In the old notation system each square is given a name according to the piece that sits there when the game begins. The number depends on whether it is white or black who moves a piece there. For example, square D3 in modern notation is in the old notation system Q3 from white's perspective, but if black moves something in that square it is marked as Q6 square.
That's definitely a little confusing way to notate, but you get used to it after a while... hopefully :)
And naturally the letter before the "-" denotes the piece or pawn that moves and markings that come after the "-" denote the square they were moved.
Thanks a bunch. I'm glad modern notation is less confusing!
It sure is. But some of the older books are really worth going through despite that strange notation...
I havn't heard of the book you refer to but I learnt chess in the 1960's & I remember that in the UK (I don't know about the US) we used a different notation to PGN. I've only recently taken the game up again after a break of some twenty years so I'm a little rusty but I'll tell you what I remember.
All moves were with reference to either the white queen or king's side, so that what we would call the 'c' file would be the Queen's-Bishop file; the 'g' file would be Kings-Knight & so on. For example, move 1.e4 would be 1.P-K4 as you show & 1.h3 would be 1.P-KR3.
You look to be o/k up to that point but I seem to remember that abbreviation was perfectly acceptable as long as it didn't introduce any ambiguity. That's why B-B4 is o/k because it can only be the kingside bishop moving to QB4 (c4) as the queenside bishop can't move. N-B3 must refer to the queenside knight moving to QB3 (c3) because the kingside knight already sits on KB3 (f3).
That's about it. I can't remember how we denoted the capture of pieces or check & mate but you can probably work that out. I never liked that notation because it's cumbersome, prone to transcription errors & you need to watch what's happening on the board to avoid ambiguity.
I think the last time I used it was in about 1969 ! so this has been a trip down memory lane for me. Hope this helps a little & don't hesitate to message me if you have any more questions.
Regards...
P = pawn
N = Knight
B = Bishop
R =Rook
Q = Queen
K = King
So 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. N-KB3 N-QB3 3. B-B4 N-B3 means:
1. Pawn to the King's fourth square / Pawn to the King's fourth square
2. Knight to the King's Bishop's third square / Knight to the Queen's Bishop's third square
3. Bishop to the Bishop's fourth square (must be c4 because no Bishop can reach f4) / Knight to the Bishop's third square (must be f6 because there is already a Knight on c6).
Hmm...I am also confused about the notation in the movie about Bobby Fischer- Pawn Sacrifice.
If anyone knows please answer this to me.
I haven't seen the movie but I just watched the trailer. It looks like they're using algebraic notation with a dash between the piece and destination square. I've seen it used before but I don't believe it's ever been officially adopted for recording moves.
thank you so much! the link helped a lot because I have a few old books that have old chess notation!
Thanks a bunch. I'm glad modern notation is less confusing!
Agree!
I dunno - I'm always reversing modern algebraic notation .. I really do miss and prefer the classical notation that holds more perspective and symmetry for each side playing
In the old descriptive notation, each file is named for the pieces that stand there in the opening position:
a=Queen's Rook file (QR)
b=Queen's Knight file (QN)
c=Queen's Bishop file (QB)
d=Queen's file (Q)
e=King's file (K)
f=King's Bishop file (KB)
g=King's Knight file (KN)
h=King's Rook file (KR)
The ranks are numbered 1 through 8 from the point of view of the player making the move. So, should white move a bishop to g5, it would be written B-KN5, but should back move his bishop to g5 it would be recorded as B-KN4.
In the example OP used, 3. B-B4 would mean that the bishop on f1 moved to c4--the bishop on c1 can't move to f4 (KB4) as the queen's pawn is still on d2, and black's 3.....N-B3 means the knight on g8 has moved to f6--the other knight is already on QB3 (c6).
Vestiges of the old system survive in expressions such as "taking control of the seventh rank", where it means getting your rook(s)/queen deep into the opponent's position.
"i move my pawn to king 4"
"i move my pawn to king 4"
"my pawn is on king 4, your pawn cant go to king 4"
"no your pawn is on king 5"
#15 needs to understand how confusing this can truly be
Pachman's book is wonderful. It certainly made me a much stronger player than I was. It is well worth the effort to learn the descriptive notation if only to read that alone. That said, all chess books published in English before the early 70s, I think, used the old system. Some of those old books are great and have never appeared again with the newer algebraic system that everyone uses now. If you want Kmoch's 'Pawn Power' or Kotov's 'Think Like A Grandmaster', both classics and in many people's top ten ever chess books, these are only available in English second hand with the old descriptive notation, I believe. (Might be a new Kmoch but there certainly isn't a new Kotov.) Another advantage of knowing the old descriptive notation is that the majority of the books that use it are very cheap second hand via Amazon or Abebooks because few people know how to read them now, though Kotov's book is a notable exception. It is so sought after that, even in descriptive notation form, second hand copies sell for a lot of money now. If ever there was a new translation of a chess book waiting to be done, it is Kotov's book. Same applies to Pachman.
Another advantage of learning descriptive is, as some have implied in posts above), is that you sometimes see positions in quite different ways when you read the same game using the two notations. It's a bit like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in linguistics which argues that, beyond the words themselves, the structure (grammar or syntax) of different languages produce different habits of thought among native speakers. My first language is so different to English in terms of syntactic structure and grammatical categories that I can see the logic in this.
I am confused by the notation in Pachman's Complete Chess Strategy (1). I've heard several good things about the book, and would love to read it. The problem is that I can't understand the notation at all!
Here's an example:
1 PK-4 P-K4 2 N-KB3 N-QB3 3 B-B4 N-B3
I'm very accustomed to the notation used in the PGN format, but I have trouble understanding whatever notation Pachman was using. So far, my attempt at translation is:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4, after which I am lost. I don't understand what half of the B's are for, and my mind is boggled by the strange numbering. Help! Thanks in advance.