Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

David Vincent Hooper
Number of games in database: 30
Years covered: 1947 to 1954
Overall record: +6 -15 =9 (35.0%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
D68 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense, Classical (2 games)
E28 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch Variation (2 games)
C99 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin, (2 games)
C29 Vienna Gambit (2 games)

Search Sacrifice Explorer for David Vincent Hooper
Search Google for David Vincent Hooper

(born Aug-31-1915, died May-03-1998, 82 years old) United Kingdom

[what is this?]
David Hooper was born in Reigate, England. He first attracted international attention by winning, with a round to spare, the tournament at Blackpool 1944. British Correspondence Champion in 1944 and London Champion in 1948 he was also an author of note, specializing in the endgame.

Wikipedia article: David Vincent Hooper

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 30  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. D Hooper vs H Mallison 0-1361947WECU BristolC77 Ruy Lopez
2. C Sullivan vs D Hooper  1-0391947WECU BristolC00 French Defense
3. A R B Thomas vs D Hooper  1-0471947WECU BristolC12 French, McCutcheon
4. D Hooper vs H Trevenen  ½-½281947WECU BristolB13 Caro-Kann, Exchange
5. F Kitto vs D Hooper  1-0241947WECU BristolC29 Vienna Gambit
6. D Hooper vs R Bruce  ½-½341947WECUE16 Queen's Indian
7. R Slade vs D Hooper 0-1311947WECU BristolB83 Sicilian
8. C Vlagsma vs D Hooper  1-0381949NED-ENGA90 Dutch
9. D Hooper vs C Vlagsma  ½-½221949NED-ENGD54 Queen's Gambit Declined, Anti-Neo-Orthodox Variation
10. O Penrose vs D Hooper 0-1191950Buxton (England)C42 Petrov Defense
11. L Schmid vs D Hooper 1-0351951Hastings 1951/52C56 Two Knights
12. D Hooper vs J H Donner 1-0271951Hastings 1951/52E45 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Bronstein (Byrne) Variation
13. Golombek vs D Hooper 1-0341951Hastings 1951/52A06 Reti Opening
14. D Hooper vs S Popel 1-0291951Hastings 1951/52A52 Budapest Gambit
15. G Abrahams vs D Hooper  1-0351952Hastings 1951/52E56 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Main line with 7...Nc6
16. D Hooper vs L Barden 0-1261952Hastings 1951/52E28 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch Variation
17. Yanofsky vs D Hooper  ½-½291952Hastings 1951/52C99 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin,
18. D Hooper vs A R B Thomas  ½-½671952Hastings 1951/52D68 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense, Classical
19. D Hooper vs Gligoric 0-1301952Hastings 1951/52B63 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer Attack
20. D Hooper vs Euwe  0-1291952GBR-NEDE28 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch Variation
21. H Enevoldsen vs D Hooper  ½-½221952Helsinki ol (Men) prel-AE26 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch
22. E Cobo Arteaga vs D Hooper  ½-½271952Helsinki ol (Men) prel-AD68 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense, Classical
23. D Hooper vs R Barbier  1-0351952Helsinki ol (Men) prel-AD31 Queen's Gambit Declined
24. G Sigurdsson vs D Hooper  1-0591952Helsinki ol (Men) prel-AC43 Petrov, Modern Attack
25. R Ortega vs D Hooper  1-0411952Helsinki ol (Men) fin-BE41 Nimzo-Indian
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 30  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Hooper wins | Hooper loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
Premium Chessgames Member
  Benzol: David Vincent Hooper
Born 31st August 1915 in Reigate
He was British Correspondence champion in 1944 and London champion in 1948.
Jan-03-05  WMD: Not to be mistaken with David V Goliath.
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: His books on endings are really good. I learnt a vast amount from them. With Max Euwe he wrote 'A Guide to Chess Endings, and on his own he wrote 'A Pocket Guide to Chess Endings'. They both suffer from being in descriptive. You keep reading those wierd constructions like 'if black can get his R-pawn to his R5 then he can draw' - where algebraic would be so much clearer.
Jan-04-05  euripides: He also wrote a book in the Routledge Chess Handbook series called 'Practical chess endings' which is a really excellent short guide to what the club player needs to know, with a very well-judged balance between the necessary theoretical positions and the broader strategic issues. I owned the Pocket Handbook for many years without really using it much, but the little Routledge book is the best short introduction I've come across and transformed my understanding when I read it as a child. It seems to be totally out of print, but there are some second-hand copies knocking around one of the London chess shops.
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: I lived in a tent in France for three months and the Euwe/Hooper book was the only chess book I had! Can you imagine?? Every game I played after that was like... Let's get this thing to an ending!
Jan-13-05  WMD: There's an obit of Hooper in EG129:

Premium Chessgames Member
  Phony Benoni: It's interesting that he wrote books about the endgame, but his only three wins in the database are in 31 moves or less. Did his opponents resign early, accepting the inevitable?
Aug-15-08  CapablancaFan: My favorite David Hooper book.
Aug-15-08  gauer: He & Kenneth Whyld also did a great job on the classic reference, the Oxford Companion to Chess.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Infohunter: <offramp: His books on endings are really good. I learnt a vast amount from them. With Max Euwe he wrote 'A Guide to Chess Endings, and on his own he wrote 'A Pocket Guide to Chess Endings'. They both suffer from being in descriptive. You keep reading those wierd constructions like 'if black can get his R-pawn to his R5 then he can draw' - where algebraic would be so much clearer.>

I much prefer descriptive notation, thank you. "Suffers" indeed!

Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: <Aug-15> What's behind all this cryptic?
Aug-15-11  jackpawn: I'm old enough to prefer descriptive, but am fine with either. No 'suffering' for me . . .
Premium Chessgames Member
  Infohunter: To clarify: I can read algebraic just fine--it presents me with no problem. Perusing chess literature in other languages familiarized me with algebraic notation at an early age. Also I realize that in this digital age it is very much easier to program a computer to read algebraic than it would be to program it to read descriptive. But for what concerns English-based chess literature I "grew up" (if you will) on descriptive. I did not appreciate it when FIDE decided to shove the other system down our throats in 1981. Again, not that there is anything wrong with algebraic; it's when others impose their will on me that I get annoyed. As a practical matter, I have several hundred books in my personal chess library, the majority of which are written in English descriptive notation. Younger players who do not learn descriptive notation are effectively rendered illiterate in these older works. That's a pity.
Aug-15-11  waustad: I learned with descriptive, but find it really irritating now days. If you make a slight error, there is no way to fix it. pXp is rather unforgiving. Also, if you try some variant, with a board, it often means going back to the beginning to get the position. It does, however sometimes make it easier to describe some endgames, since it may not matter which rook's pawn you mean.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: I've always been an algebraic user for scoring my own games, but descriptive is probably better for endgame positions because of its symmetry. E.g. "In endgames of Q against a lone P, the Q wins unless it's a Rook's P or Bishop's P on the seventh rank."
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: In the same way, shouldn't we refer to "kingside" as "e-h side" for the sake of algebraic consistency?
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC