Looks like they're in the old descriptive notation (unless you opt for the kindle version) except for "Winning Chess", which has a 2013 reprint which is algebraic.
But why not learn descriptive notation? It won't take you long, and will give you access to thousands of old chess books.
The book I'd recommend first to a novice is "Logical Chess move by Move", again by Chernev. Looks like the 2003 printing is in algebraic notation.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your advice and yes I must learn the old "Notation" I've already got the "Logical Chess Move by Move" Algebraic edition and will now order the 2013 "Wining Chess Irving Chernev" printed Algebraic edition.
Cheers,
Bucknobs.
There are plenty of newer books with modern notation. Many of the good older books have been translated in modern notation. There are plenty of modern books that are just as good, if not better and have been checked with engines for mistakes
As to taste there can be no dispute. But to me descriptive notation is an abomination.
I've seen pictures of Capablanca's original score sheets : in algebraic notation. In descriptive each square has two designations. It passeth all understanding why it persisted so long.
Almost forty years ago I bought a book, Praxis of My System, in descriptive notation. Trying to follow it was so miserable I gave up chess for decades.
I realize some advise learning it. If you want to study, there are far more worthwhile endeavors.
#5
Capablanca used descriptive notation, on his score sheets as well as for his books.
Fischer also used descriptive notation and he resisted algebraic editions of his books.
Chess Praxis and My System were in algebraic notation in Nimzovich' original German edition, but were converted to descriptive for the English translation.
I learned descriptive when I played in high school and college. I could read algebraic then when I had to. I returned to chess several years ago and everything was algebraic, so I switched. But it was trickier to write algebraic than read it. I admit I struggled for a while.
Frankly, I would recommend to beginners today to stick with algebraic until that's solid before taking on descriptive, if then.
The main difficulty I had switching back and forth was that in descriptive the square labels depend on the current player, whereas in algebraic the square labels are fixed. P-K4 means e4 if it is white's move and e5 if it is black's move. For whatever reason that gave me trouble.
Of all the difficult things in chess, learning descriptive notation is NOT one of them! I learned both notations when I was 8 years old, it's just not that hard.
Both of the notations have pros and cons. What I like about the old notation is that it relays the concept of the move a little more clearly. P-K4 is both conceptually and notationally the same regardless of whether it is played by white or black. By contrast, advancing the king pawn two squares is e4 for one player and e5 for the other player, even though they are conceptually both the same exact move.
And, as noted earlier by other posters, knowing both notations makes it possible to read any book, magazine, or newspaper article from any era.
By the way, there are other notations too. Some countries use different letters for the pieces - for example a lot of older Italian books use "C" for the knight (cavallo). When I was playing international postal chess, to avoid any ambiguities, the international notation used only numbers. For example, moving a pawn to e4 was 5254.
Don't let a simple thing like notation slow you down or restrict your universe. Take a day or two and learn it! Then you'll have done it, and you won't have to worry about that any more.
#8
Yes descriptive notation is easy.
Files: QR=a, QN=b, QB=c, Q=d, K=e, KB=f, KN=g, KR=h
Ranks: for white: 1=1...8=8; for black:1=8...8=1
Of all the difficult things in chess, learning descriptive notation is NOT one of them! I learned both notations when I was 8 years old, it's just not that hard.
Both of the notations have pros and cons. What I like about the old notation is that it relays the concept of the move a little more clearly. P-K4 is both conceptually and notationally the same regardless of whether it is played by white or black. By contrast, advancing the king pawn two squares is e4 for one player and e5 for the other player, even though they are conceptually both the same exact move.
And, as noted earlier by other posters, knowing both notations makes it possible to read any book, magazine, or newspaper article from any era.
By the way, there are other notations too. Some countries use different letters for the pieces - for example a lot of older Italian books use "C" for the knight (cavallo). When I was playing international postal chess, to avoid any ambiguities, the international notation used only numbers. For example, moving a pawn to e4 was 5254.
Don't let a simple thing like notation slow you down or restrict your universe. Take a day or two and learn it! Then you'll have done it, and you won't have to worry about that any more.
Yes I agree with this. And if, for example, you wanted to describe in general terms what a fianchetto is you might say:
(i) In descriptive: P-N3 followed by B-N2
(ii) In algebraic: g3 followed by Bg2, b3 followed by Bb2, g6 followed by Bg7 or b6 followed by Bb7
So for some things descriptive notation is more succinct.
Having said that, I guess if some people find it so difficult to learn that they gave up chess then maybe it really is difficult to learn for some people - perhaps it depends on how your brain is wired or something. I learnt with descriptive and changed to algrebraic when I was still young - at about 14 I think - maybe if you're older it's more difficult.
Whilst I agree with the poster above that there is probably no necessity to use older books at all - I find something enjoyable in using books that are 70+ years old, coupled with my set from the 1890s. Maybe it's the "old book smell"
Another thing, descriptive notation is called "descriptive" for a reason. It tells you a little bit about the geometry of the move. In chess we learn, for example, what is the "kingside" and the "queenside", what is a "rook pawn", "king's knight", "6th rank", "back rank". Descriptive notation reveals those sorts of things in how the moves are notated. N-KB3 tells you explicitly that it's a move on the kingside of the board. R-B8 tells you it's a move to the back rank, regardless of whether it is white or black moving. N-B1 tells you it is a retreat to the first rank, explicitly, regardless of whose move it is. Algebraic designators such as b, c, d, e, f, etc. don't really tell you anything about the chess that is happening.
If you think descriptive notation is hard to learn, try learning the traditional notation used for Chinese chess (Xiangqi). Yikes, it's backwards from chess - the letters are for the ranks and the numbers are for the files, and they don't reference the board, but tell you how many squares the piece moves. I'm still wrestling with that one.
H All,
I need your help/advise please. I wish to purchase three books by Irving Chernev being -
1) Winning chess.
2) Most instructive game of Chess ever played.
3) Casablanca best Chess endings.
I am told that they are perfect for my novice level where I am.
But now I am told these books are in old pre 1980 notation not modern Algebraic notation?
If true? Which year reprinted editions are actually in Algebraic so I don’t waste my money please?
Thanks in advance!
Bucknobs
A lot of books have previews so you can see what it's like. Or you can check Folkscanomy: Chess Books on archive.org to see most of the books before you buy them.
*works for old books that are out of copyright. New books aren't really in this and even then, they are in algebraic notation and have previews
H All,
I need your help/advise please. I wish to purchase three books by Irving Chernev being -
1) Winning chess.
2) Most instructive game of Chess ever played.
3) Casablanca best Chess endings.
I am told that they are perfect for my novice level where I am.
But now I am told these books are in old pre 1980 notation not modern Algebraic notation?
If true? Which year reprinted editions are actually in Algebraic so I don’t waste my money please?
Thanks in advance!
Bucknobs