11445 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!
Created on June 19, 2012 |
6214 Votes | 64 Comments
What in the world is that?????????????? Algebraic RLES!!!
My chess teacher talked about it while we were on a lesson about how NN and Amateur always lose in chess books.
An early version of Blitz (1978?) used DN. Blitz played Duchess (fm Duke University) at a conference on the Miss. Gulf coast and I spent the evening at the Duke table translating moves for them.
I grew up with descriptive notation and, even now, have to translate (preferably with a board in front of me) to properly read algebraic (especially if I'm taking the black point of view). Others have mentioned that computer chess is "almost always" in algebraic. One notable exception is an old MSDOS game called "Battle Chess". Anyone know others that use descriptive? Thank you!
It seems easier to find similar games in databases or books
I learnt that kind of notation after I'd watched "Sherlock Holmes, A game of shadows." I was impressed then I began to like descriptive notation. It makes me feel the real chess battles....
My first few chess books were very old when I started playing chess and they had descriptive notation and algebraic, but in a more archaic form. For example, for the descriptive notation, a knight is symbolized kt instead of n in modern descriptive. There are some other differences, but I don't remember them anymore. Being exposed to both forms, I can read and write them fluently.
From a previous comment: "But, since I'm an historian, it's almost painful to see books by Lasker, a mathematics professor, who didn't like algebraic notation, translated from descriptive to algebraic. Same goes for Reshevsky, Reinfeld or Horowitz books."
I agree. It's terrible to destroy these masterpieces with algebraic notation.
Before I knew about this post I wrote a post about my love for descriptive notation at http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/am-i-the-only-chessplayer-in-the-world-who-loves-descriptive-notation
Yes, but it's dumb.
It's probably easier for beginners but algebraic is faster and easier when you get use to it.
It's secret code used by old people.
In answer to Indradip, in descriptive there is a King's side of the board & a Queen's side of the board. Files are all named for the piece that starts on them. That's the same on both sides of the board. Rooks, Knights, Bishops Kings and Queens all face each other at the start[ excepting in Fischer Random]. And, each players' ranks are numbered from 1 to 8 from their own point of view. Since, as Bobby Fischer asserted back in the 1960's, it's a game of big egos as well as intellect. From that perspective, numbering from one's own point of view makes considerable sense.
A Kings rook starts at KR1. The King's knight sits on KN1 when it starts so the move you asked about would be N-KB3. The only other place it could go on the opening move is N-KR3
In answer to I am a tree, it had nothing to do with multicultural. It had everything to do more with speed of matches than anything else. As blitz became more & more popular, it was just faster to use. Both work quite well; but, algebraic saves some time when the clock is ticking.
And, when intelligent, or semi-intelligent, folks became fascinated with programing computers to play, algebraic became expedient. Computers being very dumb but very fast machines, it is simpler for them to crunch all the vatiations of a position with an algebraic system. And with the alleged need for speed, away went most sealed moves [sadly] and adjudication [don't miss that at all] But, they're still in the rules too.
But, since I'm an historian, it's almost painful to see books by Lasker, a mathematics professor, who didn't like algebraic notation, translated from descriptive to algebraic. Same goes for Reshevsky, Reinfeld or Horowitz books. Ah well, I guess chess marches on. But I do agree with the poster who noted that it is easier to picture the board in my mind with descriptive.
I think the descriptive is outdated and was updated because chess is international, and algebraic is more multiculturally universal.
Well, it's Nf3 for White or Nf6 for Black, and the N-KB3 is only necessary when Nc3 for White or Nc6 for Black are legal moves.
See why they switched to algebraic? :P
Anyway, one of the first chess books I picked up (yes, a very old one :P) was in descriptive so I completely understand it, though I dislike using it. (Keeping score would be torture!)
is it knight from king's side goes to B3..
I can read descriptive due to I buy old books so I have to learn descriptive so I can absorb the knowledge.
Had "Modern Chess Strategy" in descriptive notation. Though I prefer Algebraic notation, I find the descriptive notation to be easier to picture without a board.
Gon't let it bother you Bob. I've got you by 4 years.
And, Wilhelm Steinitz once replied to a comment about him getting too old for match play, "I may be an old lion. But, if someone waves their finger in front of me, I will bite it off!"
Holy crap, do I ever feel old !!!
11 hours ago
11 days ago
14 days ago
3 weeks ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 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!