Pawn moves to King's file square 4
Pawn moves to Queen's Bishop's file square 4
Modern notation would be 1. e4 c5
The square numbers are always from that player's point of view
If you think S instead of Kt or N for Knight is bad try using the Chinese character(s) for Knight etc. Better still try reading through the Great Old Master games recorded in the original Klingon!!!!!!!! :>}
This actually makes me a bit sad that people cant figure this out...
All this weird ways lol
*These
I think worse to TRY to follow is the old Spanish Descriptive notation. Used until the late 1970's if I remember. Can anyone verify this?
Oh yeah, I used to have a book in that. Eek!
What does old Spanish Descriptive notation look like?
Oh God, I don't even remember...Barefoot, do you recall?
Then the notation probably isn’t very appealing.
Lol
I grew up using the old system P-K4 means pawn to king 4, means the fourth square in front of your king, yes P-K4 for your opponent was in front of HIS king not yours. B-QB4 meanlt you moved your bishop to the fourth square in front of your bishop etc. Instead of talking about the weakness of the f7 square for black you would refer to the weak KB pawn etc. When algebraic came along I applauded it, but to this day the old style is easier for me and I am slowed in my analysis by the modern notation. Also I cuss touch screens a lot because I think only the keyboard controls the screen and hate it when some high schooler cannot sign their name because they never learned cursive in school. Old ways die, and they probably should, (Wrath of Khan guyu lost because he thought in 2D instead of 3D) but they die hard if they are your ways. I even still like sharpening pencils (see wikipedia if you don't know what a pencil looks like) with my pocket knife. Maybe Bughouse chess or some other variation will change chess in the future and chess notation along with it. Maybe 3D chess will develop and apps wired into our brains will make notation itself an obsolete idea. Which of you in the next generation will pioneer those changes?????
This actually makes me a bit sad that people cant figure this out...
Even sadder is that some people refuse to study very instructive chess books because they are in descriptive notation. If someone is serious about improving, why wouldn't they learn this very simple notation system in order to gain access to great instructional material? Yes, it's sad.
This actually makes me a bit sad that people cant figure this out...
Even sadder is that some people refuse to study very instructive chess books because they are in descriptive notation. If someone is serious about improving, why wouldn't they learn this very simple notation system in order to gain access to great instructional material? Yes, it's sad.
Exactly. If youre not going to go to the trouble of learning descriptive notation, how serious is someone about really studying?
What's about Spanish descriptive? It isn't all the same except for the names of the pieces?
I also learned it before algebraic, a handbook on basics first published in 1972. The author mentioned algebraic but said it wasn't a natural way of writing in his opinion. :P
Descriptive notation is a dinosaur, but it did have its uses. In order to write it correctly, you had to keep track of which rook started on which square. So on move 40, you might see QR-KR2. It makes for some interesting retrograde analysis.
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression: my comment was not aimed at you. After all, you were seeking knowledge. I was referring to people who want to improve at chess but refuse to have anything to do with descriptive notation. They are closing themselves off from a lot of great material that hasn't yet been reissued in algebraic.
1.P-K4 P-QB4
Ok so P is for pawn but what move is P-QB4?