13034 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
chesspooljuly13, we agree about chess books. It's unfortunate that new versions of old chess books are ruined with algebraic notation.
Yes, totally agree. The only time algebraic seems to be preferable is when you've got two knights (or rooks, or bishops) that could go to the same square. Then I have to pause and think which one's the Queen's Knight and which one's the King's Knight
You're still both a couple of fogeys.
When in doubt about which knight is which there is an alternative. For example N(QB4)-Q6 (instead of KN-Q6 or QN-Q6).
I'm so used to the algebraic that I'd find it annoying to revert back to descriptive.
I still don't know who this Fischer was. He invented chess notation?
No no, Staunton invented chess notation. Fischer invented the chess clock.
Isn't Staunton the editor of John Wilkes Booth's dairy?
There was a time when I had many books in both types of notation, and had no real preference between them. But I've come to prefer algebraic so much so that, with my old chess library gone (lost in a move), I've vowed buy algebraic only.
Which has a major downside: many of the truly great chess books have yet to be converted to algebraic. So I pick up the ones that have (among them, so far, My System, the Art of Attack, Zurich 1953, and Vienna 1922). The others I'd like to buy, I'll wait and hope that someday they are translated to algebraic and re-issued.
I learned chess as a youngster back in the 60s and descriptive notation was all there was. I stopped playing for quite some time and when I got back into it again the entire world had forgotten descriptive notation and moved to algebraic. I felt like an anachronism. I've learned to read algebraic, but its like a second language in which I'm not fluent. I still think in descriptive notation and have a nostalgic fondness for it.
It was a metaphoric reference. Just as you can learn a new language, but will always feel more comfortable with your first one, I have learned algebraic, but descriptive will always feel more natural to me. If you give me a move in algebraic notation, I will have to pause a moment to picture it in my head. Descriptive is more instantaneous. It's just what I'm used to. I recognize the usefulness and efficiency of algebraic, and I use it because it is now standard. I still like the old stuff, though.
No, I think that was Seward.
Hey, that was pretty fun though reading up on that in a wiki. Turns out that 18 pages of it were missing (reminded me a little bit of the 18 1/2 minute gap)...
I remember Eddie Fisher. And, I remember this song...when it was brand new:
Hey, I just saw this song featured in an old SNL sketch! (with Bob Newhart).
beating shredder 4
by eddysallin a few minutes ago
i can't escape chess but i must!
by Greenmtnboy a few minutes ago
Wrong insufficient material rule
by waffllemaster a few minutes ago
Need Help Getting Kids To Take Chess SERIOUSLY...
by Winnie_Pooh 3 minutes ago
MAGNUS LOSES TO WANG HAO
by varelse1 4 minutes ago
by Kansha 4 minutes ago
by Suvel_Karmarkar 4 minutes ago
Super Hard Math Problem!!! Can anyone solve?
by pdela 10 minutes ago
5/18/2013 - Mate in 4
by cfrench49 12 minutes ago
Forseeing of a better pawn endgame!
by Rook98 14 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com