Mourning the Demise of Descriptive Notation

I didn't use Chessmaster. Many of my friends owned up-to-date progammes by Genius. I had a mid-90s Mephisto Polgar. But even so, this is off the point. The point is that piece tracking in descriptive is archaic and went out in the 1960s.

That isn't opinion but fact. I won a lot of tournaments between about 1989 and 1994. Dozens of them, and it was necessary to keep score in an unambiguous way. I can remember having my notation checked by an arbiter both when I still used descriptive and after I switched around 1990. I never ever used piece tracking notation.

Even so, you should accept that piece tracking notation was no longer generally used in the 1980s, and that is the point we're discussing and which you seem to disagree with!

Anyhow, nice talking to you and I'm off for a badly played blitz game.

Piece tracking is used and at times necessary for algebraic notation when using algebraic for the Knights and Rooks if both pieces remain and can move to the same square. Each method provides the origin - not the original square but the square it is moving from. 
Algebraic could be written as simple one square to another square without designating it’s identity of piece or pawn. However- algebraic combines in part descriptive notation for ease of use by describing the piece or pawn moving to the designated algebraic square. Sometimes algebraic goes to simplify things even further- when it is a pawn moving and gives only the destination square. 
Algebraic became the standard because of it’s superior simplicity (fewer symbols) and is better understood universally ( language barriers)

Algebraic - Nb1f3

Descriptive- NKN1 - KB3

You are a one day old account Urk - gone tomorrow. Here to create arguments where none exist. The points you make are nothing but trolling comments designed to create a backlash - negative attention. An excellent example why CC needs to implement a waiting period before posting.

I really can’t understand why people get their panties up in a bunch over this. Algebraic is clearly superior and the logic can be picked up by any first-grader. I can’t see any benefit to descriptive other than it sounds cooler when spoken. Stop trying to argue that 5280 is better than 1000!

All I know is I think algebraic is superior but I think FIDE are a bunch of interfering twerps to ban descriptive.

I mean, it's like FIDE has a personality problem. It can't help trying to push people around.

Well, that is completely incorrect, sorry. Look these things up or something?

Yes, good innit. Or .....

You could say

"The Rook that is now standing on the Queen's Bishop's fourth square will depart for the Queen's Bishop's sixth."

I don’t use descriptive notation, though I learned how to use it when I was reading an old chess book a long time ago. I mostly use algebraic nowadays! Though I shorten a lot of moves:

cxd4 —> cxd

Nxf3+ —> NxN+ (assuming I am capturing a Knight, being the only possible move with this tag)

Qxa4# —> QxP# (assuming I am capturing a pawn, and it is the only pawn capturable by the Q)

Nxa1 —> Nx1 (assuming there is another same piece on a3, with the knight starting on c2)

Sometimes I lengthen the notation too, though mostly in analysis:

b4 —> b2-b4 (to put emphasis on a pawn push or idea; usually when analyzing a game or system)

Nd2-f1-h2-g4 (to describe a long plan with one piece)

Rh2-Qh1-Ng3-Rh8# (to describe a long plan with multiple pieces)


I prefer Algebraic notation’s simplicity over Descriptive. That being said, I don’t know why FIDE had to ban Descriptive. I think people should be free to use whichever notation they feel comfortable with.

No . It becomes necessary if the other Knight can also move to f3 from another square.

That was the point

It becomes necessary in both descriptive and algebraic to identify the square when either Knight/Rook can move to the same square.

Algebraic uses fewer terms = simpler and requires less visual searching.

The simplicity of the visual aspect of algebraic notation is a primary reason for it becoming the standard- besides the written component. 
Descriptive leads to confusion- the board must visually be searched to observe which piece is moving. 
Whereas in algebraic- the eyes go directly to the square notated.

This is a huge point being missed here.

It’s not so much that algebraic is simpler to write.

It’s the fact it’s easier to observe  (and faster) when reading the notes.

Finally - an explanation not given thus far.

When writing in Descriptive - 

Where two Knights can move to the same square- it is written as the Kings Knight because it is on the Kings side of the board.

In the original setup.

Even when the King has castled Queenside  

Confusion results 

The notation becomes more convoluted when both Knights are on the same side of the board.

Algebraic greatly simplifies matters.

Someone needs to explain to me why I should care that DN is symmetric. Frankly, I can’t see why I should possibly care. A square having one and only one name seems to be superior and if your brain can’t process looking at squares upside down as black, why should that hold back the rest of us who would like a system that’s a little less convoluted?

Let me know when boxing and judo are played on a 64 square grid with multiple combatants who only have one type of attack each.

Interesting. I’ve never actually played chess left to right, and neither have I employed a joystick doing it. I’ve also never had to notate an action video game. Other than that, it makes perfect sense.