| From | Message |
|---|
9422m
14-Apr-09, 08:30
|
 Learning the new lettering and numbering system
I started chess in 1966 and haven't been able to graduate to the a-h and 1-8 notations.
Can anyone from the "old system" help me on how they graduated to "see the board"?
|
9422m
14-Apr-09, 08:34
|
Wow! you can see how mixed up I get with the new system! I meant e4; e5!
|
yusuf_prasojo
14-Apr-09, 10:12
|
I think everyone can see the board better with the PK4 system than the e4 system. But if you have to write your move down into your scoresheet I think the e4 system is easier.
|
wschmidt
14-Apr-09, 14:25
|
John,
I'm a little older than you are and started out with descriptive as well. I don't remember it being a real struggle to move over to algebraic and now I'm fluent in both languages. My suggestion is to get a copy of a book of games in algebraic and simply play through them casually for fun. By the time you finish the book, you'll be fluent.
BTW, once you do master it, you'll find there are far fewer opportunities for mistakes by misreading the move. ws
|
blake78613
14-Apr-09, 15:18
|
I got my first chess book in 1957. The books started out teaching algebraic and then later switched over to descriptive notation. It certainly easier to talk about a specific square when using algebraic.
|
tactical_abyss
14-Apr-09, 20:57
|
|
coopershawk
14-Apr-09, 22:28
|
Same problem, same cause
The main solution I know of is practice and repetition.
For some reason the new notation system has encouraged me to try to be more consciously aware of which squares are light and which squares are dark.
For example there seems to be value in "knowing" that f7 and h7 are light colored squares; and knowing this fact so well that I don't need to think about it. That knowledge sometimes helps out when I am playing white and thinking about what should be done with my light square bishop (white's KB to you).
|
tactical_abyss
15-Apr-09, 01:32
|
|
blake78613
15-Apr-09, 17:29
|
In The Chess Players Handbook (written in 1849) Howard Stauton complains at length at how cumbersome the English Descriptive Notation is compared to Algebraic Notation. Of course in Stauton's time they didn't abbreviate. 1 e4 would be written "pawn to King's fourth".
|
tactical_abyss
15-Apr-09, 18:54
|
|
altiplanos
21-Apr-09, 23:20
|
I much prefer classical notation, but I understand that the algebraic notation is clear, unambiguous, and very compatible with computer programming, so I'd better get used to it. Here's how I'm making the change, and it seems to be working for me. I have an account with another Chess forum on the web, and they have daily articles, which feature games that you can play out...and as I'm playing them out, whenever I click the forward cue, and the move on the board is made, I call out it's algebraic position. It'll go a little slow at first, but you'll be surprised how quickly you pick it up.
|
r66y
06-May-09, 03:43
|
For those stuck in the old descriptive style, the best thing to do is get a board with the algebraic markers and then start going through games listed in algrebraic. Start writing games down in algebraic after that and you'll catch on in no time.
Although I started off with descriptive notation, I made the switch to algrebraic readily as I saw it a much superior method of recording games. Now it's to the point where I see moves in algrebraic and can plot games in my head by reading the move lists.
|
lighttotheright
06-May-09, 08:33
|
I started off in descriptive notation too. When algebraic became the norm, I had little difficulty switching. Perhaps that is because I never thought my moves in notation anyway. Moves for me are always done in my head visually. Regardless whether it is descriptive or algebraic, I have to translate. So neither is really more difficult than the other.
But for descriptive, I have to constantly switch sides visually to be accurate. That can be a pain for long sequences of moves. So when I'm reading a chess book, algebraic is better.
|
