What are you reading tonight?

[Prufrock]

Sometimes it feels overwritten, but there are some brilliant human observations in there. Maybe half a dozen sentences of pure genius, which is a huge number for one, short novel! And I also particularly enjoyed the way the book cut between scenes and time in the same way a film does - it can't be a coincidence that it was written at the start of the cinema age.

I wrote something very similar about John Dos Passos' Manhattan Transfer a while back, published in the same period (they were both members of the same set, which included Hemingway, and same time as Steinbeck, though I don't think he was part of their 'group').

Still yet to get around to The Great Gatsby, although you aren't the first to read and enjoy in the last few weeks. Did you buy it or library?

I think we've actually got two copies in the minor library we're putting together at my new place. We'll have to have you round for dinner or something soon.

Definitely. It's been on my list for ages and the dinner sounds good too.

[Jugs]

The Great Gatsby (the novel) itself has a very cinematic feel. I have to say that I've never been a big fan of American fiction but then I read William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying over Christmas and thought it was awesome; its a piece of modernism and because its so avant-garde, Faulkner could be as expressive and colorful with his language as he wanted - which can be off-putting to some. His similes are awesome. Highly recommended to anyone who likes a bit of modernism but finds James Joyce a bit too much.

Now I'm gonna start reading Knut Hamsun's Hunger.

[William the White]

The Great Gatsby (the novel) itself has a very cinematic feel. I have to say that I've never been a big fan of American fiction but then I read William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying over Christmas and thought it was awesome; its a piece of modernism and because its so avant-garde, Faulkner could be as expressive and colorful with his language as he wanted - which can be off-putting to some. His similes are awesome. Highly recommended to anyone who likes a bit of modernism but finds James Joyce a bit too much.

Now I'm gonna start reading Knut Hamsun's Hunger.

Now you are talking serious reading... Lost in admiration...

[Jugs]

I got into Hamsun by reading Mysteries last month The synopsis for Hunger sounds like something I'd want to read so its my next logical step with this writer. Have you read much by him?

[William the White]

I got into Hamsun by reading Mysteries last month The synopsis for Hunger sounds like something I'd want to read so its my next logical step with this writer. Have you read much by him?

Only Hunger, many years ago.

[mrkint]

This book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silmans-Complet ... 1890085103" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, I am that cool.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

This book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silmans-Complet ... 1890085103" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, I am that cool.

'kinell mrkint. Nobody should read about endgames! Stands to reason - If you haven't won in the frontgame or at least settled it in the middlegame then you're not going to be enjoying the endgame, and if you're not going to enjoy it why suffer the theory. 'nuff said.

[mrkint]

True, it's a pain in the arse but it's something I need to work on. As my chess improves opponents don't make the same blunders and can get to an endgame with relative equality...but a lot at my level don't know the basic theory behind it! So thought learn that, and keep learning it as i develop, and maybe i'll win more. or something.

[Montreal Wanderer]

This book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silmans-Complet ... 1890085103" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, I am that cool.

'kinell mrkint. Nobody should read about endgames! Stands to reason - If you haven't won in the frontgame or at least settled it in the middlegame then you're not going to be enjoying the endgame, and if you're not going to enjoy it why suffer the theory. 'nuff said.

Spotty demonstrates his great understanding of the game by assuming the opening is called a frontgame. Well, I suppose it does seem reasonable....

[Lost Leopard Spot]

This book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silmans-Complet ... 1890085103" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, I am that cool.

'kinell mrkint. Nobody should read about endgames! Stands to reason - If you haven't won in the frontgame or at least settled it in the middlegame then you're not going to be enjoying the endgame, and if you're not going to enjoy it why suffer the theory. 'nuff said.

Spotty demonstrates his great understanding of the game by assuming the opening is called a frontgame. Well, I suppose it does seem reasonable....

I can fianchetto with the best of 'em Mr Monty. frontgame/middlegame/endgame a game of three halves.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

True, it's a pain in the arse but it's something I need to work on. As my chess improves opponents don't make the same blunders and can get to an endgame with relative equality...but a lot at my level don't know the basic theory behind it! So thought learn that, and keep learning it as i develop, and maybe i'll win more. or something.

Is this a book about specifics or just general theory. I bought one, once, by some nineteenth century grandmaster, all about pawn development in an end game. Stunning theorising but almost impossible to put into practice as each development needed almost that exact scenario to have been reached otherwise it did not help at all, and as you can imagine seven eights of the way through a game isn't the ideal time to say 'hang on let me just consult my endgame theory book to see if these pawns look anything like any of the positions in the book'.

[mrkint]

True, it's a pain in the arse but it's something I need to work on. As my chess improves opponents don't make the same blunders and can get to an endgame with relative equality...but a lot at my level don't know the basic theory behind it! So thought learn that, and keep learning it as i develop, and maybe i'll win more. or something.

Is this a book about specifics or just general theory. I bought one, once, by some nineteenth century grandmaster, all about pawn development in an end game. Stunning theorising but almost impossible to put into practice as each development needed almost that exact scenario to have been reached otherwise it did not help at all, and as you can imagine seven eights of the way through a game isn't the ideal time to say 'hang on let me just consult my endgame theory book to see if these pawns look anything like any of the positions in the book'.

A bit of both. It's written in a way that is very accessible (certainly compared to many other GM books) because it is done in order of reader ability rather than theoretical concepts. Starting off at beginner level (obvs) it shows how to checkmate when you are a shedload of material up, before going on to other basic things like 'how to avoid stalemating your opponent if you're a shedload up. Once you get through that it then goes up to the next level to go through relatively straight forward rook endings, and this pattern continues all the way up to master-level theory. But it is not something to be read all the way through in one go. At the outset the author says the book is designed so that whatever your level is you can dip into it and either brush up or learn about endgame concepts suitable to your level. As you said before, "if you aint won it in the opening/middlegame then no point looking forward to the endgame'. Yes that is true at low levels when people often blunder material away to give a side a clear advantage, but as I'm improving (ever so slowly, and im still shite but not as shite as before) unclear endgames or endgames which need to be converted rather than conceded are more and more common. So, instead of losing/drawing them, I'd just like to learn how to win them with as little study as possible and this book is helping.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

True, it's a pain in the arse but it's something I need to work on. As my chess improves opponents don't make the same blunders and can get to an endgame with relative equality...but a lot at my level don't know the basic theory behind it! So thought learn that, and keep learning it as i develop, and maybe i'll win more. or something.

Is this a book about specifics or just general theory. I bought one, once, by some nineteenth century grandmaster, all about pawn development in an end game. Stunning theorising but almost impossible to put into practice as each development needed almost that exact scenario to have been reached otherwise it did not help at all, and as you can imagine seven eights of the way through a game isn't the ideal time to say 'hang on let me just consult my endgame theory book to see if these pawns look anything like any of the positions in the book'.

A bit of both. It's written in a way that is very accessible (certainly compared to many other GM books) because it is done in order of reader ability rather than theoretical concepts. Starting off at beginner level (obvs) it shows how to checkmate when you are a shedload of material up, before going on to other basic things like 'how to avoid stalemating your opponent if you're a shedload up. Once you get through that it then goes up to the next level to go through relatively straight forward rook endings, and this pattern continues all the way up to master-level theory. But it is not something to be read all the way through in one go. At the outset the author says the book is designed so that whatever your level is you can dip into it and either brush up or learn about endgame concepts suitable to your level. As you said before, "if you aint won it in the opening/middlegame then no point looking forward to the endgame'. Yes that is true at low levels when people often blunder material away to give a side a clear advantage, but as I'm improving (ever so slowly, and im still shite but not as shite as before) unclear endgames or endgames which need to be converted rather than conceded are more and more common. So, instead of losing/drawing them, I'd just like to learn how to win them with as little study as possible and this book is helping.

Fair dos. It's just that I found being beaten by better players in end games taught me more about how to play endgames than any theory book I've ever come across, unlike books on openings which can give (IMO) invaluable insights into some specifics and some general theorising which is invaluable.
An example: I was taught by a good player who had the best advice I've ever been given about openings - where he pointed to the centre four squares and said if you defend/attack these four squares with more ammo than the opponent whilst defending all the pieces attacking those squares you'll not go far wrong. I've never yet come across advice for endgame play that can be equally profound and yet as easily learnt and as generally relevant throughout a game.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Personally I love the openings which pretty much establishes whether, when white, if you have a won or drawn game. My problem with the later parts of the game is brain farts - overlooking something simple like a knight fork or a bishop on a long diagonal that is freed up by a pawn move. These turn winning position into absolute humiliation and no books can help with this.

[mrkint]

Fair dos. It's just that I found being beaten by better players in end games taught me more about how to play endgames than any theory book I've ever come across, unlike books on openings which can give (IMO) invaluable insights into some specifics and some general theorising which is invaluable.
An example: I was taught by a good player who had the best advice I've ever been given about openings - where he pointed to the centre four squares and said if you defend/attack these four squares with more ammo than the opponent whilst defending all the pieces attacking those squares you'll not go far wrong. I've never yet come across advice for endgame play that can be equally profound and yet as easily learnt and as generally relevant throughout a game.

That is fair enough. I've only really been playing chess for three or four years, and only recently joined a club in London to get some OTB (I've only ever played online before). As such I'm open to any advice i can take

That's some good advice about openings. When I was first learning (ie being 20, in the Scythe, leathered on scrumpy) the landlord, John (RIP) showed us a few openings and made a similar point about the central four squares. It is indeed something I need to learn more about though.

However, i just felt it'd be good to know more about endgames as a) they are often so finely balanced and a badly timed pawn-push can turn a win into a loss in a heartbeat, and b) most people are scared of them. So i thought if I could learn more about them, I could outplay them if it gets to that stage

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Fair dos. It's just that I found being beaten by better players in end games taught me more about how to play endgames than any theory book I've ever come across, unlike books on openings which can give (IMO) invaluable insights into some specifics and some general theorising which is invaluable.
An example: I was taught by a good player who had the best advice I've ever been given about openings - where he pointed to the centre four squares and said if you defend/attack these four squares with more ammo than the opponent whilst defending all the pieces attacking those squares you'll not go far wrong. I've never yet come across advice for endgame play that can be equally profound and yet as easily learnt and as generally relevant throughout a game.

That is fair enough. I've only really been playing chess for three or four years, and only recently joined a club in London to get some OTB (I've only ever played online before). As such I'm open to any advice i can take

That's some good advice about openings. When I was first learning (ie being 20, in the Scythe, leathered on scrumpy) the landlord, John (RIP) showed us a few openings and made a similar point about the central four squares. It is indeed something I need to learn more about though.

However, i just felt it'd be good to know more about endgames as a) they are often so finely balanced and a badly timed pawn-push can turn a win into a loss in a heartbeat, and b) most people are scared of them. So i thought if I could learn more about them, I could outplay them if it gets to that stage

And more power to you. It's good that you want to develop. I'm just one of these people who reads a book on end game stategy and cannot see how it will ever benefit me because they are all so detailed and position specific.
I never did/have played online - all my games were learnt the hard way, face to face, usually in a pub. I think that is the best way to learn [I know, I'm biased] and losing that way with the immediacy of being able to quiz your opponent gives you insights that games at a distance can't.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Personally I love the openings which pretty much establishes whether, when white, if you have a won or drawn game. My problem with the later parts of the game is brain farts - overlooking something simple like a knight fork or a bishop on a long diagonal that is freed up by a pawn move. These turn winning position into absolute humiliation and no books can help with this.

I'm with you. It is very annoying to get to an end game just to fxck up on something that you'd analyse instantly and avoid in the complex middle game. The wider open the board with the fewer pieces remaining tend to 'numb' the brain into a false sense of security. And then bang, hey presto, chumpsville...
(I am though, these days, more the perpetrator than the perpetrated upon )

[Montreal Wanderer]

Fair dos. It's just that I found being beaten by better players in end games taught me more about how to play endgames than any theory book I've ever come across, unlike books on openings which can give (IMO) invaluable insights into some specifics and some general theorising which is invaluable.
An example: I was taught by a good player who had the best advice I've ever been given about openings - where he pointed to the centre four squares and said if you defend/attack these four squares with more ammo than the opponent whilst defending all the pieces attacking those squares you'll not go far wrong. I've never yet come across advice for endgame play that can be equally profound and yet as easily learnt and as generally relevant throughout a game.

That is fair enough. I've only really been playing chess for three or four years, and only recently joined a club in London to get some OTB (I've only ever played online before). As such I'm open to any advice i can take

That's some good advice about openings. When I was first learning (ie being 20, in the Scythe, leathered on scrumpy) the landlord, John (RIP) showed us a few openings and made a similar point about the central four squares. It is indeed something I need to learn more about though.

However, i just felt it'd be good to know more about endgames as a) they are often so finely balanced and a badly timed pawn-push can turn a win into a loss in a heartbeat, and b) most people are scared of them. So i thought if I could learn more about them, I could outplay them if it gets to that stage

The opening is what gives white his great advantage. He can choose an opening with which he is familiar and opponent may not be (I used to love Evans gambit). Control of the central four squares is important. I used to like king's pawn openings but I hate the Sicilian so I now go to P-QP4. This has never really been bettered and gives long lasting initiative, whether black fights for the centre with Queen's gambit declined or snipes from the side with a fianchetto type defence. White is always ahead in development, while black is often stuck with a blocked QB. On Black I like to throw something unusual against white like a nineteenth century gambit he may not have studied (le.g. the Wilkes-Barre variation of the two knights defence which throws the whole game wide open and gets white out of the books. People still fall into the Noah's Ark trap with some regularity, and there are other traps for the unwary. I do not play live opponents very much if at all - so my opponents tend to be computer programs.

[mrkint]

Oh of course. I know that white has the advantage out of the opening. When white I just generally try try for either a ruy lopez or the italian game, just to get the pieces out and also to try and set up the Legal Trap (which a few people fall for regularly), whereas with black I tend to either go for a sicilian or a kings indian. The Evans gambit is interesting - i dont think it's ever been refuted has it, despite its age? If you ever do fancy a live game monty you could sign up to chess.com and i can give you a game

What's the Noah's Ark trap?

I don't suppose anyone is watching any of the games going on at Wijk Aan Zee atm? [/nichealert] carlsen has started slowly but destroyed his opponent yesterday and wouldn't be too surprised if he does for the World Champ today.

[thebish]

many pages ago I recommended The Cloud Atlas - FANTASTIC book...

well - I didn't realise this - but apparently it's coming out on film. I will be very interested indeed to see how on earth they cram the sheer scope and scale of that book into a film...

if any of you haven't read it yet - it's well worth your time... it's by (not the comedian) David Mitchell..