16 Oct 07
Originally posted by kingkong75On each turn you look at the board from the side whose turn it is. Just like in algebraic notation you have vertical and horizontal coordinates. Only here the vertical is given by the piece that originally takes that places. E.g. N-KB3 (Knight to King Bishop 3) is read as N to f and the third rank. Only the third rank is determined by whose move it is - so for white it is the 3rd and for Black it is the 6th. N-KB3 then stands for Nf3 for White and Nf6 for Black. So you have a vertical determined by the piece that initially stands on it and a horizontal determined by the side to move.
it won't be easy to understand
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by kingkong75making me feel old here, when I was young, all books were in descriptive notation. it does sort of suck, but you will get used to it after a while, just play through some games and it should start sinking in.
I've started to study a chess book with this notation
1.P-K4, P-K4;
2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3;
3. B-B4, B-B4
etc....
does anybody can help?
- Joined
- 20 Jan 07
- Moves
- 24894
16 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrI have to say, i have no preference for either style. If you take the time to learn Old English descriptive notation, it opens up a whole new world of chess literature!
Several of my best chess books are in descriptive. It's worth taking the time to learn it, although it is awkward.
Some of the finest ever books have been written using this style of notation. The art Of The Checkmate by Renaud and Khan being just one.
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by WulebgrI too have some in descriptive. But every time I want a joy read I pick one of the algebraic ones, anyway. There are plenty of them, you don't miss anything by sorting out the descriptives. But it is only my opinion.
Several of my best chess books are in descriptive. It's worth taking the time to learn it, although it is awkward.
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by FabianFnasYeah, you're right, you don't miss anything by sorting out the descriptives like:
I too have some in descriptive. But every time I want a joy read I pick one of the algebraic ones, anyway. There are plenty of them, you don't miss anything by sorting out the descriptives. But it is only my opinion.
Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games"
"How To Open a Chess Game"
Tartakower's "500 Master Games of Chess"
Marshall's "My 50 Years of Chess"
"New York International Tournament 1924"
Chernev and Reinfeld's "Fireside Book of Chess"
Pachman's "Complete Chess Strategy" (3 vols)
Reti's "Masters of the Chessboard"
"Bent Larsen's Best Games of Chess"
Tartakower's "My Best Games of Chess"
Botvinnik's "Championship Chess"
and many others.
😉
(Just my opinion.) 🙂
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by TalismanThat's the first title that came readily to mind while making my post. The Art of the Checkmate is far superior to the imitators that follow, including especially the popular How to Beat Your Dad at Chess. For teaching not only the fundamental checkmate patterns, but the underlying tactical ideas that make them possible, Renaud and Kahn have no peers.
Some of the finest ever books have been written using this style of notation. The art Of The Checkmate by Renaud and Khan being just one.
16 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by kingkong75When I was a kid, every book was in the old notation. algebraic was just coming on the scene. It took me a long time to make the transition from translating algebraic into descriptive in my head to just reading the algebraic.
I've started to study a chess book with this notation
1.P-K4, P-K4;
2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3;
3. B-B4, B-B4
etc....
does anybody can help?
One advantage of descriptive is that the black player's ranks are described correctly...so that when black plays N-K5 (Ne4) he is playing his Knight to the fifth rank. As a learning tool that is important, as an accurate description of the move, algebraic is always better.
The moves listed are
e4 e5
Nf3 Nc6
Bc4 Bc5