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

David Vincent Hooper
Number of games in database: 29
Years covered: 1947 to 1954
Overall record: +6 -14 =9 (36.2%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
C99 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin, (2 games)
C29 Vienna Gambit (2 games)
C42 Petrov Defense (2 games)
D68 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense, Classical (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 29  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. F Kitto vs D Hooper  1-024 1947 WECU BristolC29 Vienna Gambit
2. D Hooper vs Ronald M Bruce  ½-½34 1947 WECUE16 Queen's Indian
3. R Slade vs D Hooper 0-131 1947 WECU BristolB83 Sicilian
4. D Hooper vs H Mallison 0-136 1947 WECU BristolC42 Petrov Defense
5. C Sullivan vs D Hooper  1-039 1947 WECU BristolC00 French Defense
6. A Thomas vs D Hooper  1-047 1947 WECU BristolC12 French, McCutcheon
7. D Hooper vs H Trevenen  ½-½28 1947 WECU BristolB13 Caro-Kann, Exchange
8. D Hooper vs C Vlagsma  ½-½22 1949 NED-ENG mD54 Queen's Gambit Declined, Anti-Neo-Orthodox Variation
9. C Vlagsma vs D Hooper  1-038 1949 NED-ENG mA90 Dutch
10. O Penrose vs D Hooper 0-119 1950 Buxton (England)C42 Petrov Defense
11. L Schmid vs D Hooper  1-035 1951 Hastings 1951/52C56 Two Knights
12. D Hooper vs J H Donner 1-027 1951 Hastings 1951/52E45 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Bronstein (Byrne) Variation
13. Golombek vs D Hooper 1-034 1951 Hastings 1951/52A06 Reti Opening
14. D Hooper vs S Popel 1-029 1951 Hastings 1951/52A52 Budapest Gambit
15. G Abrahams vs D Hooper  1-035 1952 Hastings 1951/52E56 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Main line with 7...Nc6
16. D Hooper vs L Barden 0-126 1952 Hastings 1951/52E28 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch Variation
17. Yanofsky vs D Hooper  ½-½29 1952 Hastings 1951/52C99 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin,
18. D Hooper vs A Thomas  ½-½67 1952 Hastings 1951/52D68 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense, Classical
19. D Hooper vs Gligoric 0-130 1952 Hastings 1951/52B63 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer Attack
20. H Enevoldsen vs D Hooper  ½-½22 1952 Helsinki ol (Men)E26 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch
21. E Cobo Arteaga vs D Hooper  ½-½27 1952 Helsinki ol (Men)D68 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense, Classical
22. D Hooper vs R Barbier  1-035 1952 Helsinki ol (Men)D31 Queen's Gambit Declined
23. G Sigurdsson vs D Hooper  1-059 1952 Helsinki ol (Men)C43 Petrov, Modern Attack
24. R Ortega vs D Hooper  1-041 1952 Helsinki ol (Men)E41 Nimzo-Indian
25. I Grynfeld vs D Hooper  ½-½23 1952 Helsinki ol (Men)D14 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Exchange Variation
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 29  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 | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC