/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14265767]

>The Luzhin Defense by Vladimir Nabokov

>A chilling story of obsession and madness. Luzhin, a distracted, withdrawn boy, takes up chess as a refuge from everyday life. As he rises to the heights of grandmaster, the game of chess gradually supplants the world of reality as he moves inexorably towards madness.

[Anonymous No.14265960]

>>14265767
Is it safe to grab the pawn here?

[Anonymous No.14266033]

>>14265767
>White has played e3, a3, and Bd3
Jesus fucking christ, what? And is the Luzhin defense a real opening? I'm unfamilair.

[Anonymous No.14267554]

>>14266033
To be fair I like white's position a lot more than black's.
If you're going to take a photo like this why not at least go to the trouble of setting up the board realistically?

[Anonymous No.14267641]

>>14267554
>why not at least go to the trouble of setting up the board realistically?
Because art cares not for your silly rules

[Anonymous No.14267807]

I was under the impression that the novel was called "The Defense" and the movie was called "The Luzhin Defense"

[Anonymous No.14267892]

>>14265767

A game of chess should actually conclude, as a gratifying formality, with the capture of the loser's king by the winning player. It should also not require that a player in check must get out of check during their turn-if they're careless enough not to take care of this, then they deserve to lose on the next half-turn via the above.

In short, the object of chess should not be "to place the opponent in checkmate". The object of the game should be, simply, "to capture the opponent's king."

[Anonymous No.14267908]

>>14267892
Sounds worse. You haven't really thought this idea through, have you...

[Anonymous No.14267924]

>>14267892
>In short, the object of chess should not be "to place the opponent in checkmate". The object of the game should be, simply, "to capture the opponent's king."

That IS the objective. When you put a king in check you are threatening its capture in the next move, checkmate is when the king cannot escape that threat. The position of checkmate is functionally equivalent to the capture of the king, since wherever it moves it will be captured next turn.

Also what you describe regarding not escaping check is actually a formal rule in Blitz where it has a possibility of coming up. In regular play between competent players it rarely happens and thus is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.14267942]

>A TOUR DE FORCE

[Anonymous No.14267977]

>>14265767
It's a really shit book. As far as my own reading experience goes it ranks with the one by F. Scott Fitzgerald which apruptly ends with the character embracing socialism as among the worst written by good writers.

[Anonymous No.14268158]

>>14267892
Sound like my dick friend who could never beat me in chess unless he slyly put me into check without saying anything, hoping I wouldn’t notice.
His entire game relied on this strategy.

[Anonymous No.14268196]

>>14267892
>It should also not require that a player in check must get out of check during their turn-if they're careless enough not to take care of this, then they deserve to lose on the next half-turn via the above
This rule would diminish a great part of chess’ aesthetic ideal. It should be, in theory, a battle fought between two perfect forms. The loser is, or should be, the first to cede to decay. Better put, chess is a game in which the aim is to deny simple, human error for as long as possible.

[Anonymous No.14268200]

My birthday is coming up soon. I don't really celebrate it. I better not get into the reasons behind my solitary existence, but my birthday is special for one reason. You could call it a gift to myself.

Every year, I make a chess move and then seal up a drawing of the position of the pieces in a letter and open it on the next birthday. Every year, I change the side of the board I'm playing for. It is my theory that if one tries their hardest to defeat yourself, it will always will end in a draw. Certainly, if you play as black with all you might, but as white with middling interest, you can "win", but it doesn't really count.

I'm a chess champion, so of course I've tried playing myself where you spin the board around after each move, and it always ends in a draw. I can remember exactly what I was thinking a moment ago and counter it perfectly. But what if you let a year elapse between every move and you've forgotten your own strategy? Is it still impossible to beat yourself? Will it all end the same? I will find out what happens but I don't know if I will learn anything, because I already know the end result is either checkmate or stalemate.

well anyway whatever who gives a shit. at the rate that I make moves, I'll be dead before I ever find out who wins. Like I said, I either win or end up in stalemate.

[Anonymous No.14268207]

>>14268200
your experiment is flawed because your strength changes as you get older. You’re not really playing yourself

[Anonymous No.14268215]

>>14268207
Does it? Perhaps I am getting worse at chess as time goes on as I've become a hermit. I play no one but myself. But then, I guess my experiment is flawed anyway. It doesn't matter if I'm getting better with age or worse, either way, I'm at a disadvantage.

oh well

[Anonymous No.14268259]

>>14267924

I wasn't aware of change-of-rules for Blitz, thanks for that. Apart from this point, thank you for self-refuting so efficiently.

This post >>14268158 demonstrates why I am right and why these people >>14267908 >>14268196 are wrong.

[Anonymous No.14269050]

>>14268215
ill play chess with you anon. im shit but fuck it.

[Anonymous No.14269052]

>>14265767

[Cricket No.14269119]

>>14265960
Looks like a free pawn yeah.