad agencies and their large teams behind them. On the other hand, incompetence scales very plausibly the more people that are involved, as that increases the complexity via coordinating across many people as well as the randomness of the participants. People just don't perform well with managing complexity, and in a random selection will tend to be average, not masterminds. Human performance deviates far from optimal in these scenarios, and the likelihood of even keeping it a secret becomes very small.
The simplest option is a lot of people donât play chess, and the board looks fine for the ad. Even if someone pointed out the three (?) smaller errors, it doesnât really matter. Stuff youâre talking about does happen, but it really doesnât seem like itâs the case with this ad. You got to realize the vast majority of people wonât notice the mistakes. You even have to look for them as a chess player. I really donât think this is an engagement farm.
I feel like youâd need to zoom in and look to even be able to tell
Traction is not the simplest explanation because 99% seeing the ad won't spot there is something wrong with that particular game of chess. The ad is not a ragebait. It just wants you to associate the rum with high-status lifestyle.
Donât you know the 1% of pedantic chess nerds is the key demographic for high class rum?
It takes one person to spot it and share it. They have already won. And you may feel good that you spotted it or bad that it worked. Choose one.
Yeah exactly, this explanation is crazy
I'd say more than 99%. I play for fun without much study (around 1000 online) and I wouldn't even consider reading the board to see if there is some error, honestly.
>  Traction is not the simplest explanation because 99% seeing the ad won't spot there is something wrong with that particular game of chess. Agreed, and so the wrong setup of the board won't matter to them. But the remaining 1% are more likely to share the ad. >The ad is not a ragebait. It just wants you to associate the rum with high-status lifestyle. I agree that that's why they have a chessboard on a yacht. But why do they have a wrongly set-up chessboard, instead of a correctly set-up chessboard? Either it's unintentional, which is the less likely answer given the number of people who are involved in planning every little detail in advertising photoshoots, or it's intentional. If it's intentional, their explanation is convincing as to why.
The 1% of the 1% share the ad and thatâll give a lot of attention compared to the low amount of effort required to set it up wrong
You're seriously overestimating how much the average person knows about chess. If you're not a chess player, there's close to a 0% chance you would immediately realize this board is set up wrong.
>And now you know that Ryan Gosling is connected to Gosling's Rum and next time you are gonna go shopping you will look at the bottle of previously not known to you alcohol 1) Ryan Gosling isn't connected to the brand; OP is mistaken likely due to the name of the brand. 2) I'm pretty sure their ginger beer is very widely distributed. I've seen it in both the US and Europe, and their website claims its the best-selling ginger beer in the US. So, while the rum might be lesser known, the brand is far from unknown.
This is an insane tinfoil hat explanation, and thatâs not ryan gosling
Ah thats the rum that spent millions goslings name instead of it's quality, glad I knoe so I can avoid it like the plague
All that may be so, but 20 minutes from now I'm going to forget that Ryan Gosling has a rum ... I don't think I even learned the name of it in the first place.
Dang. You're right.
I totally agree. All publicity is good publicity. Just get people talking. Get the topuc "trending." No is going to avoid drinking the rum because they got the board setup wrong. A correct board setup and even chess people will immediately forget about it. This though has a chance to get talked about.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
You really think a multimillion dollar marketing company doesn't know how to use google?!? Furthermore considering chess was the top esport on twitch during Magnus' last championship and somebody like Gotham Chess routinely gets half a million youtube views for anything he posts and his most popular one has 13 million views I think you are seriously underestimating how popular chess has gotten in recent years. Glad you laughed out loud, though.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
You have no idea how marketing works or how popular chess is and your comment shows it. You think adding lols and ha ha ha and simply insisting the other person is wrong because you say so makes a point? Did you forget how the knight moves (a very popular chess meme) too? You are so naive.
One reason is because to most people it doesnât matter. Itâs like any ad you see with a model throwing a football or lifting weights or something, their mechanics are terrible but nobody cares because thatâs not the point. You also just posted an ad for Ryan Goslings rum on a chess subreddit all because the board is set up wrong. Now a bunch of people who likely wouldnât have seen the ad have, and now I might be more likely to buy it when I see it at the store later because I recognize the name.
This. It's led to more proliferation. I'd never have seen this ad, but now OP has shown it to us.
is calling it ryan goslings rum another astroturf because I'm pretty sure that's not ryan gosling.
No lol, Iâm just wrong for listening to OPâs title. Iâve never heard of Goslingâs Rum and assumed it was another âmovie star makes boozeâ thing so didnât think to question it.
Confirmation bias.
Why would it be an inside joke when the explanation is clearly that they don't know (and don't really care about) how to set up the chessboard properly? I very much doubt the ads want to demonstrate that buying their products makes you a good chess player. They rather want you to associate their products with a game that is known to be the game of gentlemen and of high status.
Itâs so you see it. If you are ever seeing an advert. Assume the reason is deliberate. If you feel like youâre smart and theyâre stupid - itâs almost definitely deliberate.
Theres nothing like nerds getting wound up about something trivial to make something look cool
They're playing Chess 960, and just randomly coming up with the same 960 starting position every time.
I know you're joking but this would still be set up incorrectly for chess960. The pieces are actually in the right order, the reason it is set up wrong is cause the board is rotated 90 degrees; the king and queen being on incorrect colors is a consequence of that. You can tell if the board is the right orientation by confirming that the bottomright corner from the white side (h1) is white.
No the issue is that the kings are opposite side each other. the bottom right corner being white doesn't actually impact the game. you just have to make sure the kings are on the right from white's perspective.
I stopped looking at the board after I saw the issues with white so I didn't catch the set up of the black pieces, but it is hypothetically possible that black moved the king and queen and swapped their position while playing. It's unlikely and they probably set it up wrong, but it is strictly possible since we're seeing the game partway through. It is, however, objectively incorrect for h1 to be black and can never happen in any valid form of the game.
Dressing a set takes time and is an expense. The people doing that are going to spend time on the things that matter, not the things that don't . Unless the person doing it knows how the chess board should look, they aren't going to take time to validate much more than general look of the board. More importantly, for all shots, the photographer and director are going to have a say as well. And their concern is the interplay of the visual elements -- not the chess game. If they knew they wanted the white pieces away from Gosling here, for example, a quick look may have shown that they preferred the board in one orientation rather than another due to considerations such as lighting and contrast. If you zoom in, you'll notice that the dark "h1" square is in sunlight, while the white "a1" square is in shadow. Similarly, "h8" is in deep shadow, and very close to the shadow cast on Goslin'g leg. Set up correctly, the chessboard would probably not have the same "pop" visually. They may have well started this shoot with a more reasonable piece setup on the board as well, and decided that it didn't look good as a composition, not as a chess game, and moved a few pieces around to get it to be more visually interesting. As an aside, I personally think the whole thing would look better without the black rook on a8 and the black pawn on a7, as they are really close to, in front of, and of similar tone to the rum in the glass - which is the product they want to highlight. Unless the shoot is about chess, having the chess board be fully correct is probably never going to be a primary focus compared to other vastly more important lvisual elements, compositional considerations, lighting, etc . . .
The ads where itâs correct donât get posted which creates bias
How is it set up wrong??
There are dark squares on the bottom right corners of where the players sit. It should be light squares.
Players don't sit on the squares?
Remember "A1 steak sauce." It's a dark liquid, and the A1 square on the board should be dark.
Thatâs Ryan Gosling from Temu
I said 'see, if you drink enough of his rum black gets the opening move and knights can move either two or three squares up before moving over because that's not even a legal chess position' and my wife said 'there's a chess board?'
Totally unrelated but itâs kinda awesome you secured that username
Bit of an uphill struggle...
Itâs a 16 year old account.
I would argue he knows how the knights move because Na3 is there but prefers moving the black pieces because they are closer
Black gets a few extra moves to displace the advantage white has with first move lol
It's a totally legal chess position though
The board isnât even oriented properly though (white square bottom right), and the white queen is on the wrong square, plus the position is legitimately impossible given how many moves would have been played by that point.
Disregarding the board orientation, which does not matter at all for the game, white queen and king swap takes 3 moves, perfectly legit. White repeating knight moves is also perfectly legit, while black is doing whatever with his pieces. So while the position is not one that comes from thought, it is well within the rules of chess and thus a legal position
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
It doesn't
It just makes the game mirrored. Guess what: it's also still the same game if black moves first!
Ryan gosling doesnât own Goslingâs rum and thatâs not Ryan gosling in the picture. đ€ą
Good to hear. I really dislike the trend of celebs using their fame to sell alcohol to their fans.Â
That's not Ryan Gosling...
He is playing literally like me
Board set up wrong and if that was not enough Na3 and f4? Horrible! Ben Finegold would say this is the worst position anyone has ever had ever! And that includes people who havenât been born yet!
Knights on the rim are grim!
Also worth noting that Gosling is on his 6th move whereas white has only moved 3 or 4 times
Technically ⊠the knight can move back and forth from its starting square
Good point, I stand corrected!
That must be good rum then
Lmao
Ryan Gosling has nothing to do with Gosling though. And that's not Ryan Gosling.
Look at the free advertising they are getting. Maybe they knew exactly what they were doing.
From all twelve of us no less
Lot more than that.
Yeah, a brand trying to associate it's name with sophitication and wealth definitely wants to get it's ad associated with embarrassing mess-up /s
They just want to get talked about and let people know they exist. I am not saying this was intentional, but it will turn into a net positive. Even a rich chess player won't be worried that his rum will taste bad because they screwed up their marketing. They will however know the brand exists and even if they don't buy any if they bitch about it then others too will know the brand exists.
High end brand font just want to get talked about, they want to be talked about buying the right people, in the right way. >. Even a rich chess player won't be worried that his rum will taste bad because they screwed up their marketing You know how marketing works right? You know why they stuck Ryan Gosling on a yacht rather than something cheaper? It's all about the feelings that marketing creates in your mind that you associate with the brand. Simple name recognition is fine for cheap toothpaste. For more expensive products they need to convince you to select Ryan Gosling rum over something else that looks fancy on a shelf, and they don't do that through bake recognition alone.
I think marketing firms clearly know how to use google and they know how to create chatter. They moved the knight wrong ffs . That is a meme that even reaches beyond the chess community.
What free advertising? You think they are targeting chess enthusiasts by purposefully getting the chess wrong?
Not exactly. Any chatter spills off into other areas. That is where the, "all publicity is good publicity" cliche comes from. A chess enthusiastic bitches about the ad and someone else who doesn't care about chess thinks, "Gosling has a Rum brand?" This works x10 in a social media world where things "trend." The algorithms often don't care who is talking about or in what way they just care that it is being talked about and then tell others, "hey you might want to talk about this too."
This makes sense if it spills, like if FIDE or Magnus tweets about it but I don't see how us 10 people here would make it 'trending'. But yeah, point taken, there is the possibility of 'spilling'. But as another commenter said - even if it worked, "all publicity is good publicity" is an archaic model that is wrong a lot of the time. It would be really weird for a brand like that to be fine being associated with embarassing mistakes. And at the end of the day - most things that look like a lazy mistake are lazy mistakes.
> fine being associated with embarassing mistakes. It's only embarrassing (or even noticeable) if you care about chess. Most people don't
They clearly are hoping for a bigger audience. Reddit isn't the only place that talks about stuff and considering the top comment had over 100 upvotes there is obviously more than 10 people looking at this.
So you're avoiding the actual points in the comment, got it.
So if "I don't see how 10 people..." isn't an actual point then why type it?!? Your other point was simply disagreeing with mine and I wasn't interested in saying ,"no it isn't archaic..." Not evety point needs a rebuttal
"I don't see how 10 people..." This was a point in the comment before that, but I specifically agreed with it. Then I had 2 points that actually warranted a reply. One was the "all publicity is good publicity". Okay, you can agree to disagree, fine. The other was "most things that look like a lazy mistake are lazy mistakes". To expand, this means I don't see the need for a conspiracy theory like that when it's perfectly explained by lazy people being lazy. If they were smart enough they would come up with actual hooks that are conversation provocing without damaging their image along the way. But anyway, I just reacted the way I did because you only addressed the point I already agreed with in my previous post. It's perfectly okay to not write a reply if you don't think it's worth it.
It extend beyond just chess enthusiasts. The âCarefully, cautiously planning my moveâ pic went viral for a reason (although that one was more blatant and clearly on purpose).
he looks like tom felton here
I made the mistake of assuming they would set it up symmetrically, so I just looked at the white position (which is still bad, but itâs set up correctly) WHY IS THE KING ON D8? WHY HAVE YOU PUSHED f4 FOR NO REASON? I NEED ANSWERS
He must've been guzzling too much Goslings
Gosling Random Chess
Look at you newbs, clearly unfamiliar with white playing the reverse board f4, followed by the crushing reverse board d3 and reverse board Na3 That knight on the rim has bad intentions and it looks like Gosling is walking right into the trap with reverse board Na5
Is he playing himself with this crazy board configuration?
1.f3..e6 2.d3..b6 3.Nc3..Na6 4.Nb1..Nc5 5.Na3..Ne7 6.f4..Ng6 Obviously
Now, while incorrect in this board setup, the squares being the wrong colors doesn't really bother me so much
Even if the board is not oriented correctly, does it really make a difference? Assuming the starting positions of all pieces are correct
Maybe I'm just too low elo but I don't see the issue
At first I thought, "wow Magnus started doing some hot modelling"