**Hint for people who are tempted to engage their mouth before their brains.**
If you find yourself in a disagreement with someone else, first try to be polite. It may be that you misunderstand the other person. It may even be possible that you haven't managed to follow their reasoning or line of evidence.
If a person says that they have done this or seen that, it definitely pays not to launch into a full-blooded attack simply because you think you have seen or done something different. Having done something different yourself does not invalidate another person's account of things. Don't imagine that it does invalidate it, even if you think you perceive that more people are backing you up. That's actually how trolls work and none of us want to be trolls.
Another no-no is "plain speaking", when it is actually you calling someone else "stupid". You do not need to actually use such words to strongly imply that's what you think and, very often, those who are very quick on the attack don't have much in the way of reasoned argument to back it up and also they are often either unable or unwilling to allow the reasoned arguments of others any credibility.
All in all, and this applies to me and to everybody, do not deliberately offend others unless as a last resort. If you are incapable of understanding what can cause offence, don't disagree with anybody in strong terms but be mild, gentle and polite. Forget you're American! 
Mourning the Demise of Descriptive Notation
And, @BadBishopJones3, your "argument" in #195 is simply an assertion, without any evidence or supporting reasoning. Even if you could supply evidence, I would simply tell you that my experience was different and that the situation with descriptive at the time algebraic came in, at the end of the 1980s, was exactly as I described it and your description, if it was actually ever true, which I believe it was, applied to another era.
I did play a bit of Chess in Canada and the States in the 80s. I spent quite a lot of time in N. America between 1981 and 1987. I don't recall keeping score in the USA but I may have participated in a club match in Canada. I can't remember because it was a busy time and it was only on my final return to England in 87 that I joined the local club, Wigan, which was an extremely strong club at that time, and took up playing competitively. I mention it was a very strong club to reinforce the understanding that I was taught descriptive notation as I describe it. I did bring up the issue of tracking pieces by their original names and was told that if that ever existed, it was stupid and no-one did it any more.
"Informator" magazine in the pre-computer age came up with "descriptive algebraic", using symbols that looked like the pieces and the algebraic notation to identify squares. This made it much easier for people speaking different languages to understand their magazine. Imagine trying to figure out what P-QN5 means if you were Polish and none of those letters meant anything related to chess in Polish. Algebraic makes it easier to bridge the language gap. Long ago I played some international correspondence games where all moves were described by e2-e4, etc.
Sure ... you have that right. It does not change the fact you are wrong/ misguided.
As explained- the King (after 0-0-0) is now on the Queeenside- which in descriptive does not change the King side vs Queenside. Likewise - the Queen can change sides to the Kingside.
In descriptive - notations retain the original set- up . The Kingside and Queenside remain as in the original setup. Description does not change later in the game.
Hence - any Knight or Rook on the abcd file is always written as the QN or QR - regardless of where the King resides. Same for the efgh files - the Queen might reside on this side - but the Knights and Rooks are written as KN or KR.
Reading notes and recording moves gets particularly confusing- when both Knights and Rooks reside on the same side in Descriptive. Algebraic greatly simplifies matters.
<<you have that right. It does not change the fact you are wrong/ >>misguided.
And your addenda doesn't change the fact that no amount of explanation on your part will now change my opinion of you. You are a complete, arrogant fool.
Get over it--grow up!
To rephrase, the way I learned, you always put the same thing. That is the beginning square followed by the end square. The new way, depending on context, there are 4 different ways you write down what happened. For example.
QB3xQ4
Depending on what all pieces could capture a piece at Q4, with the new method could be:
d4
cd4
Pd4
cPd4
Yes, the old way used more characters. The new way, if you didn’t notice, while writing it down, there was ambiguity it could be difficult to follo.
I understand, once you are used to it, the new way is quicker to write down. That would come in handy, in a tournament scenario.
long_quach--Thanks for providing the correct terms. We old people sometimes have quirks in our memories. The point was that algebraic is easier for people with different languages to communicate. That's probably why FIDE (an international organization) requires algebraic.
The point was that algebraic is easier for people with different languages to communicate. That's probably why FIDE (an international organization) requires algebraic.
That's why choosing between Df3 and Cf3 is so clear.
Chessmaster is a machine, it can stick to a mechanical formality.
In practice, origination does not make sense, as shown 50 years ago.
I suspect how Chessmaster 3000 generated a Descriptive score from an Algebraic score was by looking at the position on the board for each move and not by following the flow of the game. That would mean that Chessmaster would have no way of knowing the name of each Rook or Knight, or even certain pawns, so the programmers used a more simplistic workaround. Since the method of naming each piece according to King of Queen side worked fine since the 18th century, it must make total sense - just not the kind of sense they programmed Chessmaster to understand.
Anyway, that's just my guess.
If you are to “read” older books/ publications in Descriptive notation- there is but a single/ standardized method of writing notes.( exceptions occurred- but the deviation is spelled out in advance) (older computers might have stamped the pieces as they could be seen visually.) However people choose to record their personal games is their business. Works for them- great. If they choose to call the abcd files the Kingside after the King has moved to this side of the board - fine. But it is not the method used universally. MCO and BCO, publications from the Eastern world and everywhere else, back in the days, when Descriptive was used were consistent and adhered to a single method of recording moves. They used different letters to represent the pieces - but the method was the same.. Sounds like some of the older computers devised a hybrid system. A few publications combined both when the transition was being made to algebraic.
But there is one official standard. The Kingside and Queenside remains the same for Black and White throughout the entire course of the game. abcd files is the Queenside . efgh files is the Kingside. When reading text - QN QR and KN KR refers to the side of the board and not to where the K or Q reside in the current position. Also applies to pawn captures along the d/e files. The d file pawn is always the Queens pawn QP regardless of where it’s starting position was. The e file is always the KP. The pawns may have originated elsewhere / their starting position from the other side. Once they are on a given file - they are designated as such. Readers had to learn the different symbols for the pieces if in an unfamiliar language. But the method used was universally consistent/standardized.
Also - the ranks are viewed/ notated from each sides perspective. White notes PK4 which is the e4 square. Black notes PK4 which is the e5 square. All the Rank notations are given from each sides perspective.
Woow, dude, have you been freezed for 30 years?
In the early days it was very common to see chess coders get things completely wrong. They were not chess players. They read the rules and made their own interpretations. There was a very popular gaming site - Flipside that offered a chess interface. They got simple rules wrong - allowed for any number of illegal positions. Checkmates allowed the King to move away for some positions. Contacting support was useless. The same program remained in use until the sites demise.Even a site as Yahoo - one would expect could at the minimum get the rules of play right- got things wrong and allowed for illegal moves or did not recognize legal ones.
FIDE has never prohibited AN.
And AN was used by most countries even before the founding of FIDE. The minority countries that used DN have been England, Australia, US, Spain, and a few others. So the question is not why FIDE drop DN, but rather why did it take them so long?
So what does Battleship have to do with my comments?? Or are you just babbling away??
Actually no. Battleship came after FIDE (1924), after the introduction of AN (by at least 150 years ), and the Cartesian system (by at least 250 years).
It could be claimed that chess notation influenced Battleship, which came later than AN or chess, rather than the other way around.
This is from Wikipedia:
"The first commercial version of the game was Salvo, published in 1931 in the United States by the Starex company. Other versions of the game were printed in the 1930s and 1940s, including the Strathmore Company's Combat: The Battleship Game, Milton Bradley's Broadsides: A Game of Naval Strategy and Maurice L. Freedman's Warfare Naval Combat. Strategy Games Co. produced a version called Wings which pictured planes flying over the Los Angeles Coliseum. All of these early editions of the game consisted of pre-printed pads of paper.[2] "
Sure ... you have that right. It does not change the fact you are wrong/ misguided.
As explained- the King (after 0-0-0) is now on the Queeenside- which in descriptive does not change the King side vs Queenside. Likewise - the Queen can change sides to the Kingside.
In descriptive - notations retain the original set- up . The Kingside and Queenside remain as in the original setup. Description does not change later in the game.
Hence - any Knight or Rook on the abcd file is always written as the QN or QR - regardless of where the King resides. Same for the efgh files - the Queen might reside on this side - but the Knights and Rooks are written as KN or KR.
Reading notes and recording moves gets particularly confusing- when both Knights and Rooks reside on the same side in Descriptive. Algebraic greatly simplifies matters.