[chessforlife]

[ QUOTE ]
i found King of a Small World to be valuable enough to share with the readers of this thread, and I would bet decent money that most people would find more value in it that Cards

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when does one need to seek "value" in a novel? I look forward to reading "King of a small World" but i'm not going to need to insult "Cards" to like it. I can semi understand critically comparing instructional books, but besides for amusement, isn't battling one story against another illogical, and missing the point?

I don't know what this talk is about the "Cards" charachter analysing poorly. I think it's clear that he's a strong player when he wants / needs to be. And I'd honestly say I learned some good things from his play. His inconsistency is the driving force of the book. I was continually excited to see if he'd play right or screw things up. Time and again he admits he misplayed hands, and time and again he makes great plays. Gee, this guy is like...myself and everybody i know. What a coincidence. Would you rather have the main charachter a vanilla Matt Damon character? I liked Rounders. I'm just making a point.

While I agree with AKo about the book being deep, my question is: isn't it obvious that the author chose to make his charachter flawed? And doesn't it prove to be the best decision? Are people just not getting this point? The main reason the book is so cool is because of the flawed charachter. The guy is so frustrated with his poker life, and he's so emotional, he can't see straight. That's his problem. That's the charachter. Is Goodfellas a bad movie because Joe Peshi's charachter makes a donkish decision to kill a made man, which leads to his own killing? Of course not. It's the plot.

What some of you find as shortcomings, I think are the best aspects of the book, and what will make it a classic.

I thought these points were obvious though.