18078 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!
At the First American Chess Congress, a device was proposed that employed magnets and balls to facilitate reconstruction of a game after it was played so the players could more easily record their games. They did not ordinarily record their games during play.
In those days, the descriptive that some of us grew up with was still in its infancy.
I think both notations are fine; I can easily use both.
I think the reason for this debate is that the younger players today were never exposed to descriptive, so they aren't comfortable with it and therefore think it's inferior simply because they can't read it easily.
Ironically the EXACT same argument applies to people championing descriptive. I started off learning chess with descriptive, but took to algebraic soon after and found I appreciated it more than descriptive. A personal taste maybe, but at least I gave both a try.
In those days, they had the balls to do that.
Why not descriptive notation? That means moves like P-K4. Why does U.S. Chess endorse algebraic notation instead?
Because it's easier than descriptive
It's very generational. There are very few "champions" of descriptive notation nowadays. The point is that both are perfectly fine and these "champions" are simply expressing a subjective preference.
The mechanical devise was proposed by J. J. Lowenthal. There were also propasals for different "improved" methods of notation given by Robt. Dodge and by John Bartlett.
I'd noted some different notations I've encountered on several occasions, such as HERE and HERE
I prefer figurine algebraic notation, but you need a long time control to draw all those teeny pieces on your scoresheet.
Especially the little horsies.
I've devised my own figurine pieces. They are much simpler than the ones in chess books.
Each one takes about 2-3 seconds to draw.
Or you could bring some little stampers and an ink pad along with you to a tournament.
Yeah, and get your fingers all covered in ink, and when you soil your opponent's $400 ebony and maple chess set, it's sure to psyche him out!
Perhaps the absolute best is the long(e2-e4)figurine algebraic.What do you think?(at least the most complete,if anything.)
Algebraic is racist because it is based upon WHITE'S point of view.
It's also mathist!
error in blitz chess
by UlyssesCBlack a few minutes ago
April: Pandolfini Mailbag Questions
by sp1234 a few minutes ago
by LIRANZHOU 2 minutes ago
by Rambo2004 3 minutes ago
The most underrated openings
by Doggy_Style 4 minutes ago
8/3/2014 - Mate in 2
by Rambo2004 5 minutes ago
Chessbazaar's Dubrovnik 4" crimson problem?
by 9kick9 7 minutes ago
How do you get a ridiculously high tactics rating?
by Galileo22 10 minutes ago
Admins: Spam alert, you may wish to check this
by ChessKingT 10 minutes ago
chess vs. checkers
by shine5 12 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!