I am not poultry. Not even baby poultry.
So is that an admission that you are not female or just sarcasm?
You are quite amusing. I am female, just not a bird. It seems that some people on the forums have a difficult time with "sarcasm". But believe me, it has been a constant source of amusement. Don't change a thing.
The board in descriptive chess notation is:
Try this old notation in a game between Lasker and Marshall game #53, New York International Tournament of 1924:
1. P-K4 P-K4
2. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3
3. KT-B3 B-KT5
I can read this easily as this how I learned to play chess in the 1960's, can you?
Let's see the algebraic notation, I think it was called this because of the nature of the board dimensions which is actually a matrix with rows a1 to h1 and files a1: a8 to h1: h8. This 2 dimension pattern can easily be put in the form of a matrix and the solution to many positions can be resolved with the theory of matrixes.
Now for the algebraic notation on the game:
1. e4 for Pawn King 4( P-K4) on white move, the pawn moves to square from the King position, black responds e5 for pawn King 4 (P-K4) as it moves to the 4th square from the black King position.
2. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3, 2. Knight King b3 or today 2. Nf3, for black response Kt-KB3, Knight to f6 or 2...Nf6.
Anyone that wants to tell me that the descriptive annotation was better than the current algebraic annotation, they do not even understand or have a clue on the foundation of either systems, and I do as I have used the descriptive annotation for about 30 years or so.
The board in descriptive chess notation is:
Is this really easier to understand??
Not for me and I am very familiar with it.
In the new algebraic notation I do find one shortcoming, when a piece or pawn takes another piece or pawn the annotation does not mention what piece or pawn takes the piece on a given square.
As an example: The Sicilian opening: 1.e4 c5, 2. Nf3 Nc6, 3.Bb5, if black plays a6 and white takes the knight in c6 with the bishop, the notation is Nxc6, I would prefer BxNc6 a lot more explicit. Other than that the new algebraic notation is far superior to the old
Ok, I see that the descriptive notation is needlessly terse on move 3 in your example, Paul. Which KT5 file? King or Queen? Presumably the one that's not yet occupied. Myself, I would always write the full file QKT5 or KKT5.
As for your board descriptions, unfortunately I don't see them appear in your message, so I'm not sure what you're commenting on there. I wish you could fill in what we're not seeing.
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.
Now THAT is a very good point that I hadn't thought enough about!
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.
Now THAT is a very good point that I hadn't thought enough about!
Yeah, that is a good piont.
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.
Now THAT is a very good point that I hadn't thought enough about!
Yeah, that is a good piont.
As far as I can tell the algebraic notation also "is dependent on a shared language and willingness to use it". A portuguese speaker understands Nf3 because he knows that N stands for Knight on the english notation, even though the translation would require him to write Cf3 (for "Cavalo").
In the end, most people just accept to use the widespread english algebraic notation, but that could also be done with the descriptive one.
Leaving that aside, I do prefer the algebraic notation because the coordinate system is so intuitive, you don't feel like you are learning a new "chess language", you are just applying something you already know (coordinates) to the board.
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.
Now THAT is a very good point that I hadn't thought enough about!
Yeah, that is a good piont.
As far as I can tell the algebraic notation also "is dependent on a shared language and willingness to use it". A portuguese speaker understands Nf3 because he knows that N stands for Knight on the english notation, even though the translation would require him to write Cf3 (for "Cavalo").
In the end, most people just accept to use the widespread english algebraic notation, but that could also be done with the descriptive one.
Leaving that aside, I do prefer the algebraic notation because the coordinate system is so intuitive, you don't feel like you are learning a new "chess language", you are just applying something you already know (coordinates) to the board.
Um yes, I forgot about that for a moment. I nowadays only use and encounter the English algebraic notation, and I think that most serious chess players learn the English notation sooner or later even if it is not their first language. Descriptive notation would seem to add to the difficulty. I have never used descriptive notation in any language, and I am not aware of it having been used in this part of the world.
I think I know what you mean, one system the I use longtime ego but ,now that i think about, I may do it again is to print e in e transparent paper with all the coordinate lake chessoholicalien show; and put on the top of our board
Well, you need to learn a few skills.
1) The alphabet: You dont have to learn the whole thing at once, only up to h.
...
Now, you were asking about Nf7. You can't move there yet, because you have not learnt about N..... Wait, I'll have to examine my theory some more, at the moment you can only move bishops.....
... and pawns.
An alternative more visual notation was discussed here.
hey thanks for all the comments! Appreciate them.
i learned it simply by reading a few chessbooks and playing through the games after the annotation. read a few books and soon all the squares are second nature and you know the square instantly when you read about it without having to count in any way
Here's what I did: I memorised a,b,c, etc. and 1,2,3, etc. The next step and a useful one, I combined the two opposite letters and numbers.
So in my mind a = h, b = g, c = f and d = e. this gave me a good grounding for memorizing half and knowing the other half plus twisting the board and still knowing the notation.
Next I would do an excercise that I'll call random pointing. 1-8 I found easiest so first I would exercise the rank a-h by just randomly pointing at a square then naming its letter. Point, c, point, g, point, a . And by knowing that c=f and b=g etc. it cut down on my thinking time. It kinda halved the difficulty.
Next I did the same exercise along the files. Point at a square - 5 . point at another square - 3. and again 1=8, 2=7, 3=6. so it would halve my thinking time by automatically realizing that there are only 4 to memorize and the opposite is automatic.
Next I would just randomly point at a square then name it. I would do this for like 20 min to 30 mins or whatever while I was warming my brain up before playing, or I would just do it in my head away from the board when I had nothing better to do with my brain.
And the final step, that I began quite a while ago that really helped me know the board was memorising square colours. The first step with this I think is imagining fianchettoed bishop. I KNOW that blacks kingside bishop is on a dark square. So g7 is easily a black square. And white is light squared fianchettoed so g2 is white. I use this as my guide.
Next I would memorise the Nf3, Nc3, Nf6 Nc6 square colours.
I memorised piece starting colours and piece first move colours. I memorized the colours of the primary and secondary central squares.
Next I would do the random pointing exercise but with square colour. This is really helpful, believe me. I automatically know the colour of d4, d5, e4 and e5 so this will immediately direct me to theory I have learnt about important central squares in certain openings.
I can examine positions in my mind by knowing algebraic notation plus referencing square colour.
Using this I have played blindfolded games. My memory is nothing special and obviously neither are my chess skills. But I can see positions in my mind because of the memorization process I followed. So I annoy my chess friends by playing them blindfolded - and winning.
Thanks for your post Devoid. I found your solution very helpful and easily followed. I will try it and see if I can learn the board "intuitively".
Some Ideas for chessboard visualization
Now I am positively awful at playing blindfold chess; in fact, some would swear I'm playing my correspondence games that way! Yet acquiring the ability to visualize sections of the board in your mind and keep them updated as the pieces move will improve your ability to calculate during a normal game. Much like swinging 3 bats together before you get to the plate makes the one bat you do swing feel that much lighter. So says Andrew Soltis, George Koltanowski and no doubt many others. Over the years I've come up with a few ideas of my own that may be helpful to anyone who would like to improve in this area.
Think of the chessboard as best you can right now. If there are any square colors you know right off the bat, write them down. If you play the Caro-Kann you can probably recall that c6 is a light square. QGD players might remember that e7 is a dark square where the bishop develops in order to break the pin; and that c8 is a light square which houses that problem bishop. Take a minute now and try to collect as many of these mental anchor squares as you can. Don't think too long, because unless it comes to you fairly quickly, we don't want to classify it as an anchor square. You may have to 'learn' the square before it can serve that function. If you can't find any anchor squares, then aren't you lucky you stumbled onto this artice! If you can find some, then take note of what files they're in. You may be in good shape for the first step below.
· STEP 1: Remember the fact that there are two families of squares: a-c-e-g and b-d-f-h
I'm a big believer in mnemonics, so I recall the family names by noting that the letters a-c-e-g rhyme. Secondly they spell "ASEG" - not a word, but a hell of a lot closer to one then the other family is. For the b-d-f-h family, you're on your own. Thankfully, you won't have to do these kinds of things for very long. You will get to know the families fairly quickly and then you'll be finished with this step.
· STEP 2: Choose and learn an anchor file in each family
Going back, suppose that when we tried to collect our mental anchor squares we found that we knew 7 of them pretty quickly. Lets say 4 of them were in the c file and 3 of them were in the d file. If we finsihed memorizing the colors of the squares in each of these two files, we would then have an anchor file in each family and we would be all set.
Once you know the colors of the squares in an anchor file, any other square that belongs to a file in that family has the same color per rank. If it doesn't belong to a file in that family, then it has the opposite color per rank. So in much the same way as we earlier talked about collecting anchor squares in a file, now we progress to having anchor files in a family.
So assume for a second that the h6 square was NOT one of your anchors and you had to figure out what color it was. You would do this by recalling two things: (1) The h file is in the family b-d-f-h. (2) I know that d6 is dark because d is my anchor file in that family, so therefore h6 must be dark.
· STEP 3: Apply the next mnemonic layer
Thanks to our family concept, we now know that a square in one family (b4 for example) will have the opposite color of a square on the same rank in the other family (c4 for example). But where else does this it-must-be-the-opposite-color concept apply? In two other places:
· (1) ADJOINING squares: two squares touching side by side are opposite colors
· (2) OPPOSING squares in the enemy camp:
Incidently, two squares touching diagonally have to be the same color. If you doubt this, ask any bishop.
· STEP 4: A suggested progession of study
I would suggest learning in the following order. Study each of the concepts below until you can perform it instantly. Don't jump backward or forward until you can do the one you are on in your sleep. Remember: each step is a building block for the next; if you try to walk on one before the cement is dry you will get your shoes messed up. Get the picture?
· Know the families are a-c-e-g & b-d-f-h
· Know that file x belongs in family x-x-x-x
· Know all of the square colors of an anchor file in each family
· Know the color of square x because it:
· STEP 5: Re-inforce what you learn
If you have a tabletop chess computer, you can try playing a game with no pieces. Just record the moves on paper, so you have a trail to fall back on. Also, you can start by keeping the computer's pieces on and taking yours off.
Take your favorite game and try to visualize the moves until you lose track. For me it is Morphy's opera game. Since I've seen it so many times, I feel I have a 'leg up' on visualizing it. This is fine - cheating is allowed! When you reach a point in the game where things start to get fuzzy (like for me after 1. e4), go back and do it over. Only play the game to that point and repeat it. So the length of your game will increase as your ablity to visualize increases.
And finally, I remeber reading in an Andrew Soltis book on calculation where he said "Never try to envision the entire board at once, nobody does that - not even grandmasters!".
At last! I can do what they can do.
Take your favorite game and try to visualize the moves until you lose track. For me it is Morphy's opera game.
Watch Opera Game film (8 min)
I am not poultry. Not even baby poultry.
So is that an admission that you are not female or just sarcasm?