"By the way," he said, "would you rather be a hero or an antihero?"
Let me prattle on some more. Phone call still unsuccessful.
Last night I read of more of The Luneburg Variation, and spent ages trying to decide whether or not if I were a chess grand master I would be a hero or anti-hero since the main character spends considerable time deliberating this very question. Which is ridiculous, since I believe the answer is quite obvious. So, which are you?
"according to the pyschoanalyst Reuben Fine, one of the world's greatest players, players are of two antithetical types. One is the hero, who has no religion no reason for being, other than chess. His very satisfaction and every pleasure is drawn from the board and the victories it brings him; conversely, his every pain and fear of death is embodied in his defeats. The hero cannot imagine existence outside the battlefield of chess. He cannot exist without stuggle, for it alone sustains him, and he loses all interest in his surroundings when his preeminence begins to fade. Since for him nothing else exists, he vanishes, if not physically, at least as an individual. This, of course, is the most risky path...
(Dirtyplanet disagrees with that last statement. Continuing on...)
"The antihero can also be among the greatest of players, even a world champion, like Lasker, for instance, except that he isn't predestined for it. He doesn't sell his soul to the devil unconditionally, but slips in an escape clause or two. He doesn't live for chess alone, if you see what I mean. He's a man (WOMAN!), too and as such retains freedom of choice. Lasker was a mathematician and philosopher, an amateur musician, and, they say, and excellent bridge player as well."
Oh the torpid torpid world of obsessed chess players... Wish I had a super kabbalah electric shock inducing (when you make a bad move) metal chess board. Just like in the book.
Last night I read of more of The Luneburg Variation, and spent ages trying to decide whether or not if I were a chess grand master I would be a hero or anti-hero since the main character spends considerable time deliberating this very question. Which is ridiculous, since I believe the answer is quite obvious. So, which are you?
"according to the pyschoanalyst Reuben Fine, one of the world's greatest players, players are of two antithetical types. One is the hero, who has no religion no reason for being, other than chess. His very satisfaction and every pleasure is drawn from the board and the victories it brings him; conversely, his every pain and fear of death is embodied in his defeats. The hero cannot imagine existence outside the battlefield of chess. He cannot exist without stuggle, for it alone sustains him, and he loses all interest in his surroundings when his preeminence begins to fade. Since for him nothing else exists, he vanishes, if not physically, at least as an individual. This, of course, is the most risky path...
(Dirtyplanet disagrees with that last statement. Continuing on...)
"The antihero can also be among the greatest of players, even a world champion, like Lasker, for instance, except that he isn't predestined for it. He doesn't sell his soul to the devil unconditionally, but slips in an escape clause or two. He doesn't live for chess alone, if you see what I mean. He's a man (WOMAN!), too and as such retains freedom of choice. Lasker was a mathematician and philosopher, an amateur musician, and, they say, and excellent bridge player as well."
Oh the torpid torpid world of obsessed chess players... Wish I had a super kabbalah electric shock inducing (when you make a bad move) metal chess board. Just like in the book.