Dag Solstad's "Armand V: 5"

Pretty much just started. Put Franz and Milena aside but I'm sure I'll meet them again in Prague or Warsaw (count down: 5 days). Anyway, here's a clip on two friends and playing chess:

So Jan Brosten and Paul Buer played chess together. They were an odd pair, especially since Jan was a much better player than Paul. If Jan had focused his attention on chess by joining a chess club, he probably would have gone far; the same could not be said of Paul. Yet both were happy amateurs, except that Jan was a much better player. What we can say is that Jan almost always won, and when he didn’t, it was a stalemate. Once in a while Paul would fight his way to a stalemate, and he was proud of that. And let’s be honest, sometimes Paul did win, on occasions when Jan had squandered most of his pieces in a battle with his own fascinating intuition. Because Jan played in a way that was directly contrary to how many would have thought he’d proceed. He opened with grea t daring, what many might call a foolhardy opening, and took chances; it seemed as if he were moving randomly and taking a certain pleasure in doing so. But gradually a plan would materialize in his mind, which he would then, but only then, follow mercilessly, yet the whole time making use of diversionary maneuvers to mislead his opponent. Only when his opponent, i.e., Paul, had no possibility of evading what was bound to come — checkmate — did this plan become apparent. Now and then it might seem as if Paul had the upper hand in the game, at least on those occasions when Jan’s too bold and unorthodox openings had led to certain serious losses, for instance squandering a knight in exchange for nothing, but that was actually not the case, and Paul knew it, because he never (or almost never) won; the best he could do was to fight hard for a stalemate.