Descriptive notation

[JustinHorton]

A couple of questions regarding descriptive notation.

a) when did it definitively die out in chess publishing in the UK? Can anybody identify the last book or magazine to use it?

b) when did it definitively take on the style older players (like myself) will be familar with? I mean writing, say the move 1. e4 as 1. P-K4?

I ask this because older players where I am, writing their moves in Spanish, use a different form: they write 1. P4R (i.e. peón 4 rey). Clearly there are two significant differences, one being the absence of dashes, the other being that the number comes before the file. The latter may be due to linguistic differences ("king's fourth" but "cuarto del rey") but I can't see any reason why the dash should be. Did English-language literature ever use the style 1. PK4?

[Ian Kingston]

The last example that I can find in the BCM is the April 1978 issue. Although almost all of the magazine had switched to algebraic by then, D. J. Morgan's 'Quotes and Queries' column remained stubbornly old-fashioned. Even the 'Hundred Years Ago' column was in algebraic by then. Morgan died in April 1978 (there's an obituary in the July issue), so (in the BCM at least) English descriptive notation literally died with the last columnist to use it.

[Mike Gunn]

I remember this move being led (at least in part) by Ray Keene. In one book (which I don't seem to be able to find) I remember he gives an example of the same game in descriptive and algebraic and says algebraic is clearly better because you can fit in more game scores per page. But "Becoming a Grandmaster" (1977) is in descriptive and his book on Kasparov- Korchnoi (1983) is in algebraic. Obviously the switch was gradual, e.g. Korchoi's "My Life" book (1976) is algebraic but I have several later ones (in the 70s) in descriptive.

[Andy Burnett]

CHESS magazine was still using descriptive notation well into 1987 (I know this because they misprinted a move which inadvertently led to me winning a critical final round game at Dundee a few months later!)

It was definitely using algebraic when it moved to the larger format magazine under Robert Maxwell's parentage (early in in 1988 - April issue I believe but would have to check?!)

[Ian Kingston]

I recall FIDE removing the option to use descriptive notation from the rules at some point during the 1970s. Perhaps Stewart Reuben can provide chapter and verse.

[Roger de Coverly]

CHESS magazine was still using descriptive notation well into 1987

Actually I think they were publishing parallel editions. Earlier they had tried putting both notations in the same game

It was definitely using algebraic when it moved to the larger format magazine under Robert Maxwell's parentage (early in in 1988 - April issue I believe but would have to check?!)

My recollection is that they scrapped the parallel editions when the large format was introduced.

Any sightings for the first algebraic book? Ray Keene's Flank Openings would be one of the first although I recall a series of opening theory books by the Soviets (Boleslavsky, Keres etc.) which had been translated to German and published in East Berlin. These were quite popular amongst the elite and may have promoted the general cause of algebraic. By 1970 there were enough algebraic users amongst the higher rated that a petition was sent by the 30 or so top players in a tournament to CHESS urging BH Wood to adopt it. 1n 1972 RJF was still using descriptive.

[Michele Clack]

I first joined a chess club in the early 80's and was taught the descriptive notation. There were a few books already available in algebraic in those days but most were descriptive. I changed to the algebraic notation a few years ago when it was put into the FIDE rules.

I wish I had started out with algebraic. I found it very easy to learn and use. As each square of the board has its own name,I find it much easier to visualise games now and find it possible to read a lot of chess books without a board until you get into deep analysis. Has anyone else noticed this affect?

[Andy Burnett]

Actually I think they were publishing parallel editions. Earlier they had tried putting both notations in the same game

I remember an algebraic issue of CHESS (early '80s?!) which reported on a trip to China by a UK select team (Bellin/Pritchett/Keene/Speelman?), but certainly when I started to 'borrow' issues of it from my school chess club in 1984 (I still have them, to my shame, but I was the only boy interested in them by way of defence) they were all in descriptive notation, as they were when I subscribed from 1985-87. I never saw any copies using both notations at once though (what a waste of time, effort and ink!)

Checking my nearest bookshelf, I have 1st edition Batsford books 'Becoming a Grandmaster' (Keene) from 1977 in Descriptive, and 'Korchnoi's 400 Best Games' (Korchnoi, Wade and Blackstock) from 1978 in algebraic. Along with the magazines mentioned, that's at least a decade with both formats being used with seemingly little rhyme or reason?! (Sorry, just noticed Mike Gunn's post on the Keene books)

[Roger de Coverly]

CHESS January 1979

Our algebraic edition has already over 700 readers but producing parallel editions has raised unexpected problems. We try this month the experiment of giving every move in both notations...

This is what it looked like:-

1 PK4 (e4) PQ3 (d6) 2 PQ4 (d4) .. etc. Figurines instead of KQRBN were used for pieces which looks most odd when combined with KB3. Dashes were left out.

[Mike Gunn]

The book in which a game is scored at the start in descriptive and algebraic is the match book for Karpov-Korchnoi (1974) by Hartston/Keene. The book then goes on to use long algebraic (1, e2-e4 e7-e5 etc) as do some other books I bought arond that time includung Chess for Tigers by Webb.

[Paul McKeown]

Justin,
After some digging:

12. In the course of play each player is required to record the game (his own moves and those of his opponent) move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible in the algebraic Notation, on the scoresheets prescribed for the competition. It is irrelevant whether the player first makes his move and then writes down the move on his scoresheet or vice-versa.

This was the result of law changes from the FIDE Congress in Greece and were to take effect on the 1st of January 1985 -to some controversy.

However this did not apply to BCF only competitions:

4. The use of the Algebraic System is to be encouraged but players should not be penalised for using the Descriptive System of notation in purely internal events.

Other significant rule changes were (paraphrasing due to zeitnot):
a) castling required the king to be touched before the rook
b) playing a pawn to the 8th and starting the opponents clock without exchanging the pawn for another piece to be punished with a warning or disciplinary penalty such as advancing the clock
c) incorrect starting position or reversed colours discovered during the game to require the game annulled and replayed
d) game drawn on KvK, KvKB, KvKN, KBvK=B
e) 100 move draw for KRBvKR
f) draw offer during opponents move to result in arbiter's warning; draw offer during own move stands after the move is actually played, if the move is sealed the draw offer remains after envelope opened and move played on board; draw offer cannot be withdrawn before opponent's reply
g) claim of 3rd repetition by move to be played required not only arbiter to be informed, but the move to be written on the scoresheet
h) can claim a draw in time-trouble if opponent has only a king left (details please! - what is this about exactly?)
i) claim of draw by repetition or 50 move rule cannot be withdrawn
j) game lost if an hour late from start of game or resumption, based on advertised start of session; does not apply to adjourned game if sealed move is checkmate, stalemate or opponent has already exceeded the time limit (what?)
k) sealed move whose meaning cannot be established or illegal forfeits game
l) if less than 5 minutes on clock, no longer necessary to record; must complete scoresheet on flag fall
m) arbiter should record game score if neither player is doing so due to having less than 5 minutes; arbiter should not indicate number of moves made; SR notes that repeating move must be recorded by claiming play irrespective
n) if impossible to reconstruct then play continues regardless, with the next move played treated as the first of the new session
o) in the absence of an arbiter then flag fall is considered to have occured only when claimed

Some other rule changes as well.

Has anyone ever written a history of the laws of chess?

[Tim Spanton]

I was flicking through Peter Griffiths' Better Chess For Club Players the other day when I realised it was in descriptive notation. The book was publshed in 1982 (30 Sep according to an Amazon entry).

[John Saunders]

In the June 2007 issue of BCM, I published a game in descriptive notation "just for old time's sake". It was a short offhand game between Guardian journalist Stephen Moss and 100-year-old Alec Holden (who had just made the news by winning a £25,000 bet from William Hill with a £100 stake place when he was 90 that he would make it to 100).

I recall wrestling with Spanish descriptive notation in the 1970s when I lived in Barcelona and bought Spanish chess magazines. Although I am totally 'bilingual' in English descriptive and algebraic (and am not immediately aware which I am reading), I did find the Spanish version quite a trial, particularly as it seemed to me that there were more ambiguous moves than I was accustomed to seeing in British mags (e.g. T1D when it could be either TD1D or TR1D). I am thinking more of 'Jaque', published and edited then by Jose Maria Gonzalez. A brand-new Catalan magazine started to be published while I was living there - Butlleti D'Escacs - and that was a complete mixture of Spanish descriptive and algebraic (I'd guess the ratio was about 30:70) with the text all in Catalan.

[Greg Breed]

I learnt from Algebraic and therefore have mastered this particular type of notation in reading and writing (in English) however I do enjoy reading older books that are obviously in Descriptive. I am currently reading Chess Secrets by Edward Lasker which is notated in Descriptive and is a riveting read - one of the most enjoyable chess books I have ever read! It takes a while to get the hang of it, but it soon sinks in. I still prefer Algebraic as it feels more accurate. I tend to get confused when Knights (for example) swap sides of the board and the notation then say e.g. QN-Q4 when there is a choice of two. It's not evidently clear to me which Knight should move there. Is it the one currently occupying the Queenside or the one that started out there? What if you have a Knight on b6 and another on b4 and either can go to d5. How does Descriptive distinguish?

[James Coleman]

If it were from White's point of view I believe it would simply be either N4-Q5 or N6-Q5