|Jan-03-05|| ||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. |
|Jan-04-05|| ||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. |
|Jan-04-05|| ||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:
|Aug-15-06|| ||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. http://www.amazon.com/Capablanca-Do...|
|Aug-15-08|| ||gauer: He & Kenneth Whyld also did a great job on the classic reference, the Oxford Companion to Chess.|
|Aug-15-11|| ||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!
|Aug-15-11|| ||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 . . .|
|Aug-15-11|| ||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.|
|Dec-22-16|| ||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."|
|Dec-22-16|| ||Dionysius1: In the same way, shouldn't we refer to "kingside" as "e-h side" for the sake of algebraic consistency?|