Can someone explain this notation?

A KNIGHT 

I, too, learned how to play chess from books using the descriptive notation.  (I am older than dirt!  )  In some ways, it is clearer than algebraic notation.  One example that comes to mind:  The King Bishop Pawn squares are the weakest squares at the start of the game due to the fact that the square is only guarded by the King himself.

To express this same fact in algebraic:  the squares f2 and f7 are the weakest squares at the start of the game due to the fact that squares are only guarded by the Kings themselves.

I think that the first, in the descriptive notation, is easier to understand than the last, (algebraic notation).

I, myself, record my games in long algebraic, (or is it called coordinate?), notation:  1. e4 (in the short form) becomes 1. e2-e4 or 1. Pe2-e4.  [Using White's first move as an example.]  I perfer this form because there is no need to clarify for possibly ambigious moves.  (By this I mean, if there are Knights on f7 and f5, Nd6 has to be clarified as to which Knight is actually moved. I know, both short algebraic and descriptive have methods to resolve such quandries.  Also, it is easy for a player to record their move without even realizing that the there may be two possible moves.  Not that much of a problem today when most players are playing online.)

To really be efficient, use algebraic notation that eliminates writing "x" for captures or "+" for check, like this line in the Lopez: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 d6 4 d4 ed 5 Bc6 bc, and so forth. What does it matter a capture was made or a check was played? Positionally speaking, it's just pieces moving to squares.

The purest dryness is "long algebraic" 1 e2-e4 g8-f6 2 e4-e5 f6-d5, reflecting only DGT board-like square changing. Ugh!

I agree with those that enjoy descriptive notation. Batgirl says algebraic was being used in England in the 1700's, but my earliest dated books in English do not feature algebraic (which is not proof algebraic wasn't around). Interestingly, when Jaques London introduced its Staunton pattern sets in 1849, the King's knight and King's rook were marked with a red stamped crown on top, so you could tell deep in the game whether it was QKt-KB6 or KKt-KB6, if both knights could go to the KB6 square (or if the KR or QR was moved to a square either could go). Surely, then, algebraic was not the most popular notation among the chess clubs circa 1850.

Just putting out there, Descriptive notation isnt that hard to learn. It looks really stupid at first and stupid to learn first but eventually youll easily get it. Lotta good books in descriptive.

Now and then I will record one of my tournament games using descriptive notation, just for old times sake.  (Descriptive notation was what I learned, in the early '70s.)  I'm fluent in both algegraic and descriptive, which isn't saying much.  Descriptive notation is not rocket science.

I have 620+ chess books and probably a fourth of them, or more, use descriptive notation.

When I'm playing a kid in a tournament, I love to see the look on their faces when I hand them my scoresheet, after they ask to borrow it.

I prefer descriptive to algebraic, especially when you're looking at a diagram and playing out the moves in your head. To me, descriptive notation focuses more on the pieces, while algebraic focuses on the squares.

Thank you to nacional100 for starting this discussion!

"Batgirl says algebraic was being used in England in the 1700's, but my earliest dated books in English do not feature algebraic (which is not proof algebraic wasn't around). "

What I said was that Algebraic existed in England from 1737, but neither the English nor the French embraced it and, instead, favored Descriptive (although the French in particular througout the 19th century tried several other forms notation, none of which caught on).

Below is a page from Syria-born Londoner, Philipp Stamma's 1737 "Essai sur le jeu des echecs," published 8 years later in English as the "Noble Game of Chess."

Here is a page from the first Russian chess book, by Ivan Butrimov, the 1821 "Chess Play"

Moses Hirschel, a German writer, translated Greco and Stamma circa 1791 using Algrbraic:

German Johann Allgaier wrote "Neue theoretisch-praktische Anweisung zum Schachspiel" (often considered one of the best books from that era)  around 1795:

In contrast, here is French Descriptive from a 1771 edition of Philidor's "Analyse du jeu des échecs"

Here is some history quoted from this site:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_notation

QUOTE

Algebraic chess notation was first used by Philipp Stamma (c. 1705–55) in an almost fully developed form before the now obsolete descriptive chess notation evolved. The main difference between Stamma's system and the modern system is that Stamma used "p" for pawn moves and the original file of the piece ("a" through "h") instead of the initial letter of the piece.^[17] In London in 1747, Philidor convincingly defeated Stamma in a match. Consequently, his writings (which were translated into English) became more influential than Stamma's in the English-speaking chess world; this may have led to the adoption of a descriptive system for writing chess moves, rather than Stamma's coordinate-based approach. However, algebraic notation became popular in Europe following its adoption by the highly influential Handbuch des Schachspiels, and became dominant in Europe during the 20th century. However, it did not become popular in the English-speaking countries until the 1970s.

UNQUOTE

EDIT: Seems as if I posted this at the same time as batgirl's post (post #35). At least her post wasn't yet posted when I started writing my post. Anyway, my post supports her post very well.

As you can see from batgirl's examples Algebraic is easy to understand whether it is in a Russian chess book, a German chess book or whatever language, while Descriptive is difficult to understand in other languages like the French example with Descriptive. No wonder that Algebraic has become universal.

Algebraic has it's difficulties as well.  You assume everyone speaks the same language.

I've seen Algebraic with people using different letters.  I've even seen "A" used, I forget for what piece.  Probably the "most common" of those that are different than what Chess.com uses is "K" for King, "D" for Queen, "T" for Rook, "L" for Bishop, and "C" for Knight (or "S" in some cases).

So if you really want a universal system, use numeric.  It's simple.  Number the files 1 thru 8 from White's left to right.  Number the ranks the same way you do in Algebraic.  Below is the first 3 moves of the Nimzo-Indian in Algebraic and then Numeric (which is universal)

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4

1. 4244 7866 2. 3234 5756 3. 2133 6824

It would be easier and simpler to agree on universal piece symbols. In part, figurine notation has circumvented that issue, although while reading it is easy, writing it isn't so easy. ICCF notation isn't the least bit intuitive nor  is it practical other than for written correspondence chess.

I transpose games from books into pgns all the time, hundreds per year, I imagine. Roughly 50% are French or German book/periodicals. I really can't say the various piece symbols give me trouble.  In fact, I find transposing games from foreign Algebraic a lot easier than from English Descriptive.  The most confusing, of course, is foreign Descriptive (by foreign, I just mean non-English).

With the help of the replace function in excel, you can easily change all the Rs into Ks easily. Of course, you need to replace all the names of the pieces to get a full-fledged English notation. This is no problem since you can enlist the help of excel macros to help you.

Or not knowing what it means to "dial" a phone number,

or have the needle skip on a record player,

or know what a clutch is,

or how to saddle up the horse,

or get your tit caught in a wringer,

or  fill up a fountain pen,

or use a wash board,

or  churn  the  butter,

or put your sword back into its sheath,

or squeeze the magarine bag until it  turn yellow,

or undergo having a tooth drilled for fifteen minutes to have tooth cavity filled,

or have non-morons seek the republican nomination for the Presidency.

Wonderful post, Batgirl!  You and BlueKnightShade have cleared up what for me was a puzzle about the evolution of notations in different countries. Thank you both, very much.

You should try reading a few chess books printed in french, spanish or german sometime, the pieces have different names so the abbreviated letters for the pieces and pawns are different. The 'Kt confusion" poster probably has english as a second or third language.

How many of us have had to explain to a chess player who has never cracked a book and whose first language is english that "N" is a knight?

I bet everyone here.

If you really want to know how old you are here's my 'Unknown Beatles' story: Way back in 1983 (13 yrs after the Beatles called it quits) I was in A&B Sound in Vancouver, browsing the vinyl. 2 girls about 13 years old were browsing the albumns in the 'B's and one girl says to her friend: "Oh look, Paul McCartney was in a band before he was in Wings!" I had to walk away or I might have laughed out loud and been rude!

We might have to get used to the idea that the Beatles were a band from the late Triassic, "when we was fab".

Awesome!!! I love the research you have done!!!!

When I bought Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals about a week ago, I found that it has descriptive notation in it even though the cover said that it's in algebraic. lol

Anyway, there's this Wikipedia page about descriptive notation which has this picture of the descriptive notation table in it. Made it so easy for me to understand after just an hour of converting some of the moves in the book to algebraic. haha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_notation

In English Descriptive Notation, both sides view the names of squares from their own perspective.

When it is white's turn to move, he/she might play 1 e4 and write on the scoresheet 1 P-K4, noting their King's Pawn on square K2 ("King's Two Square") has moved to K4 (King's Four Square").

In response Black might answer with 1 ... e5 and notate on his/her scoresheet 1 ... P-K4, because black's King's Pawn has started from the square in front of his K (black's "King Two Square") and landed on the black K4 square. So, each square would have a notation of the board from both white's and black's point of view.

This notation arose from considerations of each square and each playing piece being referenced from the King each side was directing. It fits in with the concept of "checkmate" being the situation where the monarch to move is under attack and cannot escape the "check," but the game must end before the King is "killed." Regicide was not acceptable in Medieval Europe. All the lands viewable from the castle were seen as property (or potential property) of the King, hence on the chessboard the lands were viewable from the point of view of the monarch surveying the fields before him.