Fully numeric chess notation

I’m fairly new to chess.  This topic may have been discussed before.  It occurs to me that the algebraic notation of lettered columns (files) doesn’t lend itself as well to memorization and visualization, at least for me, as would numbered columns.  The reason is that alphabetic order isn’t as easily visualized as numeric order. Also, relationships between numbers are more easily noticed and assimilated than relationships between letters. 

I would suggest an algebraic notation of numbered columns as well as numbered rows.  For example, e4 would become 54, g6 would become 76, and exd5 would be 5x45.

Then, for example, knowing the light/dark shade of each square would be a snap.  Knowing that the lower left square is dark and that the shades alternate; all even,even and odd,odd squares are dark, and all odd,even and even,odd squares are light.  Also, the change in square location for piece moves would be reduced to simple numeric formulas for both row and column, not just row.

So, what do you think?  Would you prefer the fully numeric system?  If so, who do we talk to, to get it changed? 

Signed,

Troublemaker

P.S. I suspect that the more experience you have, the less likely you are to want or need a change.

The two existing notation systems--"P. to Q's Four" and "d4"--are enough for me.

AquaMan wrote:

I’m fairly new to chess.  This topic may have been discussed before.  It occurs to me that the algebraic notation of lettered columns (files) doesn’t lend itself as well to memorization and visualization, at least for me, as would numbered columns.  The reason is that alphabetic order isn’t as easily visualized as numeric order. Also, relationships between numbers are more easily noticed and assimilated than relationships between letters. 

 

I would suggest an algebraic notation of numbered columns as well as numbered rows.  For example, e4 would become 54, g6 would become 76, and exd5 would be 5x45.

 

Then, for example, knowing the light/dark shade of each square would be a snap.  Knowing that the lower left square is dark and that the shades alternate; all even,even and odd,odd squares are dark, and all odd,even and even,odd squares are light.  Also, the change in square location for piece moves would be reduced to simple numeric formulas for both row and column, not just row.

 

So, what do you think?  Would you prefer the fully numeric system?  If so, who do we talk to, to get it changed? 

 

Signed,

Troublemaker

 

P.S. I suspect that the more experience you have, the less likely you are to want or need a change. 

 

 

---

blasphemy!!!

 

on a more serious note I can't possibly see how that would be better than algebraic notation.

we are more likely to Ben Affleck be a good actor, or for alcohol to be banned again in america, than we are to see this happen.

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

LOL!  OK, OK, I know the notation's not gonna change.  This leads to the next question, that I want to ask anyway.

 

What thought process do you use to get comfortable with the notation?  When you read or think f4, for example, do you just visualize that square location on the board?

 

Any advice on getting comfortable with the notation?  When I read the notation in a chess book, I want the picture of the movement of the pieces to be very vivid in my mind.  Right now, even when I read the notation and move the pieces on a physical board, or on a computer analysis board, it's very tedious, and I sometimes make mistakes.   Is it just practice?  Or is there a thought process that you have found that also helps?

Practice, as with anything, will always make things easier.  With the same amount of practice you will put into the current system, I could learn your system.  It really amounts to playing more chess and getting comfortable, and hopefully, getting better at chess is the ultimate goal anyway.  But I just try and visualize the board, count in my head if I have to.  I don't know, it's like learning anything else. 

I think most people learn through practice, but there actually is a software package out there designed to help players become more familiar with the chess board called Chess Eye. There's a free and pay version. The players I talked to who used it were mixed as to how much (if any) it helped to improve their game.

Personally I do find the current notation to be extremely obnoxious to look at.  I've been playing chess for maybe 3 months now and I still haven't warmed up to it. Whenever I annotate a game or describe a line I always type it out like "king to d3" or "e4 bishop takes pawn on c2."  I only include the number of the move if there's good reason.  Your suggestion, however, sounds even worse to me than the current system :(   (And for the record, I am not advocating any change in the current system, I just don't prefer it)

I, too, had problems with the letters at first. But when you think about it, it really does make sense. Think of all the confusion there would be if everything were numbers. Especially when you have to denote which rook you're using because they're in the same file. I mean Rab5 make a lot more sense to me than R125. You'd have to get comfortable to the code with numbers as much as you would with letters, and letters avoid confusion. So I really do think it's best as is.

This is coming from a math teacher who uses the Cartesian plane on a daily basis. That's saying something.

R125 works fine for me.  Also, if you go to the Chess Eye page refereced with the link above, the example question is; are a3 and f5 on the same diagonal?  I have to think about it for a few seconds.  But if the question were; are 13 and 75 on the same diagonal, I know right away that they aren't, because the column number has to index as much (in absolute value) as the row number, in going from one square to the next along a diagonal, and it doesn't.  |7-3| not equal |5-2|

 

I get the feeling there aren't any discrete mathematicians weighing in

 

However, I probably don't reach chess notation nirvana until I simply visualize the location according to the label, whatever labeling system is used, without the math step as an intermediate. 

Simple. You've clearly thought it out enough to make a tournament board based on this system. So get someone who didn't like math in school and doesn't play chess. Then have this person play through some games with both notations. Maybe set up the boards first and have them play through short, tactical exchanges.


Your idea is interesting and clever, but what will you do about a chess playing world that already is fluid with the more orthodox system, eh? Are you proposing a mass, global "re-education" campaign such as teaching the metric system in the U.S.? "Copyright infringement is a sin" versus "Piss off, already."?

Or worst even yet... Pepsi vs. Coke? Oh, I truly despise these dangerous thoughts.

The existing notations are good enough for me, complex enough, and, looking at some of my games I think I may have have been playing with a blindfold on.

atgc wrote:

It's a little naive to say - "I want to change the notation used in chess - who should I talk to?" 

---

 That part was tongue in cheek.  But to play it a little further, I figure I'd talk to the autors and publishers.  Look at all the extra books to be sold as "updated edition."  Tongue in cheek again.

 

Oops, looking above at my OP though, there was no winking smiley on that line.  I thought it was obvious.  Fair enough to have taken me seriously though.  You're right, it would be very naive.

I guess my only hope is to get rich enough to buy enough publishing companies to change the convention on my own.  It's obvious I'm going to have to do this by force.  

 

Signed,

Bill Gates 

tns wrote: Your idea is interesting and clever, but what will you do about a chess playing world that already is fluid with the more orthodox system, eh? Are you proposing a mass, global "re-education" campaign such as teaching the metric system in the U.S.? 

---

 Certainly not.  That would eliminate my competitive advantage

[COMMENT DELETED]

[COMMENT DELETED]

When analizing your games, you kinda have to say the names of the squares either in your mind or out loud. That's how I learned to get comfortable with the names of the squares. Associate a colour with them. For example, f7, you'll hear about that one lots. Depending on the games you study, the openings, you'll familiarize yourself with the names and colours. Practice, patience and perseverence.

Numeric chess notation already exists :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICCF_numeric_notation