Well, that sure clears up everything.
I wonder why algebraic notation?
Sort:
FirebrandX wrote:
Bur_Oak wrote:
The "which is better?" argument is foolish. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Descriptive has FAR more disadvantages than Algebraic does. In fact, the only 'disadvantages' people like to claim about algebraic are purely philosophical ones, while the disadvantages pointed out about descriptive are physical in nature (like taking up more space in books or not being universally readable). That's the point.
Hogwash. Certain concepts that translate from white's openings to black's defenses are more easily recognized in descriptive. For example: describe fianchettoing a bishop. In descriptive, it involves P-N3, B-N2. That covers all four possibilities. In algebraic, it's: b3, Bb2; or g3, Bg2; or b6, Bb7; or g6, Bg7.
In algebraic, "Rooks on the seventh..." means "Rooks on the seventh if you're white, rooks on the second if you"re black."
Learn Both systems. You'll be glad you did.
When I started to play the local tournament, I deliberately bought a vinyl roll-up board without algebraic markers on the borders. I'd write the moves instantly, while I'd often look up to see my opponent calculating, "B- (a...b...c...d...e...f...) g5.
FirebrandX wrote:
. I can point to a blank board any square called out in algebraic within a second, just as you surely can with descriptive.
I can call it out in both. What's your point?
I'm saying both are useful. You haven't said anything which disproves that.
Bur_Oak wrote:
When I started to play the local tournament, I deliberately bought a vinyl roll-up board without algebraic markers on the borders. I'd write the moves instantly, while I'd often look up to see my opponent calculating, "B- (a...b...c...d...e...f...) g5.
I had one opponent point to the files in order like that before recording a k-side move.
Aug 5, 2012
0
#146
bobyyyy wrote:
AndyClifton wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
I'm not going to address your ad-hominem attack...
Uh-oh, we seem to have stumbled onto a chess site...
My "In 1968 the vote was six-to-one in favor of descriptive notation because chess players were more intelligent back then." was a joke.
Apparently some people don't understand jokes.
Apparently you aren't very good at making jokes. 
>:[
I really don't know why people are getting so hot and bothered about this. Is it because some people enjoy getting hot and bothered? I am beginning to suspect that.
ClavierCavalier wrote:
This seems to have degraded to pointless bickering.
I consider that an upgrade!
Um, Andy, could you put that comment in algebraic notation?!?
e8/Q
I wonder why it's called algebraic notation?
Aug 6, 2012
0
#153
I like descriptive notation, especially when it's described algebraically.
'tis!
I still record my tournament games in DN, but only because I learned it when I began playing (way back in '69). I like DN for teaching, but teach my students both because AN is easier to record accurately and today most books are written in it. But I have found in my career that if you get so involved in playing that you omit moves then it doesn't matter which system you use. But because DN is a little trickier, I always take a second to look around the board after my move to ensure that what I'm writing is unambiguous, and my game scores are normally more accurate than my AN friends--but that is no reflection on AN, only on the players ability to record the game.
Nov 21, 2012
0
#158
waffllemaster wrote:
Both are easy. You can go from knowing neither to "fluent" in both in less than 10 minutes. Not a big deal.
Have been trying to teach my best friend algebraic for four years now. He still cant get it.
Proverbial Old Dog, I guess.
...Because, at the end of the day, absolute coordinates are superior to relative ones.
Nov 21, 2012
0
#160
MDOC777 wrote:
With algebriac, you need a legend on the board. With descriptive, you don't need it.
Yesterday, I played through Karpov -- Korchnoi, m2 (1974) from memory, calling out the moves in notation for the youth player sitting across the board. Coordinates were printed on the board, but the board was defective. The Black king started on d1.
Uh-oh, we seem to have stumbled onto a chess site...