Originally posted by Nowakowski
Dunno... i think being able to read Descriptive and Algabraic somehow strangely adds to chess vision. Playing through master games that are annotated in descriptive really flexes some focus on key squares...the way the notation flips helps instill the "equilibrium" concept that Saveilley Tartakower teaches as being "all important"
Trying to catch the aybe not even as pretty... but she'll teach you things the others just can't
i think you are correct, infact i have been studying a little book written in descriptive notation and the concepts are so much easier to visualise for a patzer king like me. for example it states and i quote
'the development of bishops to Bishop 4 appeals less and less to a player after he reaches championship class. Here follows examples of different kind of 'biffs', that a bishop may be exposed to on King Bishop 4....',
is it not excellent!, king bishop 4, so much more comprehensive and easier to visualize than f4?
if its good enough for the king then its good enough for me, i will now no longer refer to algebraic notation, but try to lead a renaissance in descriptive notation!