Descriptive notation

I see occasional threads where people complain about old books that use descriptive notation which they find hard to follow.

Oddly, I have perforce read algebraic notation for the last twenty years whenever I have been looking at chess games, but still find descriptive notation much easier to follow.  It is like returning to an old friend when I leaf through an old book of games.

Probably it's because I grew up with it, but I can still get confused with c4 and f5 for example because subconsciously I must be looking at the board from the point of view of the mover.  I never have such problems with descriptive notation. Is it just me?

On more pedantic days I even rue the loss of Kt for knight and ch for check.  Somehow N and + lack a little of the romance of the game.

I also grew up with, and used, descriptive notation, for many, many years, before algebraic became the norm.

But no, I never get confused with either notation.  I don't have a problem recording it or reading it from a book or whatever.  I can easily switch from one to the other.

But no, I'm sure it's not just you.  Others probably have problems too.   And with devices like the MonRoi becoming more popular, recording games by hand may someday be a lost art.

Once each tournament, just for fun, I use descriptive notation to record my moves.  And every once in awhile my opponent will ask to borrow my scoresheet.  I always hand it over to them.  The look on their faces, when the see the notation (especially if it's someone young) is priceless.

I grew up with descriptive, find algebraic easier, but can switch back and forth readily. I did an exercise last year in which I would read through the moves in a game in an old book that uses descriptive. Then, without looking at a chessboard or the book, I would write down the game score in algebraic. I was able to do this quickly with games up to a dozen moves. One game that I played in a tournament that lasted 36 moves, I've been able to write from memory without board in both descriptive and algebraic.

I grew up with DN, too, and still record my games with it.  The older players give a little grin when they see my score sheets, like oh yeah, I remember this.  What surprises me is that my scores are normally more accurate than my opponents, and I credit that to them leaving out move pairs or inverting the moves, etc.  I always take a second ot two after I move to make sure that it is PxP, and not QPxP or PxQBP, before I write it down.  Maybe once a game a move will be vague (RxP and not specifying RxRP because RxNP would be with check), but if you take the time to look before writing the move down, DN is as accurate as you need.  However, there is no arguement that it is easier to learn and record with AN over DN--it took me a while before I learned to keep an accurate game score with DN.

I once bought Bobby Fischer's Memorable 60 games. Being half English I didn't have much trouble with the language , but I had the biggest problems deciphering the descriptive notation.

Being half Dutch, I grew up on the metric half of the globe.Here we use meters , kilograms,Celsius etc. It forms the basis of the metric SI units in physics. But the British always wanted to be different and stuck to their own and they still drive on the wrong side of the road.

I like to sit and read chess books . Look at a diagram ,close the book and try to find a line or even single move . Then reading on , the algebraic notation allows me to directly visualize the moves actually played.

Probably it's because I grew up with [DN], but I can still get confused with c4 and f5 for example because subconsciously I must be looking at the board from the point of view of the mover.  I never have such problems with descriptive notation. Is it just me?

No. I frequently transpose the ranks and files in algebraic to correspond to my old habits with descriptive notation. With time this will fade, I'm sure, but it's taking longer than I expected.

I dont think it fades. I mix up algebraic all the time, ask anybody who tries to make sense of my posts in vote chess games.

I will always think in descriptive, it just seems more logical.

Well it's a relief I'm not the only one.  As a mathematician, I can see that algebraic notation has a kind of cold logic to it.  I think it befuddles me because you effectively always see the board from white's point of view.  When you are black, Kt-KB3 still makes more sense to me than Nf6 (I had to think about that quite hard!).  Anyway, chess is a broad church.  If descriptive notation was good enough for Morphy...

Algebraic from black's point of view: flip the coordinates along with the board. For blindfold as black, I envision h8 as the bottom-left and a1 as top-right, for instance. Can be quite confusing still though.

At least it's not xiangqi notation. I almost died when I first tried to read the damn thing. The (equivalents) of (Ra1-)Ra5-Ra4-Rf4 as white and black would be R8+4 - R8-1 - R8=3 (white) and R1-4 - R1+1 - R1=6 (black). (Nb1-)Nc3 is H8+7 (white) and H2-3 (black). It combines the worst of algebraic and descriptive with a new mix of coordinates relative to the pieces.

My problem with the descriptive notation is that it mentally forces me to turn the board around and imagine it from the other side. I just see the board from my side , black or white doesn't matter.When I write down my opponents move on my score-sheet , I just use the algebraics because to me they are logical.Supposing to play Black , I would find it hard to do al the mental stuff of turning the board around to see what it looks like from the White side , the proper side.

But hey , that's just me being Dutch.I just look at the board as a matrix with fixed coordinates.

Oddly, I find DN books incomprehensible without a chessboard but have no problem flicking through AN books on the train (and visualising board position 8-10 moves deep).

I see the board as a math object : a matrix with axis X:a ..h Y:1 ..8 . That , and because I grew up with it , makes AN seems to be simpler than DN.

It helps to have some inner sence of orientation and or direction. There are a lot of people that still have problems with left/right or north/south .For instance , I cut off the little finger on my left hand so it's easy for me to distinguish L (little finger) from R.

For me reading DN feels just like having to translate a foreign language. So I guess it just what you've been brought up with. I can imagine a lot of you DN users feel the same about translating the AN language.

I never before have heard of anyone so dyslexic they cut off a finger to remember left from right.

descriptive

To make life easier for people to communicate with each other in this global community , picking the English language as the Standard was a first big step. That's why i.e sites like this are international . I don't know what or who triggered it , but it was decided to use AN in the chess language. But I don't know if you can call it  a Standard .

Probably the only non subjective chess language (CN) is that used by chess engines and databases . There the moves are stored as digital info : strings of bytes.

A move is stored as 4 bytes : PF,FF,TF,PT . PF and PT are both a byte represention the Piece(s) on the From and To Fields. FF and TF are both a byte representing the From (of the PF piece) and To Fields .

I hope CN won't become the Standard language,because that means the Silicons have taken over our planet.

The only thing left maybe , is to rate the efficiency of AN vs DN . Efficient in what sence ? Say : using less ink to write down !

Dyslexic ?

Ron , next time for you I will highlight the parts in which I am not to be understood literaly. I think a descriptive view can sometimes be enlightening. You sound like you just cuttoff the middle finger of your middle hand.

Suppose you just played a game and you want to analyse it with your opponent , a Post Mortum.

Now I'm talking AN when I say you've reached a position where both of you have a Knight. The White on c3 and the Black one on c6. (Nc3,Nc6) .

A third guy ,a DN kibitzer joins in and says : "Hey , that Knight on QB3 sure looks good ".

Now both players wouldn't know who the kibitzer was talking to because Knight-on-QB3 is ambiquous .

Any AN kibitzer could have just said something like : "Hey , that Knight on c3 looks good ".

Even better, the knight on the adverse queen's bishop's third house.

So are you now denying that you mutiliated one of your fingers?

What are you talking about my hands for? My hands are perfect, like artist's hands. You're making no sense.

Which is it? Did you chop off a finger or not?

Works perfect for eight house blocks . You might call it PN : Postman's Notation. P.S What would you do it you were me , answer Ron or not ?