Algebraic vs Descriptive Notation...

bagahc

You better believe it; there was a lot of that during the transition to AN.

I do remember what you speak of when the kids started using agebraic in the 1970s. Chess Informant was all the rage, I started buying it in 1973 and filled in the back volumes...I was comfortable using both notation systems and alternated back and forth until finally giving up DN for good in my tournament games.

That is a very good point! ... just give me five minutes to find those Q5 squares. LOL

Good post.

There was a time when descriptive was perfectly fine. Those who "cut their teeth" on descriptive liked it. I still maintain that it is more "human oriented".

But in this computer era, it became awkward.

I can read an old chess book in descriptive and follow the game play without setting up a board. With algerbraic, I need to set up a board.

Now, these are just opinions. People who are vehemently against descriptive have their own biases. But their opinions are not the absolute fact.

Here is something that I just found which may be of some interest: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/3977/does-anyone-use-the-p-k4-type-of-chess-notation-anymore

You'd still lose the wager.

You said:

"USCF rules allow AN, DN or computer notation. And I would wager, no TD is going to care which notation type is used as long as it can be easily understood."

So the wager is not about which notation can be used, your claim is that no TD is going to care about which notation is used. Since some USCF tournaments are also FIDE-rated events, clearly many TDs are going to care. Many would care anyway ...simply preferring one standard to avoid arguments between players.

Wow! This got more activity than I expected. I thought I'd get a couple of replies and that would be it.

Yes, you'll get the old chestnuts (chess-nuts?) coming up time and again in any forum. 

I stated USCF, in reply to a US based player. I didn't think I would then have to qualify it to USCF rated only events. A large number (I would guess it is a majority) of events in the US are not FIDE rated.

In addition, I'm pretty sure FIDE tournament directors are usually called arbiters not TDs. I think my precision in langage was sufficient

In addition, the only penalty, even in FIDE events, appears to be the one you bolded earlier: unable to use the scoresheet for claims requiring it. The arbiter can "warn the player of this requirement" but doesn't specify other penalties, though I guess the general escalation in 12.9 could be applicable.

The FIDE rules also require the score sheet to be legible but I would guess that rarely comes into play either and most arbiters don't go around enforcing it.

Even if granted the FIDE exclusion, the premise that no TDs care is demonstrably false...this is the problem with making wagers on hyperbolic statements ;).

If granted the FIDE exclusion it wouldn't matter if a TD did care as USCF rules specifically allow it. Though I do concede that the claim of "no TD" was too inclusive; there are some picky people out there rendering the statement false, though I would guess that most wouldn't care (again, FIDE exclusion)

I got lost in the minutiae of nuances.

btw, I think FIDE, USCF and all their ilk are as obsolete as descriptive notation. What is needed is something less political and more space age...something where it is far more practical for players to get real-world ratings without all the pain-in-the-buttcheeks involved.

Royal_fool's problem, learning descriptive form so thoroughly that when algebraic came along he struggled, is opposite from my experience: I too learned descriptive form first (from a computer program called ziggurat) then learned algebraic from my first chess book -- algebraic was heaven sent! From the very beginning I found descriptive confusing; I could read it, but I constantly stumbled over positions when playing through games. After struggling with descriptive form for over a year, fumbling and stumbling the whole way, I felt release -- as corny as that sounds -- and embraced algebraic and I've never looked back. Sorry for the difficulty Royal_fool and I wish the best for you. I know how it feels... 

It would actually be written "Nf3", so yeah, you would know which piece is moving.

Here is a simile of how descriptive chess notation is looked upon, nowadays:

Like I said, I'm fluent in both. Both have their benefits, but also their problems.

What if we adopted something similar to the XiangQi Notation?

1. e4 e5 

2. Nf3 Nf6

3. Nxe5

would turn into

1. Pe+2 Pe+2

2. Ng+f Ng+f

3. N+xNe

Agreed but there would be so many logistical problems involved.  Who would be the arbiter to oversee the ratings and who would issue them?  What we need are more FIDE rated OTB tourneys (most often with reasonable entry fees of course)

Well, it was a tourney with a promised surprise. When we turned up they told us we would have to use DN. Most of us were kids or up to 15 and had no idea what DN was about. I thought I was smart for I thought DN was what you call "long algebraic notation" in English, i.e. stuff like 1.e2-e4 instead of 1.e4 or 1.P-K4. They gave us a 10 minute lesson on DN which explains why none of us got it right. I am looking at my own scoresheet and my "favourite" mistake was to write e.g. 1. NxP QxN in positions like this one:

I somehow failed to realize that it is not clear which pawn was captured. The worst situation was when I had two Queens after promoting a pawn in one of the games.  We may have been stupid but if you had 10 minutes to learn DN you would maybe make the same mistakes. Be that as it may, I am going to play some chess tomorrow and will use DN just to see how it will work for me. I guess I will lose on time for I will be counting squares to record my moves correctly.

many chess classics are in descriptive....

You know, this thread is really a moot point.

Descriptive: was

Algebraic: is

That about sums it up.

End of Story

Except that I would just like to add that chess is a con (as in "con game") by big corporations and governments.

It's all about getting you "hooked" on chess so that, instead of setting money aside for pensions, you'll buy chess sets, books, DVDs, online memberships, support the corrupt FIDE and USCF, crooked TDs and etc. ad nauseum.

I think somebody made big money by switching from descriptive to algebraic. That explains a lot. Just watch. Someday algebraic will also be scrapped, perhaps for binary or octal notation...so that the cycle of new books, new T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc. will supplant the old system.

And so it goes. (I just read Vonnegut).