There is a huge difference. Imagine, if you will, Peter Leko saying what he said from around 0:20 of the video below, using descriptive notation.
I wonder why algebraic notation?
Sort:
Many people have problems with geometry notation.
Crazychessplaya wrote:
There is a huge difference. Imagine, if you will, Peter Leko saying what he said from around 0:20 of the video below, using descriptive notation.
Good point. Video would probably be 20 minutes long. I was lost from the beginning because I had no idea what position he started from. There is this advantage to algebraic: when he mentioned b4, i knew exactly which square he was talking about without having to know whose move it was. BTW, I have been using algebraic ever since I first learned it 30 or 40 years ago. I have books which use descriptive, and I can read and write that, as well. But I do prefer algebraic.
Crystal clear, especially if it goes on for four minutes!
Although it may indeed be true that good, old fashioned, descriptive notation can often lead to missreading moves by chess newbies and those who should stick to checkers and crazy eights, you can't deny the beauty it allows this classic game of Kings and Queens! I mean you can get a steak at the Ponderosa too, but it won't compare to the way Ogilvie's Grill can serve up the same piece of meat! The difference between the practical and the sublime is truly what makes the world go round!
imirak wrote:
I think both notations are fine; I can easily use both.
I think the reason for this debate is that the younger players today were never exposed to descriptive, so they aren't comfortable with it and therefore think it's inferior simply because they can't read it easily. Descriptive notation was used for over a century with no problem, so there's nothing insufficient about it at all.
They are both perfectly useable, but of course it makes sense for everyone to agree on a single notation just for easier translation.
Algebraic is just easier for beginners to learn.
Plus I like each square only having one name, instead of two.
Is easier to talk about the battle to control the a2-g8 diagonal, rather than (Blacks) QR7-KN1 diagonal-
.
batgirl wrote:
Try the Udemann-Gringmuth code, once used for telegraph and radio matches.
1. e4 e5 = gegoseso
.
I would be too tempted to make moves, just trying to spell dirty words!
At the First American Chess Congress, a device was proposed that employed magnets and balls to facilitate reconstruction of a game after it was played so the players could more easily record their games. They did not ordinarily record their games during play.
In those days, the descriptive that some of us grew up with was still in its infancy.
Ziryab wrote:
At the First American Chess Congress, a device was proposed that employed magnets and balls to facilitate reconstruction of a game after it was played so the players could more easily record their games. They did not ordinarily record their games during play.
In those days, they had the balls to do that.
MDOC777 wrote:
Why not descriptive notation? That means moves like P-K4. Why does U.S. Chess endorse algebraic notation instead?
Because it's easier than descriptive
fburton wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
At the First American Chess Congress, a device was proposed that employed magnets and balls to facilitate reconstruction of a game after it was played so the players could more easily record their games. They did not ordinarily record their games during play.
In those days, they had the balls to do that.
LOOOOL
FirebrandX wrote:
imirak wrote:
I think both notations are fine; I can easily use both.
I think the reason for this debate is that the younger players today were never exposed to descriptive, so they aren't comfortable with it and therefore think it's inferior simply because they can't read it easily.
Ironically the EXACT same argument applies to people championing descriptive. I started off learning chess with descriptive, but took to algebraic soon after and found I appreciated it more than descriptive. A personal taste maybe, but at least I gave both a try.
It's very generational. There are very few "champions" of descriptive notation nowadays. The point is that both are perfectly fine and these "champions" are simply expressing a subjective preference.
Ziryab wrote:
At the First American Chess Congress, a device was proposed that employed magnets and balls to facilitate reconstruction of a game after it was played so the players could more easily record their games. They did not ordinarily record their games during play.
In those days, the descriptive that some of us grew up with was still in its infancy.
The mechanical devise was proposed by J. J. Lowenthal. There were also propasals for different "improved" methods of notation given by Robt. Dodge and by John Bartlett.
I'd noted some different notations I've encountered on several occasions, such as HERE and HERE
Thanks batgirl.
I've devised my own figurine pieces. They are much simpler than the ones in chess books.
Each one takes about 2-3 seconds to draw.
Perhaps the absolute best is the long(e2-e4)figurine algebraic.What do you think?(at least the most complete,if anything.)
Algebraic is racist because it is based upon WHITE'S point of view.
And raic!
This thread was quoted in a YouTube video on music. The first ten minutes cover how chess notation has evolved over the centuries with a segue into music notation. Enjoy.
https://youtu.be/Eq3bUFgEcb4?si=0bQqNmAe6UIHa5iM
As long as you can recreate the game, what difference does it make? Of course Descriptive is a cooler name; lots of people hated Algebra in school.