I'm reading the immortal game . . .

And it's one of the best books I've ever read! Even a non player can appreciate the history as it woven through facts about chess.

I meant to post this in the books and equipment section but it defaulted to this forum. Its kind of hard posting from my phone. Still, people should take a look at it. Facinating stuff!

What's the over all topic? Chess or Chess players?

Its a little of everything. For the history part, you get the context of how the world was when that particular aspect of chess is discussed. There are a lot of players mentioned and a lot of historical figures that happened to be players. For instance, I was unaware that Marcel duchamp was so enamored with chess, he quit producing art at the height of his career to devote all of his time to chess. Then there is the story of how Napoleon, who was an avid player, was exciled to st Helena after his fall from power. The chess set that made the voyage with him contained the instructions for escape. The only steward that knew of them died enroute and Napoleon spent his final days playing chess literally with the key to his freedom. I'm not saying anymore, I don't want to ruin it.

Ahhhhh why did I read this post!!!!!!!!

I'll say this though, the history of chess by h.j.r Murray is an exhausting trek, one that fatigued my eyes . . . But it makes total sense why it took him a decade to complete

I'll have to check that one out too! There are also some famous games at the end of the book. I like playing through those.

Murray's book is a dream. You can also read additional works by Murray in the "BCM" between around 1898 and 1908, give or take.  Shenk's book is far different, dealing with chess from a particular persepective. anyone at all interested in the history of the game should read "The Immortal Game."

BTW, Duchamp never abandonned art for chess, not even temporarily. He was quite busy working on his artistic ideas but in a less public way.

Batgirl is that really trueء? If so I hope the immortal game doesn't have too many mistakes like that unless Op made a mistake

It's true. I was corresponding with David Shenk as he was writing the book but only about the chess aspects. I beleive (I can't remember with certainty) that particular conception of Duchamp was first claimed by either Francis Picabia or Andre Breton because Duchamp seemed to grow disinterested in Dada (Duchamp never officially embraced that movement, though he certainly lead the way) and had a strong preoccupation with chess, more so than most other artists of that time - and that's saying a lot. It got blown out of proportion.  I think Shenk repeated "common knowledge" which, like a lot of common knowledge, isn't always quite as it seems.  I do think there are some mistakes in "The Immortal Game" (as with most things) but not many and nothing too serious. I certainly highly recommend it. I found it the most readable book on chess history I've ever read.

it was mentioned in different chapters in different degrees but it did say that he was going to quit painting to study chess. I may have to re-read. I couldn't put this book down once I started it and read it in two sittings. It's not impossible I've mixed a few things up.

I also suspect there were some embellishments in the book but it was still enjoyable and makes me interested in reading similar books. I'm going to check the other one out!

I remember reading it a few years ago and liking it reasonably well, so I got another Shenk book called "The Genius in All of Us" (I think), and it was awful, nearly 150 pages of footnotes to fewer than 150 pages of text.  I think he was just trying to follow up on his success and didn't care about the awful quality.  I know I will never buy or read anything of his again.

welp, I will have the one by Murray on monday, thanks to Amazon!

Speaking of footnotes, it was only in a footnote on a chapter on Phillidor did I find out Voltaire and Roseau played chess but Never became very good

Mcostan your going to love it, the introduction is superb and the most important part because it sets up EVERYTHING else. Each chapter from that begins with how chess started in China, Malaysia, Persia and pecualrites of chess in those countries. Then it spends a lot of time on chess in Islamic history the famous Players and stuff. I found myself re reading the chapters on the topics I really cared about and ignoring stuff on Chinese chess to be honest, and frankly I did not really care about pawn promotion in Russian chess but about Western European chess but that's the beauty of the book, it has everything on every topic so you never feel what you care about it neglected

It mentions Murphy but not in great detail....the last great player it focuses on is my French king Phillidor

Here's some stuff touching on those two gentlemen.

Murray, in his book that is, doesn't get heavily into chess much past the 18th century... just a bit. His book, and you better like footnotes and appendixes, deals mostly with the development of chess through time. 

I think you mean Morphy?

Oh btw the book is quick to heavy to hold lol