59 ( +1 | -1 ) Algebraic v DescriptiveOK, is it just ancient guys like me who prefer the good old days of Descriptive game notation ? Everyone's into Algebraic these days, but I just can't see that it's an improvement. Please let me know what you think if you've been exposed to both. After all these years I still find I make silly mistakes in reading Algebraic (no, my IQ isn't 36 and I do hold two University degrees !). Incidentally, have a look at the latest edition of the classic Reuben Fine book: "Ideas behind the chess openings". They converted it to algebraic and I counted at least a dozen errors in translation...
27 ( +1 | -1 ) I preferdescriptive, but i only started playing in january of this year, so i learned by algebraic. I think its an advantage to have each square have a unique identifier, reguardless of your color. For example, Q7 for white and black are two different squares. It is easier for me to use algebraic for me.
48 ( +1 | -1 ) Difficulties...I guess one of the hardest things to get used to is to call my 7th rank "2" (as in e2) when playing black. Also I tend to think it's easier to quickly find the KN file than the "f" file. I know it's not exactly rocket science, but under stressful or tired conditions it's relatively easy to make silly errors. I just don't see what the big improvement is. Perhaps algebraic is a more compact notation. ...and you're right, I can see your point, it's easier to identify a certain square with algebraic.
13 ( +1 | -1 ) as far as im concerned,you could number them 0 to 63 (or if you dont like it that way, 1 to 64) and i would be fine. It is just easier for me to see it in my head with algebraic.
8 ( +1 | -1 ) TulkosSure they start on the g-file. (Haven't seen you at BrainKing recently(?))
3 ( +1 | -1 ) TulkosForget that, I see you're there now.
8 ( +1 | -1 ) I can't get on brainking sometimes,with one computer I use it just won't load the first page for some reason.
15 ( +1 | -1 ) TulkosWhen I use a Mac I can get some problems though it's been okay since I enabled automatic login, with the windows machine I've never had any problem.
17 ( +1 | -1 ) It's funny,It says 'done' at the bottom of the window, but brainking never shows up. I left it for a couple of hours once. I have never used Mac, most of our computers are Win2K Pro.
6 ( +1 | -1 ) Have you tried asking Fencer on one of the dedicated threads?
34 ( +1 | -1 ) I prefer AlgebraicAlgebraic notation takes out a lot of the possible ambiguities (N-B3; is that KB3 or QB3?). The only thing left to worry about is whether both of your knights or both of your rooks can move to the same square. At that point, you have to be more specific. Otherwise, just note the piece that's moving and where it's moving to.
33 ( +1 | -1 ) Thanx guys...Thanks... Looks like we prefer the algebraic. It's more compact and it's what everyone's used to. It's just the old guys like me who grew up with descriptive that get confused. Got to admit, though. Everyone knows exactly where the KN file is, whether it takes quite some practice to work out that its the G file.
16 ( +1 | -1 ) One square one nameThat is why I prefer Algebriac. For international play it works even better if you drop the piece designation and just use the square name. b8-c6 instead of Nc6 for example..
6 ( +1 | -1 ) I prefer just to memorise it, if it's good otherwise forget it.
26 ( +1 | -1 ) algebraic just betteractually i never really learn how to read in the old way(one time i tried to read a capablanca book that read in the old way by guessing) but algebraic is easier to get familiar with.plus people from all over the world can understand it regardless of the pieces'name.
18 ( +1 | -1 ) My choice of the matter...I prefer algebraic... Much easier (like short hand) while playing chess tournaments... I mean from move #1 it could be (1.e2-e4) or (1.e4)... Which one woulf you choose?...