Descriptive notation + local rules

[Alex Holowczak]

Descriptive German

Does such a thing actually exist??

No idea, I just added it for completeness!

The penalty for not using algebraic is at the discretion of the arbiter and no arbiters that I know of apply a penalty.

That's fine, so long as arbiters also apply the mandatory rules relating to failure to use algebraic notation, which means a player using descriptive notation cannot use his scoresheet as evidence in a claim. The player cannot, for example, claim a draw by threefold repetition or under the 50 move rule.

Does this work the other way, if the algebraic scoresheet claims a three-fold repetition or the fifty-move rule even though it wasn't, because the arbiter can't use the descriptive one as evidence to the contrary?

[Ian Thompson]

The rules don't cover that situation, since they require that algebraic be used, so that, too, would be at the discretion of the arbiter.

The first paragraph of Appendix C of the rules covers this.

[Ian Thompson]

Does this work the other way, if the algebraic scoresheet claims a three-fold repetition or the fifty-move rule even though it wasn't, because the arbiter can't use the descriptive one as evidence to the contrary?

I would think that if one player has an up-to-date scoresheet which he claims is accurate and the other player does not, then you assume that the accuracy claim is correct unless there is other evidence that it is not. This situation can legitimately arise if one player has stopped scoring the game due to being short of time and the other has not. You would assume that the player still keeping score has done it correctly.

[Ola Winfridsson]

Descriptive German

Does such a thing actually exist??

Probably not a German system, but in some Spanish speaking countries they used a descriptive system at least up to the late 1950s, maybe even longer than that. However, if I remember correctly the put the rank number before the file name. So for example N-KB3 was written C3AR.

[Anthony Taglione]

The rules don't cover that situation, since they require that algebraic be used, so that, too, would be at the discretion of the arbiter.

The first paragraph of Appendix C of the rules covers this.

I stand corrected.

That paragraph, however, would suggest that another system of notation is acceptable by way of keeping score, though. It looks like a part of the rules in need of a clean-up, since section 8 clearly mandates that algebraic must be used.

[Paul McKeown]

I am always amused when this rule comes up for discussion. If chess players can master the intricacies of the Najdorf variation, I can't understand why they should get in such a tangle about algebraic vs. descriptive notation.

I think I related before the story of a friend of mine, Jonny Kay, playing for the first time overseas (in Germany), who was really worried about this (a few mates and I had wound Jonny up on the way over) and he asked the arbiters whether he could record in descriptive. The arbiters laughed their heads off, said they could care less, and had a titter about English eccentricities. I remember my opponent in one game attempting to record the game in English descriptive notation, saying he was trying to welcome his "English" guest. I refrained from pointing out that I wasn't "English", for fear of being asked what the names of the pieces were in Irish... The bulletin must have mystified many after one round, when the organisers produced it in Descriptive! This was a serious tournament, btw, with 100+ titled players taking part...

Incidentally, you can go back to the most ancient recorded roots of chess and you will find that the Arabs used both forms of notation. Another thread in the history section (annoyingly to my tastes, as it simply bar talk rather than history, but hey, each to their own) deals with the strongest player of all time. I would argue that this was Philidor (the first real genius of the game); he published his best selling books in French Descriptive notation, this after having comprehensively defeated his rival, Philip Stamma, who published in algebraic.

Everyone here can read descriptive, so what's up? If people start making an unnecessary fuss about this, then I might start following the great Philidor's example, just to make a point.

Regards,
Paul McKeown

[Alex Holowczak]

Everyone here can read descriptive

Can they?

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

Everyone here can read descriptive

Can they?

I've put many a recommended book back on the shop bookshelf after realising it's in descriptive. The time it would take me to fathom where to place each piece is simply not worth it, no matter how insightful a read it may be.