Dzindzichashvili vs Qi Jingxuan, 1984

In fact, Qi had to fly and didn't or couldn't change his flight, forfeiting the point against Dzindzi. Dzindzi did not win OTB. I suppose Qi expected to be able to play the last round game early, and maybe the adjourned games got in the way, or the TD didn't allow it. Pretty sure he would have not declined the invitation even if he had known that he was going to forfeit the last game. He probably kept mum.

The first Clarin tournament piggy-backed on the Buenos Aires olympiad. I mean absolutely no offense to Chinese players (or Chinese people), but Qi was invited to add sophistication and exoticism to the tournament. I believe Najdorf's tournament comments in the newspaper (Clarin) belabored the point of how international or global the tournament was, and the presence of Qi surely helped. Najdorf had gotten Clarin to disburse big bucks for this tournament, but it was also the pilot trial, so he needed to keep things within budget. By comparison to famous GMs, I am sure Qi was cheap and low maintenance.

The tournament was a raving success, which allowed Najdorf to step it up with a larger budget for the second tournament, which really brought the international big guns to Buenos Aires.

For his part, imagine what a boon this must have been for Qi. Chinese players had probably close to no chance to play international tournaments, in this case spending a couple of weeks in cosmopolitan Buenos Aires. If he noticed his scheduling conflict, he would have certainly not said "I am sorry but I have to decline." On the other hand, it is easy to imagine the Chinese government not being flexible to let him change his ticket (with the consequence extra expense.)

Back then in Argentina, I know that in tournaments you had to show up and make your move and wait one hour to claim the point, even if everyone knew your opponent was not going to show. Not sure if the rule was applied at the grandmaster level.

After some more thought: Well, it seemed to me that the history of violence behind the main character Tom was actually a good thing. But of course instead it's looked down on by his families even though he saved everyone and pulled the root out of the weed at the end (police can't touch his brother, his brother will keep killing innocent people). Every guy Tom killed saved someone else's life, and yet he gets all the #$%! from people he cares for. Is violence really always as bad as society portrays it to be?

There are various themes running through the movie. One is how hard it is to escape a past of violence (a theme that appears in other movies... Carlito's Way, for example.)

Another one is that, in order to combat the bad guys, his skills (learned from his own violent past) are very useful... as you say, something that is initially celebrated.

I think Cronenberg shows that violence engenders violence, even when it is used to uphold dignity. That it is an ugly thing but blanket condemnations may be a bit hypocritical. And he does not spare us the view that it is an ugly thing.

I also thought it was cinematographically very well done. Isn't the first scene almost 10 minutes long without interruption? It takes skill to handle the camera like that!

<Another one is that, in order to combat the bad guys, his skills (learned from his own violent past) are very useful... as you say, something that is initially celebrated.> All the guys he killed were eventually going to kill another innocent person. If he didn't have those skills, he along with everyone at where he works and a bunch of other random people will die.

<I think Cronenberg shows that violence engenders violence, even when it is used to uphold dignity. That it is an ugly thing but blanket condemnations may be a bit hypocritical. And he does not spare us the view that it is an ugly thing.> Maybe he should've also shown that there will always be people who do violence and therefore we will always need other people to do violence in return for protection, etc.

<I also thought it was cinematographically very well done. Isn't the first scene almost 10 minutes long without interruption? It takes skill to handle the camera like that!> I don't remember if it lasted 10 minutes--I mean, I don't recall whether the camera followed the water guy into the store or cut to him.

I saw parts of Goodfellas... never watched it full. I guess I should do that too.

I think you are right that Cronenberg does make the point that it often takes violence to fight violence (otherwise, it takes *the threat* of violence--either deterrence or repression through law enforcement and the justice system... that is, the very heavy weight of government--to fight violence.) Of course there is legitimate use of force/violence.

In the final scene, his family is still digesting everything that happened, and his wife is still getting over the shock of finding out who he was, but nevertheless they accept him back at the family dinner table. That is the admission, on the part of liberal sensibilities (personified by his wife) that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.