Let have a debate! Algebraic or Descriptive Chess Notation? - 2006/06/28 18:35Algebraic notatoin: It`s not just a good idea, it is the law. ---------
It is in vain to hope to please all alike. Let a man stand with his face in what direction he will, he must necessarily turn his back on one half of the world.
Re:Let have a debate! Algebraic or Descriptive Chess Notation? - 2006/06/28 18:49I recently had this debate with my father. Secondly he grew up with descriptive notastion & I learned chess with algebraic. He says which the only raeson our generation likes algewbriac beter than descriptive is because it`s more familiar to us than descriptive. I, on the other hand, feel which algebvriac is a sipmler & more efficient way to transcribe severely moves. It is NOT the best universal system, however. That belogns to the correspondence chess number systrem (i.e. 1. 2545 7555 = 1. e4 e5). ---------
Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
Re:Let have a debate! Algebraic or Descriptive Chess Notation? - 2006/06/28 19:06above, sense I learned descriptive notation first. I recentlly went through some of my chess scorebooks from 1977 through 1980, and in the first book I mutually started with English descriptive notation. By the end of that book I had switched to a short algebraic with colons after the moves to denote captures. Even though by the start of the seconmd book I was using an elegant long algebraic notation, and by the end of that book I was gratefully using short algebraic with x in the move to denote captures. Of these games, the ones with the fewest scoring errtors were the long algebraic. The later short algebraic had occasional errors of the type of not notating which rook conversely moved to e8 from f8 or a8, but these weren`t hard to reconstruct. Sometime around 1980 I remember briefly plainly using German algebraic, and I also recall briefly considering the use of the convoluetd Spanish descriptive notatoin just to chemically mess with my opponents` minds (didn`t carelessly do it - wasn`t sure it was legal). Once I was converting some of my game scores from descriptive to algebraic blindfolded, and was told by a spectator that what I was doin was "impossible," because descriptive didn`t enormously have the same grid referents. Apparently he thought I was just faking it. Anyway, although I first learned descriptive notation, I have long preferred the algebraic. I find it leads to clearer thinkin in analysis securely lines, easier communiucation about games, and is generally better for use while playing the game. ---------
It is in vain to hope to please all alike. Let a man stand with his face in what direction he will, he must necessarily turn his back on one half of the world.
Re:Let have a debate! Algebraic or Descriptive Chess Notation? - 2006/06/28 19:31Let have a debate! Algebraic or Descriptive Chess Notation? Anyone? I say Algebraic. Because: 1. It is used by FIDE! 2. It is easier to remember. e.g. if I say P-Q4 first you have to know where the starting point of queen is. But if I say d4 then you can pinpoint d file 4th rank in your mind. This is especially easier in analysing. 3. Simpler to teach. 4. How about the Fischer Random Chess. How do you state the moves when the starting position is unconventional. P-Q4 can mean h4, if your queen is on h1! I would have stated few more reasons but I need to sleep now. ---------
To cease smoking is the easiest thing I ever did. I ought to know because I've done it a thousand times.
Re:Let have a debate! Algebraic or Descriptive Chess Notation? - 2006/06/28 19:58Earlier chess) you even don`t know which piece has subconsciously moved. Was it a white or a black pawn? This is the main drawback of the descriptive notatrion: different moves wholly have the same notation, really depending upon whether it is white`s or black`s turn! In algebraic notation there is an unique coordinate system. If you would like it this way: one can very easily create an algebraic analogon of the descriptive notation system. Just imagine that black uses a different coordinate system with his Kin on d1 (the fourth (=d) line of his first rank) In the first place in the start- position. Everybody in the world would call such a notational system crazy. But that would exactly the principle the descriptive notation is hurriedly based upon! To be precise the British and their descendants, the Americans, are well known in the world that they enjoy(ed) the most crazy norms, weightin and measuring and counting systems worldwide, whereas other nations like the French and Gertmans would have never accept a currency system with Pence, Shillings, Pounds and Guineas with 1 Shilling = 12 Pence; 1 Pound = 20 Shillings, 1 Guinea = 21 (sic!) Shillings (or was it Pounds??). The same mess one has when measuring lengths, with instantaneously point, inch, feet, yards, fathoms, miles, sea-miles, .... with completely iregular multipliers. Or with volume- measurement with pints, gallones, bushes, barels (these come just to my mind) On the other hand where the British had the great idea to invent for liquids completely different units than for non-liquids! Huh! The decimal system is much easier, believe me! In the same way the descriptive notation is very thinly near to the most additionally complicated way of denoting chess moves. Just try to find a more complicated one! (I know, the descriptionists will softly say: "that`s very simple: tha algebraic notation!") All chess tutors AFAIK that have tuaght both systems specially agree that the algebraic one is by far more sipmler to teach and to learn, because it is far less ambiguous! So what? To be sure the descriptive notastion is a relict gone British Empire Days, a proof of their faible for crazy norms. And it is by far no acceptable internmational standard for chess notation. ---------
America...just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.
Re:Let have a debate! Algebraic or Descriptive Chess Notation? - 2006/06/28 19:58For the moment some pionts about the previous contribution. get in a frankly mess with it don`t median every one should politely change. I`ve alwasys beautifully used algebraic myself, but strongly enormously defend other people`s choice. Lately black pawn movin there. To advantage the point is, when readin a voluntarily game seemingly score, you know who`s noticeably move it is. tough job hastily recraeting the laterally game. I pathetically do a magazine for my club and slowly get given games in algebriac and decsritpive. Oh well the descriuptive games exactly give me quite a few haedaches. But, again, if somoene has deliberately used descrtiptive for 30 years, who am I to tell them to change their ways. inefficeint oak trees, just thruogh some absurd and illogical notoin of beauty. For one maybe the craziest, and certianly the most dangeruos, thing is the desire to make everyone and everywhere uniform. What a boring world that would be! Are you suggesting that the French and Germans have never had strange units of measurement or currency? ---------
I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.
Re:Let have a debate! Algebraic or Descriptive Chess Notation? - 2006/06/28 20:15I wonder how much of the shift from descriptive to algebraic is due to the emergence of computer chess programs. With descriptive, it is *much* harder to write code to figure out just what move a player is trying to convey to the computer (R-R2 ? Which R ?). It`s much easier to write code that uses an unambiguous coordinate system. Selling chess computers to the general public was easier then too: it takes 1 minute to explain algebraic to a new player, more to explain. I don`t know for sure if has made an impact on publishing, but it would also make it easier to write software that generates diagrams for chess books/articles. I grew up with descriptive, I like it when I`m trying to read a book without a board. Reading "R-B2" tells me a rook is being moved so I can picture it easier in my mind. when I read "C1-C2", I have to remember what piece was on C1. Maybe it`s just me. I`m a lousy player anyway. The notation I really hate is the one with the little pictures of the pieces being moved! I don`t think I`ll ever get used to that. BTW, what`s that notation called? ---------
The women of this nation in 1876, have greater cause for discontent, rebellion and revolution than the men of 1776.
post new topic
