Does the Queen's Gambit Accurately Represent the Chess World?

I assumed that last one was a deliberate setup by the Russians to try to get Beth, presumably known to them to be an alcoholic at this point, to break her sobriety.

Considering that there was talking during the games between the players, about 17 moves were made in under a minute and they were playing with expensive vintage Staunton sets, no. There is much that is far from the true chess congress, but admittedly apart from this, they didn't do such a bad job.

It is frankly disappointing as a chess player that you can only see about half of the chess board at best during most scenes, whilst most of the screen is filled with their reactions. I think the chess players who watch this will want to know more details of the actual games themselves rather than the backstory, but this is hardly surprising considering it is aimed at a broad audience. 

Also, when the players talk about the moves, they say "move the queen here" and "queen takes rook" and "I can take your pawn on this square". In reality, a post-mortem analysis between two master players will go something like this " I thought I had 22. PxP and if BPxP 23. R-B1 Q-N1 with 24. Q-R5 P-R3 25. N-N5 with a strong attack and if you play 22...QPxP then I had blad de bla de bla (frantically moving around the pieces to show some variation). Then the other guy says, but if you had gone 22,PxP I'd have gone here ..etc. etc.

A lot more concrete.

But all in all, rant over... Apart from these minor problems I have with it, they didn't do a terrible job I suppose.

Of course, if you don't see the board much, even actual chess players aren't going to be able to follow a string of moves.

Myself, I ended up pausing a lot of times to try to figure out the games.  (I actually thought Beth's game against the 13-year-old Girev (based on a Jakovenko game) was a Judit Polgar game -- the game I was thinking of also had the g5/h4->h5 vs g6/h6 breakthrough motif).  I would have liked to see even more Easter eggs in games of other players, but considering most of the players are more or less props for Beth's triumphal procession, I can see why it didn't happen.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the show a lot, but Beth winning every game except against whoever her strongest opponent is at the moment is a flaw in the book and it remains so in the show (actually, that's not 100% true in the book, though it is in the show -- and she still has no draws at all in the book, I believe).  At the very least she should have had some draws, and really the occasional draw or even loss could have made for more dramatic tension.

Yeah, well, I heard it's good... But I can't watch it because it has swearing, sex, etc...  Yeah, adults say movies gotta have that...  

That makes no sense. The sex and the identities of the players are irrelevant to the moves they are playing.

    Do you realize it is set in a time before personal computers were invented?

Guys if I can add something here. The championship games from the Queens Gambit series are actual world championship games played in the 1950's and 1960's. This was mentioned by the producer and the two GM's who helped on the set when filming games being played. The talking during the game playing was brought up by the GMs as well but the producer hit them with part of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 theme song. " It's just a tv show you should really just relax." 

So dumb when people talk about inaccuracies in tv shows - do they imagine them to be actual time-portals into the past?

maybe, but it isn't just completely ok to see a woman get rank 1, the world chess isn't still that equal