I read every word and uns stand the concepts I buy chess books worth the money for example from books and puzzle books tagta re challenhkng
Who actually reads most/all of their chess books?
Sort:
13 hrs ago
0
#43
Chess books need to be scrutinized for the value their are only 5000 useful chess books even then 1000 should be considered in your library and only 100 are useful to apply for under 2700
Thanks, Bob, and also ylblai2 for the notes. You know, I learned with the descriptive notation, and believe it or not, I actually found the Algebraic notation daunting in the beginning! Then, once I got used to it, I found it inelegant, and I was even a little upset when I saw that only one of my two Chernev books was in the older system. Now, though, I prefer the algebraic--it really is a better notation.
Hi Nathan,
There is less confusion with algebraic, and not just because the board is laid out as a Cartesian coordinate system from a single side. However, I'm over 60 so my first notational language was descriptive and I still have a soft spot in my head for it. Sometimes my thinking returns to PxP or QxP because it seems more natural than saying exd5 and Qxd5 in the sense you're capturing pieces and pawns, not squares. That said, PxP and QxP give no clue as to the location of the captures.
Objectively, algebraic is better.
Best,
Bob
P.S. ylblai2 is correct, all the books with the exception of Modern Chess Strategy can be purchased in algebraic. I linked the algebraic versions of the books in my previous post.
P.P.S. Interestingly, Andy Soltis gave up descriptive notation in his Chess Life column with great reluctance. He held onto it for a very long time.