Any tricks for learning algebraic notation?

Did you mean in the early 1900s ?

I feel your pain. I understand algebraic notation and how it works however, I do have a problem visualising lines of notation eg; if I am studying a game or position and it is annotated and the author says something like - another possible continuation would be... followed by several moves. If I don't have a chess board in front of me then I might as well not bother. And when I do have an analysis board in front of me studying positions out of a book and I have to move for example 1.Bb5 I would then find myself counting two squares along five squares up to move the Bishop instead of just "knowing" where the b5 square is on the board. 

 ABCDEFGH

All Blue Cats Don't Eat Five Grapes Hourly

cclynes,

Blackburne was a brit too.

see this post. 

http://blog.chess.com/batgirl/blackburne-by-macdonnell

  carrying the notation for multiple games, along with analysis seems to be a common trait for chess players of any significance.  (that would not necessarily include me on an average day though, so don't take that as being a wise-guy).

Fischer reportedly had a similar 'gifted ability' to exercise total recall of game positions/analysis and even spoken languages - even when he didn't understand a single word in the language, he could repeat it verbatim with inflections.

Someone posted an article today that Carlson is able to carry multiple games in his head, analyzing in depth without a board - and may not even have a chessboard in his home to work on.

    keeping track of the pieces and the moves seems to be a common feature of all great chess prodigies or IMs and GMs and to a lesser degree, all Masters as well.

regards,

It helps to think of landmarks on the board, or divide it into sections. For example, the split between your half and your opponent's half happens between 4 and 5. The split between the right half and the left half happens between d and e. Many openings start with the d and e pawns. Many continuations struggle for control of d4, d5, e4, and e5. If both sides castle kingside, both kings end up in the G column. Etc.

Why on earth do they call it algabraic?  It has nothing to do with algebra and just frightens people (like me) who hated algebra in school.  It should be called alpha-numeric.  Wait a minute....that is frightening too, sounds too complex.  Maybe they should make it more like the periodic table of the elements...but i found chemistry just as confusing as algebra.  How about the Chess Adress System?  That's the ticket.  Everyone has an address and most people can remember it most of the time.  Except...it's a tongue twister:  Chess Adess, Charles Ess, Chestodress.  Now I'm getting confused.  Maybe the real old system is the best:  6.  "The white king commands his owne knight into the third house before his owne bishop."  Now that's a notation that makes you proud.  That's a notation to be reckoned with.

I'm impressed that this post wasn't the second in the thread.

me too! I see a string of move notation and part of my brain just shuts down!~

Anyway, thanks for all the suggestions/support. I think I just need to stop being a baby about it and put in the effort.

Makes me think about the range of skills/abilities involved in chess - I am good at pattern recognition (when I am not being "board blind"...that in itself is a rather amazing if frustrating "capability") but not so innately strong with other aspects.

I think this is something you pick up with time.  A very good exercise is to play a game and write down the moves as you go. (As you would have to in and otb tournament.  Repetion will drive it home.  You will quickly become familiar with where Knights most typically develop (f3, f6 c3, and c6).  you will learn about the dreaded f7 and how many beginner attacks focus on that square.

In his book Comprehensive Chess Course: Vol I, Pelts and Alburt insist you be able to name the square in say the a2-h7 diagonal.  They also throw out a square and ask you what color it whether it is light or dark.  Interestingly he also recommends playing battleship with the chess board to get the gist.

This is supposed to help you visualize the board better.

I still get confused when I play black from the black side of the board.  That's after over two years of mucking about.

lol...ok, ok

Oh - while I am here: I didn't realize that recording your moves was required for OTB and tournament games. I only play OTB in casual games with friends, etc.

Do you have to turn your move sheet in some place "official" and is it compared to your partner's move sheet?

Sometimes. But it's mostly used in case of disputes -- you want to claim a draw because of threefold repetition, you need some way to prove it. With a time control like 40 moves in 2 hours, half an hour for the rest, you need to be able to prove that you made 40 moves. And so on.

It was a legitimate question and that was mean but I was lmao by the end -- also it's late at night here so that might make a difference...

28...Qh3g4!

What a beautiful game just to produce that little nuance of notation.

Just for the record, I've spent a bit of time over the last few months taking up chess again, at 46 years old. The last time I regularly played was in my teens, when descriptive was popular. I was really taken aback by algegraic notation, and am just now after a few months getting to the point where i don't have to mentally count up and across the board.

I realize that my opinion is contrary to most here, but even though I am comfortable with algebraic notation now, I find descriptive notation much easier and intuitive.To me, when I picture a file, it is just natural and immediate to think of the king bishop's file, the queen file, etc. Isn't this the way chess players think. Translating into letters seems to be an uneeded and arbitrary step.

Also contrary to most, I like that that descriptive notation is from the point of view of the the side of the board one is playing. To say that the KB2 square is vulnerable is much nicer to me than f2/f7. Having the ranks numbered from white's point of view makes the notation asymmetrical.  I realize the drawback is that  when describing an absolute square (such as pointing out a square in a game where complicated exchange is about to take place), then you have to from which players point of view. But for me, this disadvantage is worth the more significant advantage of white/black indepence of moves.

A point against descriptive notation is that it is sometimes ambiguous. Can someone give an example? This seems like a a somewhat irrelevant argument because if indeed there are ambiguities, I would think that they could have been fixed. Again, it would be helpful if someone could cite an example.

Finally, I have heard it argued that algebraic is easier for a computer to parse. I'm a software engineer and I can tell you that the added difficulty is extremely trivial.

paul211, that article made me want to vomit. There should be a ban on Fischer freaks posting on every thread. I bet you post Fischer "facts" on cancer sites. "Bobby was working on a cure before the 1972 match." "Fischer really was the one to bring down the Berlin wall." If it were not for Bobby Fischer there would have been no such thing as people."

I think the 'battle' between algebraic and descriptive notation has been pretty much decided in favour of the former. One distinct advantage the algebraic notation has is that it is the same all over the world, while descriptive will be different from one language to another. This means the algebraic enables chess players to communicate effortlessly as far as chess moves are concerned, while the latter is dependent on a shared language and willingness to use it.

stats_man, you reported abuse, and then sent me a message that I will be kicked off chess.com?

Tryst: are you a troll? You seem to have the most frequent posting behaviour I have seen. Racking up those points there. Some of your posts are argumentative. Are you really a chick? Just curious :)

Those are all good questions, chessoholicalien. When I wake up in the morning and look in the mirror, yes, I look like a troll. I hope my frequent posting behaviour is not upsetting. It can't last for long you know. I don't mind being "argumentative", do you? I am not poultry. Not even baby poultry. Is your curiosity satisfied?