English Chess Forum

I don't think that many British players use long algebraic, that's 1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. Ng1-f3 etc.

For those that do, there's a strange proposition doing the rounds in FIDE circles it would appear. This proposition being that it should be banned.

Here's the mention (it's the third page)
http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... nex_11.pdf

Whether this is because of FIDE's poor drafting or whether some senior arbiters have got a bee in their bonnets about it, remains to be seen.

Don't tell them that there are probably players in British events still using traditional descriptive. Really traditional descriptive would go 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 but do they use N instead?

There's quite a lot of older players in Spain who still use the old-style 1. P4R P4R 2. C3AR and so on.

I seem to recall Bill Hartston using long algebraic even when in serious time-trouble. Impeccable handwriting too.

Algebraic notation is described in Appendix C of the Laws of Chess.

As far as I can see no distinction is made between long form and short form although all the examples use short form.

Long form is complete and unambiguous. Short form may be ambiguous if two identical pieces may move to the same square and the originating square is not properly identified.

Why would anyone think it necessary to outlaw long form notation?

Rather doubt if anyone would choose to! Its the sort of thing that can happen by accident when drafting laws.

The letter about seems to be mostly asking for clarification, with seemingly some arbiters thinking it is OK under the current laws, some not.

It would help if those raising the question could identify which specific paragraph of the Laws is in question and whether there been any incidents where this has been a concern in a competition.

In fact, the use of long notation while scoring a game would greatly assist anyone after the game who might be tasked with entering the game on a computer.

I would suggest that a more important consideration is the legibility of a players score rather than the actual notation.

Shouldn't the test on the acceptability of a player's written score rest on whether the Arbiter can rely on it, without significant difficulty, to reproduce the moves of the game ?

There is a proposal to the Rules Commission in Abu Dhabi that the Laws be written specifically to include long form algebraic. Some people think the Appendix as worded currently excludes long form.
About 35 years ago I gave special dispensation to certain players in England to use descriptive notation. None of those players are now currently active.
An interesting recent conversation.
Player 'I've always used descriptive'.
'But descriptive has been banned for nearly 40 years.'
'But I haven't played for 40 years'.
The player is now getting used to algebraic.

I have never understood what business it is of FIDE to require a game to be scored in a particular way when, for that event, the scoresheets are not published in any way.

Stewart Reuben wrote:Some people think the Appendix as worded currently excludes long form.

Do they think it was deliberate, or just poor drafting?

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Stewart Reuben wrote:Some people think the Appendix as worded currently excludes long form.

Do they think it was deliberate, or just poor drafting?

I would say that it was deliberate to keep the explanation as short and as concise as possible.

When I first came across algebraic notation it was the long form that was described and it was noted that the moves could be abbreviated.

Some publications use figurine notation, which again is not covered by Appendix C.

Michael Flatt wrote: I would say that it was deliberate to keep the explanation as short and as concise as possible.

Deliberate in the sense that it was intended to prevent players or publications using it. If that was never the intent, it's poor drafting if nit-picking arbiters think it can be interpreted that way.

It's a storm in a tea cup.

The law about scoring a game is actually in section 8. The description about algebraic notation is relegated to an Appendix. I would suggest that it is intended as guidance rather than actual laws.

Seriously, has an Arbiter ever penalised a player for using long algebraic notation?

I controlled the Combined Services tournament for some years, which usually had players graded 200ish at the top but always has half a dozen people who have never played competitive chess and are unused to recording the game. However, being military, they understand charts (maps) and coordinates. So you get some score sheets reading 1.e2e4 e7e5, 2.g1f3 b8c6, 3.f1b5 etc., which is easy to decipher and is quite logical.

Stewart Reuben wrote:
I have never understood what business it is of FIDE to require a game to be scored in a particular way when, for that event, the scoresheets are not published in any way.

I assumed the primary purpose was to assist the arbiter in making a ruling during the game, for instance on a claim for three move repetition.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Stewart Reuben wrote:Some people think the Appendix as worded currently excludes long form.

Do they think it was deliberate, or just poor drafting?

Napolean wrote:Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

The appendices on notation are a confused pig's ear. If you are Greek it is perfectly legal for you to use the standard Greek alphabetic one-letter abbreviations for the pieces, which I suspect most non-Greek arbiters would not understand. However it is illegal to use the lower-case first eight letters of the Greek alphabet for the files!

Note that as a mathematician I am familiar with a fair amount of the Greek alphabet, both upper and lower case, so would not have too much difficulty with understanding lower case Greek letters for the files, but I don't know what the Greek words are for Bishop, Knight, Rook, King, Queen and so would struggle with the usage which is legal.

My instinct is to say that a player can keep score in any format he likes, but unless it is in a clearly specified one which the arbiter can understand he may be out of luck when making a claim.

This leaves the different issue of events, for instance at a high level or involving norms, where it is a requirement that the game scores be available for later examination.