Opening Names not ECO-friendly

Skakmati wrote: Some things just don't need to be "improved". Remember the "improved" Coca Cola fiasco?

Are you referring, by any chance, to the decision by Coca Cola to remove cocaine from its soft drink?  http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_033.html 

godlesssaint wrote: I have taken the time to learn the proper names for the chess openings, and I study them as such. I think this new system will only confuse those of us who have done so. I would not support this change. I know what an alekhine's, a pirc, a nimzo-indian are already. It is really not hard to learn the old system, there is absolutely no point in giving these openings a bunch of goof-ball names.

I would be the first, and surely not the last, to commend your endeavours, godlesssaint. The historical naming: using national names for the initial moves (e.g. Australian, Danish, English, French, Sicilian, Spanish) and the names of chess giants for the Variations (Alekhine, ...) is a thing of beauty - and labrynthine complexity - a worthy refection of chess itself. However, chess is supremely a game of logic. Unfortunately, there is no systematic logic underlying the historical naming of Openings.

CLIPCLOP is prosaic - an insult to the inteligence even, you may say - but it attempts (unsuccessfully, no doubt) to lay out a pictorial architecture for Openings. For beginners, it may represent a less daunting barrier to an inital grasp of Opening theory.

Escapest_Pawn wrote: Because of bishop moves and knight and pawn's 2nd move possibilities, my simple capital letter system fails rapidly after 1st move combinations.                                                                         I think the essential problem is that ClipClop is attempting to replace ECO which is generally used as an efficient (ie few charactors) indexing or cataloging system.  ClipClop seems better suited to replacing the proper names, not all of which are commonly known. ...   ... I don't see ClipClop as being useful for indexing purposes, or to challenge ECO. I don't particularly like ECO and remember only about 4 codes, but it does take popular openings through there defining moves even if 10-12 moves long and gives them unique 3 digit codes. A huge disadvantage is they do have to be remembered and are not decodable without reference.        So the solution to an indexing system, is to catalog openings according to their defining positions as openings often transpose, and develop a system of efficiently describing the defining board position in a way that can be alphabetized and/or enumerated, and can be decyphered without memorization.         So the solution to an indexing system, is to catalog openings according to their defining positions as openings often transpose, and develop a system of efficiently describing the defining board position in a way that can be alphabetized and/or enumerated, and can be decyphered without memorization.                                                  Such is a real problem and will require both ingenuity and work.  I am all for it, but "not tonight, I have a headache."

I hadn't appreciated (knowing nothing about openings) that the ECO code refers only to the A00 .. E99 tag - and not to the descriptive name. Here's a list of the ECO 'A' codes:

   A00Irregular Openings (arranged alphabetically for easy locating)
   A01Nimzovich
   A02-A03Bird
   A04-A09Réti
   A10-A39English
   A40Irregular Queen's Pawn
   A41-A42Modern
   A43-A44Old Benoni
   A45-A50Indian
   A51-A52Budapest
   A53-A55Old Indian
   A56Benoni
   A57-A59Benko Gambit
   A60-A79Modern Benoni
   A80-A99Dutch

(http://www.markalowery.net/Chess/ECO-List/ECO_A00-A99_Text.html)

Neither the ECO code nor the descriptive name gives the unitiated any immediate clue how to visualise the Opening - nor how the openings relate spatially to one another.

In regard to indexing, and coping with transpositions, the obvious scheme would be to sort the moves into a canonical order (separately for white and black).

In the Canonical column, the moves are sorted by position on the board - not by the order in which they were made. This achieves the desired effect of making the two transpositions (in colour) adjacent within the indexing scheme.

There is no doubt that the old system of nota<tion has some weknesses. But we all work with it, and successfully overlook these weaknesses. Introducing a new system means we have to learn it. I strongly oppose such policy, and I beleive, the majority is on my side.

It is the same as to try to reform the orthography of a language, in order to make it 'more logical'.

I witnessed this in germany (german orthography is sometimes a nightmare, that is true, so many exceptions and some of them you cannot explain logically, you just have to learn them!). So some linguists (and highschool teachers) introduced a 'reform' of the old orthography. The new rules are indeed simplier, due to some enthusiasm in the first years, the reformed orthography was introduced in many schools and even some neqwspapers wrote everything with the new rules.

But the people soon found out that the new rules are also difficvult to learn, and after all, we were used to the old rules. Some writers and artists wrote dirty pamphlets against the reform, claiming (not without some justification!) that the new rules pollute our 'old culture language'.

Now many schools and newspapers went back to the old system. The funny 'battle ' is not yet over, but it is of course not good to have two equally valid orthographies in the german speaking regions...

artfizz wrote:

Skakmati wrote:

Some things just don't need to be "improved". Remember the "improved" Coca Cola fiasco?

Are you referring, by any chance, to the decision by Coca Cola to remove cocaine from its soft drink? http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_033.html 

 No Artfizz, I was referring to the more recent debacle (1985) that ensued after Coke decided to change it's formula and reintroduce the product as "New Coke", then was forced to revert to the original formula after a public outcry. Like I said, some things should not be improved.

mandelshtam wrote very eloquently about Die neue Rechtsprechung in relation to a proposed change to the established classification of chess openings.

First, may I formally welcome him into this debate.

"... The funny 'battle ' is not yet over, but it is of course not good to have two equally valid orthographies in the german speaking regions..."

I initially read this as "it is course good to have two ...".  And I thought: yes, why not? After all, you have all those different Germanic countries and regions with their own dialects. I just consulted a German to Austrian translator (http://german.about.com/library/bldialect_aus02.htm) to discover that what to the Germans is a fundamental particle of physics (der Quark)- is just cheese (der Topfen (curd cheese)) to the Austrians.

But that is not your view. You endorse the status quo - which in this case is the ECO codes and descriptive nomenclature - on three primary grounds, namely:

1. most people resist change ("But the people soon found out that the new rules are also difficult to learn, and after all, we were used to the old rules.")

• In some debates (including this one), you argue that the majority is on your side. In others, you argue that the majority is not always right. I don't agree with "Vox populi vox Dei".

2. the existing system is part of our cultural heritage ("the new rules pollute our 'old culture language'.")

• "In English speaking countries, [Algebraic Notation] replaced the parallel system of descriptive chess notation, which became common in the 19th century, and was sporadically used as recently as the 1980s or 1990s." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation#PGN   Why are we not all still using the 18th century system - or not all using horses for transport?

3. there should be a single orthodoxy ("it is of course not good to have two equally valid orthographies")

• We already have several written chess notations: algebraic, descriptive, Portable Game Notation, Long Algebraic, Numeric and Figurine Algebraic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation#PGN  In the main, they co-exist quite happily.

I don't find your current arguments convincing, but I am quite sure you have more persuasive ones in reserve. I look forward to hearing them.

I think I will settle for prawns with fries to go..

what a waste of time, who cares what the opening is called, call it the chess.com opening for all I care. 

To speak of the ECO being abandoned was a bit strong - now that I have a better grasp of what the ECO is. I wish I'd said something like: "Chess: is not ECO friendly?"

dvaud wrote:

आप नहीं हैं हास्यास्पद है !

हमें खुशी है आप अंग्रेजी साम्राज्यवादी हमारे देश से बाहर हैं !

नौकरी मिल , कला !

 How refreshing to hear the Indian point of view at first hand - even if it is somewhat off-topic!

XD

Yes, he should have written in Tamil if he didn't want it Google translatable.

आप नहीं हैं हास्यास्पद है ! = "You are not funny!"

I agree: it makes no sense!

Are pawns shrimps in India?

Why does everyone keeping saying to me:  "You are not funny!"  ?

how about queens castle prawn knight bolted king is a rock and im still an idiot opening.....will the indians  get that  rite