I learned to play chess as a boy using descriptive notation and Fred Reinfeld books. Now all the books published are in algebraic. I find it an advantage to use both since there are still a few excellent books around not "translated" like Irving Chernev's Logical Chess Move by Move. I have heard some younger players saying they couldn't understand descriptive notation, which pleased me because I feel as if I'm fluent in two languages. Incidentally, in some books I notice they don't put an "x" for a capture or + for check. This to me is an unnecessary simplification because I frequently get "lost" or misplace a piece and these X's and +'s are like little road signs that tell me I'm on the right track.
I definitely agree. I have one book left with the old notation 'Fischer vs Spassky' match book by Gligoric. I don't understand why some people can't learn both notations. After-all, we had no trouble learning algebraic notation (I guess it's a little easier). There is also the figurine notation with little piece symbols along side algebraic notation. that hybrid of the older and algebraic notation might be a nice bridge between the two (the little piece symbol for a pawn substituting for the P, etc).
And why on earth do they call it algabraic??? What does it have to do with algebra. It should be called alpha-numeric, maybe. Anyway, I checked a reprint of Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev in the bookstore and I was wrong. It was translated into alpha-numeric. The funny thing was in the front of the book there was an explanation of how chess notation works with a diagram of all the squares in DESCRIPTIVE NOTATION, i.e. queen's bishop four, etc. If a kid bought the book and didn't know anything about notation, this would drive him nuts. First he's shown you descriptive works, then he turns to the games and they're all in alpha-numeric. Go figure.
Originally posted by DualSpaceHow does figurine notation bridge the gap between descriptive and algebraic?
I definitely agree. I have one book left with the old notation 'Fischer vs Spassky' match book by Gligoric. I don't understand why some people can't learn both notations. After-all, we had no trouble learning algebraic notation (I guess it's a little easier). There is also the figurine notation with little piece symbols along side algebraic notation. ...[text shortened]... a nice bridge between the two (the little piece symbol for a pawn substituting for the P, etc).
Eg. The move Nf3 in algebraic will be N-QB3 (assuming white is playing the move). Changing the N for a picture of a knight won't do anything.
I can read descriptive with some effort but algebraic is second nature to me now probably because I use it so often. At first I had trouble notating from the black side of the board but I soon got the hang of it.
let's see:
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 vs. 1.PK4 PQ4 2.PxQ5 QxQ4
And now:
1.Nf3 e6 2. e4 Bc5 vs. 1.NKB3 PK3 2.PK4 BQB4
ugh... It feels a bit awkward, though I must agree there are a few excellent books in this notation 😉 As for the shortening of +, x I couldn't agree more: it makes games more difficult ot follow.
Originally posted by buddy2The algebraic system is also called the German system because it was developed by German writers. Howard Staunton explains an early version of the system in the appendix to The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847).
And why on earth do they call it algabraic??? What does it have to do with algebra. It should be called alpha-numeric, maybe. Anyway, I checked a reprint of Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev in the bookstore and I was wrong. It was translated into alpha-numeric. The funny thing was in the front of the book there was an explanation of how chess notati ...[text shortened]... you descriptive works, then he turns to the games and they're all in alpha-numeric. Go figure.
Staunton's system, the precursor to descriptive was P. to K's 4th for the move we would call e4 or e5, depending on whether it wa played by white or black.
Call it algebraic and people will know what you mean. Call it alpha-numeric and you'll confuse people into believing you have invented a new system.
I prefer the short version:
1.e4 d5 2.ed
Another interesting piece of trivia about algebraic:
"In 1737, however, a Syrian-born player/author named Philip Stamma introduced the shorthand notation that we now call "algebraic" in his book of composed problems, published in France. In 1745, he issued an expanded edition in English that included opening analysis and retained the algebraic notation. Stamma's system was almost identical to modern algebraic notation, with the files of the board designated " a-h" and the ranks numbered "1-8." However, he tried to make the notation completely international by using standard piece names as well as standard letters and numbers for the squares. Thus, the king's rook was written as "H" instead of "R" throughout the game, because it began on the h-file; for similar reasons the king was always "E" and the queen "D," the queen's knight was "B," etc., with each piece being named for its starting file."
I guess unfortunately, each country still retains its own names for the pieces. Using figurines instead of "rook" or "bishop" would have the same result, enabling chess books to be useful throughout the world, regardless of language. Of course, the narration is another matter...