Forums

Algebraic vs Descriptive Notation...

Sort:
long_quach
long_quach wrote:
Takadrenaline wrote:
long_quach wrote:

You can write down the moves in any notation, as long as you can reconstruct the game. That is the purpose of a record. It can be VHS or Betamax, pan-and-scan or interlace.

Article 8: The recording of the moves

8.1 How the moves shall be recorded:

8.1.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his/her own moves and those of his/her opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in one of the following ways:

8.1.1.1 by writing in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the paper ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition.

8.1.1.2 by entering moves on the FIDE certified ‘electronic scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition.

blah, blah, blah

What about Long Algebraic?

Instead of

Nf3

N-g1-f3?

What about Coordinate?

g1-f3

?

long_quach
magipi wrote:

Fun fact: "descriptive notation" was already considered outdated and backwards in the 1840s (yes, 180 years ago!), when Paul Morphy was just a kid. The whole world got rid of it in the next few decades, except (to no one's surprise) Britain and the US.

Thanks. You remind me of Batgirl.

Why Batgirl left is bad reflection on Chess.com. (I don't know why.)

Ziryab
long_quach wrote:
magipi wrote:

Fun fact: "descriptive notation" was already considered outdated and backwards in the 1840s (yes, 180 years ago!), when Paul Morphy was just a kid. The whole world got rid of it in the next few decades, except (to no one's surprise) Britain and the US.

Thanks. You remind me of Batgirl.

Why Batgirl left is bad reflection on Chess.com. (I don't know why.)

Her story is that the site is committed to a particular sense of “brand”.

As her blog was one of very few that I follow, I don’t entirely understand the “brand”, but I probably agree with her perspective. The official blogs on this site are near worthless.

long_quach
PhilHarris wrote:
magipi wrote:

Also, calling it "Algebraic notation" is typical US nonsense. There is nothing algebraic about it, so I believe that someone misunderstood something and the whole name is just a dumb misnomer.

I don't know if you've ever actually taken algebra, but the x/y graph system is absolutely a part of algebra, hence the name.

X and Y graph are not Algebra.

It is analytical geometry (geometry-algebra). Analytical geometry was invented by Descartes. I think the term Algebraic Notation is short name for Cartesian (named after Descartes).

Having the X axis as alphabet, makes it less error prone.

It is Cartesian, with the X as alphabet. Shortened to Algebraic Notation.

long_quach
long_quach wrote:
PhilHarris wrote:
magipi wrote:

Also, calling it "Algebraic notation" is typical US nonsense. There is nothing algebraic about it, so I believe that someone misunderstood something and the whole name is just a dumb misnomer.

I don't know if you've ever actually taken algebra, but the x/y graph system is absolutely a part of algebra, hence the name.

X and Y graph are not Algebra.

It is analytical geometry (geometry-algebra). Analytical geometry was invented by Descartes. I think the term Algebraic Notation is short name for Cartesian (named after Descartes).

Having the X axis as alphabet, makes it less error prone.

It is Cartesian, with the X as alphabet. Shortened to Algebraic Notation.

Alpha-numeric Cartesian is a mouthful, although most correct.

long_quach
Ziryab wrote:
long_quach wrote:
magipi wrote:

Fun fact: "descriptive notation" was already considered outdated and backwards in the 1840s (yes, 180 years ago!), when Paul Morphy was just a kid. The whole world got rid of it in the next few decades, except (to no one's surprise) Britain and the US.

Thanks. You remind me of Batgirl.

Why Batgirl left is bad reflection on Chess.com. (I don't know why.)

Her story is that the site is committed to a particular sense of “brand”.

As her blog was one of very few that I follow, I don’t entirely understand the “brand”, but I probably agree with her perspective. The official blogs on this site are near worthless.

I don't know what the "brand" is, but I can guess.

Chess.com wants to be synonymous with chess, like Kleenex, Xerox, Coke, Honda, Taser, Seeing-Eye-Dog, where the brand is synonymous with the product. UFC instead of MMA.

Batgirl knows history. History is your father.

Chess.com wants to be BC, AD, Before Christ, After Christ's Dominion.

Chess.com wants to be the new beginning of chess as people will remember going forward.

Chess.com wants to be a god.

"A true god has no father." - Underworld: Evolution .

There's no Great Man before Chairman Mao.

long_quach

Algebraic Notation (or as I just coined the term "Alpha-numeric Cartesian") is so useful, other games adopted it, from far far away.

Go

Chinese chess.


Rand McNally maps. Maps of the real world.

Ziryab

It’s called algebraic in FIDE rules, so you math nerds can shut up about semantics. Algebra was also the name of the class where most of us learned to graph 2x - y = 3.

There are also people who insist that the United States is not a democracy. More often than not, they are okay with those who severely limit voting rights.

https://historynotebook.blogspot.com/2025/01/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it.html

Optimissed

Algebraic Notation heap good. I use the abbreviated form of algebraic

... ie 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dc etc.

Optimissed
long_quach wrote:
long_quach wrote:
PhilHarris wrote:
magipi wrote:

Also, calling it "Algebraic notation" is typical US nonsense. There is nothing algebraic about it, so I believe that someone misunderstood something and the whole name is just a dumb misnomer.

I don't know if you've ever actually taken algebra, but the x/y graph system is absolutely a part of algebra, hence the name.

X and Y graph are not Algebra.

It is analytical geometry (geometry-algebra). Analytical geometry was invented by Descartes. I think the term Algebraic Notation is short name for Cartesian (named after Descartes).

Having the X axis as alphabet, makes it less error prone.

It is Cartesian, with the X as alphabet. Shortened to Algebraic Notation.

Alpha-numeric Cartesian is a mouthful, although most correct.

Analytic geometry and analytic algebra are more or less identical. At school we learned calculus from first principles. So differentiation is regarding tangents on graphs and integration is regarding conversion to the next dimension, so a line becomes an area and it can be regarding areas under graph lines, indicating effects like cumulative totals etc.

I'm not sure that calculus is taught properly any more ... hence the confusion. Those maths lessons were 57 years ago and I haven't forgotten them.

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:
long_quach wrote:
long_quach wrote:
PhilHarris wrote:
magipi wrote:

Also, calling it "Algebraic notation" is typical US nonsense. There is nothing algebraic about it, so I believe that someone misunderstood something and the whole name is just a dumb misnomer.

I don't know if you've ever actually taken algebra, but the x/y graph system is absolutely a part of algebra, hence the name.

X and Y graph are not Algebra.

It is analytical geometry (geometry-algebra). Analytical geometry was invented by Descartes. I think the term Algebraic Notation is short name for Cartesian (named after Descartes).

Having the X axis as alphabet, makes it less error prone.

It is Cartesian, with the X as alphabet. Shortened to Algebraic Notation.

Alpha-numeric Cartesian is a mouthful, although most correct.

Analytic geometry and analytic algebra are more or less identical. At school we learned calculus from first principles. So differentiation is regarding tangents on graphs and integration is regarding conversion to the next dimension, so a line becomes an area and it can be regarding areas under graph lines, indicating effects like cumulative totals etc.

I'm not sure that calculus is taught properly any more ... hence the confusion. Those maths lessons were 57 years ago and I haven't forgotten them.

Two things cannot be 'more or less' identical. They are either identical or they are not.

magipi
PhilHarris wrote:

The real fact is that you can't be a serious player in the English-speaking world without knowing Descriptive. Too many books and magazines are available no other way, and are unlikely to be re-issued. You don't have to know it if you're a beginner, but eventually you will. If you find it too difficult, you're probably going to find chess itself to be too difficult.

I would think that every book worth reading got a new edition in the past 40 years updated with the one and only existing notation. It would be weird if that wasn't the case. And mind you, in the case of the UK it's not 40 years, but 80.

Also, knowing "descriptive notation" is one thing. I know it. I can play a game from a book that uses it. But I would never use it myself, I am not insane. I also know roman numerals, but I would never use them in maths.

Optimissed
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
long_quach wrote:
long_quach wrote:
PhilHarris wrote:
magipi wrote:

Also, calling it "Algebraic notation" is typical US nonsense. There is nothing algebraic about it, so I believe that someone misunderstood something and the whole name is just a dumb misnomer.

I don't know if you've ever actually taken algebra, but the x/y graph system is absolutely a part of algebra, hence the name.

X and Y graph are not Algebra.

It is analytical geometry (geometry-algebra). Analytical geometry was invented by Descartes. I think the term Algebraic Notation is short name for Cartesian (named after Descartes).

Having the X axis as alphabet, makes it less error prone.

It is Cartesian, with the X as alphabet. Shortened to Algebraic Notation.

Alpha-numeric Cartesian is a mouthful, although most correct.

Analytic geometry and analytic algebra are more or less identical. At school we learned calculus from first principles. So differentiation is regarding tangents on graphs and integration is regarding conversion to the next dimension, so a line becomes an area and it can be regarding areas under graph lines, indicating effects like cumulative totals etc.

I'm not sure that calculus is taught properly any more ... hence the confusion. Those maths lessons were 57 years ago and I haven't forgotten them.

Two things cannot be 'more or less' identical. They are either identical or they are not.

Algebra is a numerical representation of geometry. They are saying the same thing and so can be thought of as similar.

Pedantically speaking, you're right. However, this isn't a PhD thesis but an informal description to people of various interests and abilities, most of whom (but not all) understand that co-operation is essential in useful communication.

Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
long_quach wrote:
long_quach wrote:
PhilHarris wrote:
magipi wrote:

Also, calling it "Algebraic notation" is typical US nonsense. There is nothing algebraic about it, so I believe that someone misunderstood something and the whole name is just a dumb misnomer.

I don't know if you've ever actually taken algebra, but the x/y graph system is absolutely a part of algebra, hence the name.

X and Y graph are not Algebra.

It is analytical geometry (geometry-algebra). Analytical geometry was invented by Descartes. I think the term Algebraic Notation is short name for Cartesian (named after Descartes).

Having the X axis as alphabet, makes it less error prone.

It is Cartesian, with the X as alphabet. Shortened to Algebraic Notation.

Alpha-numeric Cartesian is a mouthful, although most correct.

Analytic geometry and analytic algebra are more or less identical. At school we learned calculus from first principles. So differentiation is regarding tangents on graphs and integration is regarding conversion to the next dimension, so a line becomes an area and it can be regarding areas under graph lines, indicating effects like cumulative totals etc.

I'm not sure that calculus is taught properly any more ... hence the confusion. Those maths lessons were 57 years ago and I haven't forgotten them.

Two things cannot be 'more or less' identical. They are either identical or they are not.

Algebra is a numerical representation of geometry. They are saying the same thing and so can be thought of as similar.

Pedantically speaking, you're right. However, this isn't a PhD thesis but an informal description to people of various interests and abilities, most of whom (but not all) understand that co-operation is essential in useful communication.

Yes. They are similar. Perhaps you should consider expanding your vocabulary.

Tempetown
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
long_quach wrote:
long_quach wrote:
PhilHarris wrote:
magipi wrote:

Also, calling it "Algebraic notation" is typical US nonsense. There is nothing algebraic about it, so I believe that someone misunderstood something and the whole name is just a dumb misnomer.

I don't know if you've ever actually taken algebra, but the x/y graph system is absolutely a part of algebra, hence the name.

X and Y graph are not Algebra.

It is analytical geometry (geometry-algebra). Analytical geometry was invented by Descartes. I think the term Algebraic Notation is short name for Cartesian (named after Descartes).

Having the X axis as alphabet, makes it less error prone.

It is Cartesian, with the X as alphabet. Shortened to Algebraic Notation.

Alpha-numeric Cartesian is a mouthful, although most correct.

Analytic geometry and analytic algebra are more or less identical. At school we learned calculus from first principles. So differentiation is regarding tangents on graphs and integration is regarding conversion to the next dimension, so a line becomes an area and it can be regarding areas under graph lines, indicating effects like cumulative totals etc.

I'm not sure that calculus is taught properly any more ... hence the confusion. Those maths lessons were 57 years ago and I haven't forgotten them.

Two things cannot be 'more or less' identical. They are either identical or they are not.

Algebra is a numerical representation of geometry. They are saying the same thing and so can be thought of as similar.

Pedantically speaking, you're right. However, this isn't a PhD thesis but an informal description to people of various interests and abilities, most of whom (but not all) understand that co-operation is essential in useful communication.

Yes. They are similar. Perhaps you should consider expanding your vocabulary.

You can start by using the common word 'similar' instead of the nonsensical 'more or less identical!'

Optimissed
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
long_quach wrote:
long_quach wrote:
PhilHarris wrote:
magipi wrote:

Also, calling it "Algebraic notation" is typical US nonsense. There is nothing algebraic about it, so I believe that someone misunderstood something and the whole name is just a dumb misnomer.

I don't know if you've ever actually taken algebra, but the x/y graph system is absolutely a part of algebra, hence the name.

X and Y graph are not Algebra.

It is analytical geometry (geometry-algebra). Analytical geometry was invented by Descartes. I think the term Algebraic Notation is short name for Cartesian (named after Descartes).

Having the X axis as alphabet, makes it less error prone.

It is Cartesian, with the X as alphabet. Shortened to Algebraic Notation.

Alpha-numeric Cartesian is a mouthful, although most correct.

Analytic geometry and analytic algebra are more or less identical. At school we learned calculus from first principles. So differentiation is regarding tangents on graphs and integration is regarding conversion to the next dimension, so a line becomes an area and it can be regarding areas under graph lines, indicating effects like cumulative totals etc.

I'm not sure that calculus is taught properly any more ... hence the confusion. Those maths lessons were 57 years ago and I haven't forgotten them.

Two things cannot be 'more or less' identical. They are either identical or they are not.

Algebra is a numerical representation of geometry. They are saying the same thing and so can be thought of as similar.

Pedantically speaking, you're right. However, this isn't a PhD thesis but an informal description to people of various interests and abilities, most of whom (but not all) understand that co-operation is essential in useful communication.

Yes. They are similar. Perhaps you should consider expanding your vocabulary.

Perhaps ditto for you, regarding your manners.

Also, making such comments is unnecessary and therefore an indication of your feeling of insecurity ... hence your bad manners.

softwareking123
Hi
Creaven
Yea
Tempetown
Optimissed wrote:
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Tempetown wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
long_quach wrote:
long_quach wrote:
PhilHarris wrote:
magipi wrote:

Also, calling it "Algebraic notation" is typical US nonsense. There is nothing algebraic about it, so I believe that someone misunderstood something and the whole name is just a dumb misnomer.

I don't know if you've ever actually taken algebra, but the x/y graph system is absolutely a part of algebra, hence the name.

X and Y graph are not Algebra.

It is analytical geometry (geometry-algebra). Analytical geometry was invented by Descartes. I think the term Algebraic Notation is short name for Cartesian (named after Descartes).

Having the X axis as alphabet, makes it less error prone.

It is Cartesian, with the X as alphabet. Shortened to Algebraic Notation.

Alpha-numeric Cartesian is a mouthful, although most correct.

Analytic geometry and analytic algebra are more or less identical. At school we learned calculus from first principles. So differentiation is regarding tangents on graphs and integration is regarding conversion to the next dimension, so a line becomes an area and it can be regarding areas under graph lines, indicating effects like cumulative totals etc.

I'm not sure that calculus is taught properly any more ... hence the confusion. Those maths lessons were 57 years ago and I haven't forgotten them.

Two things cannot be 'more or less' identical. They are either identical or they are not.

Algebra is a numerical representation of geometry. They are saying the same thing and so can be thought of as similar.

Pedantically speaking, you're right. However, this isn't a PhD thesis but an informal description to people of various interests and abilities, most of whom (but not all) understand that co-operation is essential in useful communication.

Yes. They are similar. Perhaps you should consider expanding your vocabulary.

Perhaps ditto for you, regarding your manners.

Also, making such comments is unnecessary and therefore an indication of your feeling of insecurity ... hence your bad manners.

Ah, deflection. Poor baby.

long_quach
magipi wrote:

I also know roman numerals, but I would never use them in maths.

Roman numerals is actually an analog way of thinking, the way our brain works, analog.

A decimal system is actually a digital system.

Analog is used in money. $5, $50, $20 bills.(If cash is still being used.)

Four score and seven years ago (87) our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. - The Gettysburg Address

That is an analog way of speaking. A way of speaking in dollar bills.

For those who do not know what Roman numerals are: