1. Joined
    19 Jun '06
    Moves
    847
    28 Aug '10 19:252 edits
    No, it's not what you think. I'm not going to rip on descriptive notation...

    I've come to the realization that I don't particularly care for figurine algebraic notation. (I much prefer English algebraic, although if required, I'll use anything, be it figurine or descriptive.) As odd as it sounds, it just seems to take my brain a little longer to process the little piece figures compared to the letters for the pieces. You'd think that since figures are used in chess diagrams, then it would also be perfectly fine to use figures in chess notation. But that logic doesn't seem to work for me.

    Does anyone else have this problem?


    Edit - Of course, I realize why fan is used. It's a language-less notation and widens the potential audience for the material.
  2. Joined
    19 Apr '10
    Moves
    1968
    28 Aug '10 19:31
    I'm not keen on the figurines either.
  3. e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    29 Aug '10 02:17
    Hi

    Without figurine in some of these foreign mags I be sunk.

    Some of them don''t use figurine so I am sunk.

    A D=Queen, E=King L or F=Bishop. You got go a wee bit daft
    trying to work out was is going on.

    The Russian Mags are good. The Queen, looks like a Queen and
    the Rook looks like a Rook
    (I cannot post what the figures look like on this keyboard - anyone?).
    The Knight is a K, the Bishop a C and the King Kp.
    For some reason I am at home with that.

    It's like everything, more practise and it becomes automatic.
    Have to admit though I'm not madly keen on figurine.

    Thank God for a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h and 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.

    Some of the other ideas for chess notation are truly mind boggling.
    The CC one is awful. 1.e4 e5 is 1. 5354 5755.

    Wiki does a good job on it here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_notation
  4. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    12444
    29 Aug '10 12:15
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    I've come to the realization that I don't particularly care for [b]figurine algebraic notation. ... As odd as it sounds, it just seems to take my brain a little longer to process the little piece figures compared to the letters for the pieces.

    Does anyone else have this problem?[/b]
    Yep. Me.

    Richard
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    29 Aug '10 12:45
    I rather read Russian litterature with figurines and FIDE symbol representations of "bad moves" or " has advantage" and such. The language of chess is international if you let it to be.
  6. Joined
    28 Mar '10
    Moves
    3807
    29 Aug '10 14:21
    Figurines are ok for me.

    I find it more disturbing when they leave out the capture symbol.
    1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4
    Though ultimately that too is ok.Just feels strange.

    In a very old book (Staunton's handbook?) I saw various notation systems described.There was one that looked a lot like the ICCF one greenpawn described.Sheer madness!
    Wish I could remember who invented it.Anyone happen to have Staunton's book?

    toet.
  7. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    29 Aug '10 21:29
    I can read figurine well enough, but have an awful time trying to write it. For that I usually employ English, but sometimes use Italian to throw off an opponent that always needs my scoresheet to correct his.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree