Best way to learn how to read the board

Hi,

I like chess.  I want to be good.  I recently started playing frequently on here, and it's a lot of fun.

My question is, how would I best go about learning how to read the board?  I know A-H and 1-8 but I get confused and turned around often, especially when I start a game as black.   Thanks.

Personally I have problems with the algebraic system because when I child the books of my country used the descriptive system. 

I think the solution is play anotated games and reproduces master games. 

Try writing down your moves, even in an online game.  That would help you get used to the notation and the square coordinates.  Just a thought...  Good luck.

Or you could just write down the coordinates of every square on the square.

Memorize:

the bottom right hand square for White is a white square: h1.
the bottom right hand square for Black is a white square: a8.

White on right. h1 and a8 are always a white square. The QUEEN goes on the color of her army, not the King.

You should also be able to ID ranks (horizontal rows 1-8) files (vertical rows a-h) and diagonals (self-explanatory, especially for Bishops)

AND I recommend memorizing the bd so you can immediately ID every square by its color, although maybe this isn't really necessary it can't hurt.

Learn english descriptive notation after you get algebraic notation down pat. A lot of used and older books are in EN, it is inferior but not that hard to learn - it's more confusing at times but it aint rocket science!

Thanks, everyone.

One way to learn algebraic notation is the "fly method". Imagine a fly keeps landing on the board. See how quickly you can name the square that it lands on.

Also, whenever you are analysing a game in your head, try writing down the moves you see. Then try to replay the line using only what you wrote. These both work best with a partner, but you can do these exercises by yourself too.

I think your overcomplicating. I'm not sure what you mean by "read the board" but you don't have to read anything just understand how pieces move. I've reached as high as 1300 without reading anything. Visualisation is more important than reading(?).

Some people prefer mnuemonic devices, such as sayings.  I'll make a couple up as examples now:

• "Black A8 right, H8's left"            (Black ate right, hates left)
• "D-queen is E-king out a win"      (The queen is eeking out a win)
• (D)airy Queen™ for (E)very King
• (D)aring queen, (E)xceptional King

I do not quite know, my friends,  about your preferences. . . but !how much better is the descriptive method. . .¡It gives you how many squares you are in front of your home file in the correct column . . .without bothering with white or black, left or right, 1 or …8 . . .

Put succinctly, descriptive notation is archaic.

Learn algebraic notation if you want to read any chess book that has been published in the last 25 years.

When you're thinking through moves, many people think to themselves something like "I go there, he goes there..) etc. Replace that with the move: "I play Bishop-c-4, he plays Knight-f-6..."

This also helps blindfold

It is not a matter a “archaism” Mr SmylovFan. It is a matter of “quality”. For instance, do not tell me you prefer a today´s automobile with plastic bumpers to the old “all metal” automobiles. And . . . what is a better navigator?. . .Colon (or Columbus, I do not know how you name him) with a simple oil compass or any air line pilot  with all that electronic avionics they can use (VOR DME, etc). Go West young man, go West

The analogy between Colon's (Columbus') method of navigation and the use of latitude and longitude isn't perfect, but it is apt. Descriptive notation, like Columbus' method, is based on where a piece starts. Algebraic notation is based on a grid that determines absolute location. If a piece lands on e5, it's e5 no matter where it started from and no matter whether it's Black or White.

When a modern airline pilot lands, he usually knows precisely where he is, and can express that location in absolute terms of latitude and longitude. When Colon (Columbus) landed, he didn't even know which continent he was on. 

Colon's achievement is truly incredible given that he probably didn't use celestial navigation (it wasn't a useful method in the Mediterranean Sea where he learned his craft), but dead reckoning.

I would rather use latitude and longitude to locate myself than dead reckoning.

And this isn't about the technology suddenly failing. The Algebraic system isn't prone to power outages or sun spots. 

But my main point wasn't over whether one system is better than another. Algebraic (and figurine algebraic) is the only method of notation used in modern chess.

Learn the method that everyone else uses.

Smys

I brought up the cases of air line pilots and Colon as sort of comparison, not to talk bout the themes (we are in a chess theme environtment and should stick to it). But, as they say, “nobility forces you”, I shall answer.

First. Colon DID knew darn well that he was going to find land---the Oriental lands of species. What he DID not know was that we was going to arrive at a new continent.

Training in the Mediterraneandoes does not add to the question…If you take a close look at maps you will notice that in his way to unknown America, and going west, he kept in within the rather  same range of latitudes, so astronomical observing (as per the age) was to similar stars. .

Second.. Of course modern pilots know EXACTLY the coordinates of the arriving point… and so any one looking at the proper map. But, as per today, he does not go there “navigatibg” . . .he is taken by a set of avionics instruments set before eparture by somebodyelse. He is given a set of “way points” or “legs”, artificially placed, in the space that land him at the arrival port.  Not like in old times when they depended on the gompass.

Then came the radio compass, and life became easier for them. Today, to enhance their life, they have, besides VOR, MDF, radar, etc., computer programs.

Of course, they have a hard job seeing that the flight plan goes on rightly.

/* * *

What they should endeavor to do, is departing on time. . .