|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Descriptive/Alg notation option thoughts...
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
tactical_abyss 02-Oct-13, 17:41 |
 Descriptive/Alg notation option thoughts..."In a way,same with descriptive notation,not algebraic.I grew up with descriptive and can visualize the board better if someone writes or tells me in descriptive.But then,others cannot do the same.For those players who never or rarely use an OTB setup with a game or position,I would try it a few times,maybe a few hundred times!It may just improve your memory or visualization factors better." I have always had the attitude that descriptive notation actually embellishes,represents and paints the "real"picture of chess the way it was truly meant to be and was for hundreds of years.There is something missing in the "chess soul"and underlying spirit of the board when you use Algebraic notation,even though I understand the "why"it is used today. If anyone ever needs any help on learning descriptive notation or wants to learn,just ask me. Oddly enough,I find myself sometimes staring at Alg notation and translating it back to descriptive in my own mind for that classic king/Queen side better visualization.MCO-12 is in descriptive.Its a shame that some players newer to chess will have to drop books like MCO-12 and others simply because they do not know the language. gameknot.com |
||
|
small_potato 03-Oct-13, 10:54 |
I didn't particularly find myself thinking descriptive was better than algebraic, just that it was different and another method to learn. However when I played my first league game for my local team on Monday I made a mess of my scorecard, partly because I forgot to write a couple of moves down but also mixing up some of the columns and then scribbling them out. And I was white, so it should have been easy! In my defence, the board had the letters/numbers down the side but somebody had set it up the wrong way round which was confusing. But afterwards I did think it would be much easier to write the moves down using descriptive notation especially for black. I do work in a technical field though where standardisation is key - so I will persevere with algebraic whether or not it is better, because that is the standard. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 03-Oct-13, 15:29 |
The level of "deeper meaning"regardless of the "standard" Actually, both Alg and Descrip. have sources of "ambiquity".In some countries from what I have heard,they still use Descript.For me,i'm quick to interpret both systems,so it does not matter which one is being used.In todays world,of course,Alg is "better"especially with the computers and more.But regardless of the "dinosaur"image that Descript.represents,it still has a higher order way beyond the "thought process" to the newbee's in chess.Much older chess literature(for example,Fishers games and personal notes)and a host of older books have this Descrip.notation,not Alg notation.For those who cannot interpret Descript properly,then it is assumed that those same players will never have an interest in reading any of the beautiful classic chess literature or be able to do so and toss aside the beauty that exists in many sources still out there in some libraries,universities,old score cards from the classic GM games over the last 100 years or so and beyond.Those who say...well..."who cares"?......are the ones we separate from the true "chess art"lovers and those who cannot fathom the true depth,understanding and need to take the past more seriously in the classic chess world.Those who truly take their chess "seriously"and not just as a passing "fancy",these are the ones who think..."yes,I care to learn Descript"and maybe even take a good look at those old dusty books,personal notes from Morphy and beyond.A well polished player knows both Descrip and Alg.And the WEAK excuse that "I get confused"if I would learn both systems is laughable.One can easily,though "practice"(oh,that tough word again!)be able to familiarize oneself with Descrip which indeed,have a much deeper value than many new players to chess realize.By analogy,consider the value in life regarding understanding 2 different languages(or more)in todays world(and business world)...like Spanish,English and French.You can well imagine the "advantages" an individual would have over the ones who do "not have". So,even though "English"is the "standard"throughout many areas of the world today,especially in the USA,there is a definite advantage to knowing "more"substandard things that exist out there,even a "Polish"language!Can we compare this to Alg notation vs Descriptive?On a lesser scale....YES! But nonetheless: Advantages By identifying each square with reference to the player on move, descriptive notation better reflects the symmetry of the game's starting position ("both players opened with P-QB4 and planned to play B-KN2 as soon as possible"), and because the pieces captured are named, it is easy to skim over a game record and see which ones have been taken at any particular point. The maxim that "a pawn on the seventh is worth two on the fifth" makes sense from both Black's perspective as well as White's perspective. English descriptive notation is also particular to chess, not to any other game. Disadvantages Confusion can arise because the squares are named differently. Errors may be made when not realizing that a move is ambiguous. In comparison, abbreviated algebraic notation represents the same moves with fewer characters, on average, and can avoid confusion since it always represents the same square in the same way. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 03-Oct-13, 16:06 |
This is one of the many reasons I would love to see a program on GK to input Descript and be able to get an instant Alg equivalent,post diagrams from that Descript position and more.Imagine taking old works,inputing them and be able to read them in your own "alg"language,spot a diagram position from some GM a hundred years ago or the reverse....alg to descriptive!Is this a programming nightmare?I don't think so according to my computer engineering friend at work who has a pile of degree's.At the very least,it would be a great learning tool. I laugh at people all the time.Once someone told me,why learn a "dead language"like Latin? I said,"well tell that to the Pharmacists or Pharmacy Techs who need Latin to write out and interpret prescriptions!"I also said,that..."understanding Latin saved my life once!"And indeed it did!How?Once a doctor prescribed a medication to me that was accidentally the wrong dosage.The tech and the pharmacist would have had no idea that it was incorrect,not knowing my allergen level to this med.Lucky,I went to college to become a certified Pharmacy Tech in 1993.Knowing Latin and how to interpret the symbols ahead of time,I went back to the doctors office and told them of the "huge"error.I initially was in a hurry,and did not look at the prescription until I got home.I could have died or gotten very sick by taking the wrong dosage which was over 100 times more potent than what was meant to be given to me.Someone not knowing Latin and the symbols associated with latin in my shoes,could have indeed died. So what was the value(atleast to me)in knowing this so called "dead language"? Hmmmmmmmm. So Descriptive chess notation is kind of dead too.Whats the value in learning this language? Well,it may not be a life threatening situation,but..............hmmmmmmm. The value of deeper insight..... |
||
|
descriptive to algebraic converter www.abdelnauer.de |
||
|
tactical_abyss 04-Oct-13, 13:35 |
Charlie... Now,only if that site above in the link had Alg to Descrip for those wanting to learn in reverse!You would think that that same site would do a reverse...just like French to English and English to French! I'm going to take this link and make a separate post for it so it stands out. Charlie,if you can find me an Alg to Descriptive converter(I have not researched this yet)...please let me know!!I will post that as well,if one can be found. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 16-Nov-13, 15:41 |
gameknot.com Let me add to his comment a bit.Again,it would be nice to have both systems on GK for those who simply would like to use descriptive or perhaps learn the language and i'm an advocate for such things.HOWEVER,do not misunderstand me.I completely DISAGREE STRONGLY against sunaru1 that descriptive notation is "far easier and logical".This is actually not true.If it was far easier and logical,for one thing,the FIDE would NOT have made it the "official rule"that moves MUST be recorded in Algebraic in all official tournaments,regardless,if you used descriptive for your entire life. There are many reasons for this,including the reasons I mentioned in my posts above this one. But in a nutshell,Alg notation can be compared to something I deem as "accuracy vs precision".So technically,"precision"(alg notation) is simply more razor edged than accuracy(descrip.notation) mainly due to this ambiguity factor and my own personal experiences with it over the years.As to descrip being easier,I again,disagree with sunaru1,but not as strongly in that area,because,just like in real life scenario's where you were using longer types of math to solve a problem,there were better,quicker and shorter ways to solve that same math problem using an algebraic equation with more precision....thus it becomes more "logical".But initially,until you understand the "algebra",it may very well seem harder until the thought process kicks in,but in the end,90+% of all chess players today would agree with the fact that alg is actually easier and MORE logical than descriptive notation. Proof?Sure!Any old postal players in this club?Do you remember how many times you had to send another postcard back to your opponent because of many of the ambiguous moves your opponent made with not specifying which Rook(QR or KR) he wanted to move to a particular square?Or your opponent wanted to move his Knight but wrote "K" instead,for an actual legal to the same square King move? I reality,I had many,many,many,MANY players LOSE postal games to me because their moves they wrote had to stand and I held them to it,even if they did not "mean" to write it that way! So,in reality,there were MORE mistakes being made using descriptive notation. So,years later,Algebraic notation come's along.What did I notice?At first,there were many errors in such areas as the "rank"number,especially from the black side with the higher rank numbers in the new users using algebraic,but after a year or two,most of those errors began to disappear....and the better "precision"was kicking in with players! So,do not misunderstand me.I love descriptive and do actually think that it gives a "real chess feel"to the game and yes,I grew up with descriptive.But in reality,and especially with the modern,more educated and more technical world of today,precision usually overrules accuracy any day,and thus,algebraic notation has superseded descriptive 10 to 1.The FIDE agrees.And today,there are only a fraction of postal players left in the world as compared to a few decades ago,but even the postal players of today mainly use Alg.notation.In fact,with this in mind,if I were to go back to postal play(and I never really will) i'd now,use the reverse of logic! I'd use descriptive notation to "throw off" the modern players game and win that way,knowing that my opponent prefers Alg.!The USCF rules governing chess language,at least in postal are not as strict. |
||
|
Definitely, old skool... Hmmm....can we go back to rotary dial? Actually, had I learned on Descriptinv, no doubt I would fancy it! |
||
|
tactical_abyss 16-Nov-13, 16:37 |
|
