53 ( +1 | -1 )
Algebraic Notation vs The Other Stuff
I was looking in a chess book and I saw all these letters and numbers but they certainly weren't algebraic notation!! I spent two hours trying to figure out what in heck they all meant and still couldn't conclude to anything. I may sound like a rookie but I really have no idea what all this stuff in my book is! Could someone please take some time to explain this? I'm asking a lot because this stuff looks pretty hardcore and all....I'd greatly appreciate who replies in this.
17 ( +1 | -1 )
I hope it is not the descriptive notation.
In a descriptive notation, Kt-Qb3 would mean Nc3 which is a Knight moving to "Queen Bishop 3" square. But that won't take you hours to figure it out, so may be there is another notation...
36 ( +1 | -1 )
see it taking someone hours if they had no idea..
personally i think descriptive notation is a waste of time..
i encountered some situations with descriptive where 2 different moves on a certain position would have the same description.. so if you were simply reading the notation you wouldn't even know which move had been played
51 ( +1 | -1 )
I don't know about this descriptive notation, but as it seems also a standard just like the algebraic one, there must be something "missing" in your statement. I'm thinking an algebraic notation of a Knight move. In certain circumstances Nd2 can be dubious unless you specify an Nb-d2, Nf-d2 or others. The point is that I cannot see any difficulties to make things unique, so someone should have made it so.
A waste of time? Hehe, when I found a book with such descriptive notation, I'd prefer not to look at it.
63 ( +1 | -1 )
If it is really descriptive notation, which I assume, then I have a link for you, thugette_babe:
Don't worry, it's really not so hard to learn (despite what the page says), and you'll have access to tons of great chess classics you'd otherwise miss out on if you weren't able to read descriptive!
And you other guys, shame on you! :) You'd really dump a chess book just for the type of notation it's written in?
11 ( +1 | -1 )
Maybe it's Forsyth notation? That's the hardest to figure out,but it's easy once you get the hang of it. Try a Google for that:)
6 ( +1 | -1 )
whenever i see it i have no clue what on earth it means...
24 ( +1 | -1 )
is generally inferior to algebraic, but
the exception is in describing simple endgames. By that I mean when all the "action" is taking place in one half of the board. Then, say, P-B6 (pawn to bishop 6) allows for all 4 possibilities (c6,f6,c3,f3) of reversed colours or the board mirrored.
65 ( +1 | -1 )
I learned on descriptive
It is as easy to read as algebraic if it is written correctly.
Just as in algebraic the piece moving must be identified or it is unsure which piece you are moving. In algebraic If you are white and you have a Knight on both c3 and c5 and the move is written Ne4 you are unsure which Knight to move. It is correctly written N3e4 or N5e4.
Similarily in descriptive notation the piece moving must be identified. In descriptive notation they identify the piece by its starting position. So in the above example the move would be correctly written QKt-K4, or KKt-K4. The QKt meaning the Queens Knight and KKt meaning the Kings Knight.
So when correctly written and the reader knows the how to read the notation either way is easy.
52 ( +1 | -1 )
I still prefer descriptive
Once you get used to it, it is easy to read. I agree that if you learn to read it, there are good books that are now out of print which will be still written in descriptive. The best thing is that these are normally the cheapest books in second hand book shops.
The other way an ambiguous move is clarified is, using the above example, is N(B3) - K4 or N(B5) - K4 which means Knight on Bishop 3 to King 4 or Knight on Bishop 5 to King 4 if it is late in the game and it could be confusing whether it is a queen or kings Knight.