Chess notation. WHAT IS IT????????

It's the most self-explanatory thing ever. Not to mention that the picture even shows what it is.

you hve 2 rooks on the e file. so it means Re6 moved to e5 because you also have Re1 that could have moved to e5

A lot of players just abbreviate pawn captures as ab (for a2 x b3 maybe) or dc (d4 takes c5 maybe). That's how I do it, well, when I used to play tournaments.

Hello, that notation means you played Re5, except there were two rooks on the e file. So to make it clear which rook you moved, we say, unabrieviated : Rook on line 6 to e5, which gives R6e5.

10 years ago this thread did not exist magipi .

9 years 10 months ago it did

Thank you.

it could be re6e5 but both are in the e file. so they remove the first e, R6e5

Another thing about notation, there could theoretically be a Queen from line 6 capture e4 checkmate. I don't know what that would be called, but I decided to say this for no reason.

@Hawksteinman

You can get an answer.

Oral history, here.

Records, books, elsewhere.

The best way to understand something is to re-invent it.

By the way, I re-invented lifting weights by filling an empty gallon of milk with water. I have a great understanding of how to use weights.

Knowledge you can get. Understanding needs some work.

To understand notation, re-invent it.

How would you record a game and re-construct it?

The answers are here.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/notation-1

But that is not the important part.

We are blessed with the printed book. And we are blessed with the Internet.

Knowledge and understanding are 2 different things. Kids today "knows" too much and understands too little.

I thought about this problem. I have a computer programming background back in the TRS-80 days.

The simplest way I could think of is to number the squares 1 - 64. Have it oriented a certain way. Black's Queen's Rook is 1 for example. Number from left to right, top to bottom as you write on a page.

Loh and behold, I re-invented a method somebody already invented.

That is how you understand things. By re-inventing them.

Kids today "know" too much and understand too little.

You will be surprised how elementary things are always new.

I answered it in a new way. I answered it like no one has answered it before.

I'm getting back to chess. Reading Logical Chess. Yes. You always begin at "square one".

Nature gives us children to ask us basic questions. That is how we improve. Because if we don't look at basic things over and over again, we will not improve. We think we already know the answer. We don't.

Reading Logical Chess.

I don't like it that when a pawn takes a piece, it only shows the square that it took and not the piece.

Same thing for pieces capturing things.

Certain notations are good for certain things.

Numbering 1 - 64 is good for the mechanical system, i.e. computer.

Good for recording is one thing.

Good for reconstructing is another thing.

Algebraic Notation is good for recording.

There should be a hymbrid between Algebraic and Descriptive for re-construction.

Pawn capture Knight at F3.

Descriptive: P x N (if it is the only one).

Algebraic. g x f3. No good.

g x Nf3 (is how I remembered it). I've always thought that this is how it always was. But it is not.

Computer language has infiltrated human language and this short hand is no good for humans.

I looked at Chessmaster 3000 again.

My memory is faulty!

Algebraic and Long Algebraic only denotes the square captured, not the piece captured.

I grew up with Descriptive and Transitioned to Algebraic. (Historians can guess my age).

I wrote g x Nf3, when I record my games. It is a hold-over from Descriptive.

But when I read chess books, my mind fills in the blank! I did not notice that what I read is different from what I wrote!

I inadvertently invented a hybrid notation that is a relic of Descriptive!

The question has been answered multiple times throughout the centuries.

@Batgirl would tell you so.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/notation-1

Incredible isn't it?

I have a new answer.

An answer I did not even know I had!

My system is different from

Algebraic and

Long Algebraic.

Different from Algebraic, I note the piece captured.

Different from Long Algebraic, I do not note the square that is the piece doing the capturing came from.

My system (that I didn't know) was a blend of Algebraic and Descriptive. Subconsciously.

Incredible.

I would write

. . . Q x Nf3 [Black's Queen takes White's Knight at f3].

I would input my games into Chessmaster 3000 or any other program from my paper records, manually.

Once it is in the computer, I don't look at the computer notation anymore. The computer animates the pieces forwards and backwards.

I never notice the difference between what I write and what the computer write.

Because I understand my writing and can translate it manually to a computer, I didn't need to see how a computer wrote it!

Incredible!

Me personally I use 1600s chess notation: "The white king commands his owne knight into the third house before his owne bishop." (Nf3)

How do I convert chess notation into that?

idk just make up a sentence describing the move in a fair bit of detail