Descriptive notation

[Roger de Coverly]

English descriptive notation 1845 style.

I do like the expressions K. Kt. P. two. and K. Kt . P. one. as a means of describing pawn moves.

If this had ever been carried over into algebraic, I suppose the Saragossa would have been 1 c+ and the English 1 c++ (for all the programmers out there)

[E Michael White]

Yes - blacks 4th amuses me 4. ..... K.Kt.P.one. and is actually g4 or g5 to g4

Where the full stops are included as if in apology for brevity but also make it look like an encrypted IP address.

The history of the book, of which this is a part, is interesting. It was I believe written by Elijah Williams who was known as the slowest player of all time, sometimes spending hours over one move. It was he who necessitated the invention of chess clocks.

The book was written in 1845 so could relate to games years earlier if he wrote as slowly as he played. It was then presented in 1883 to the Astor public library, which I think was in Florida and then in 1888 to a New York public library where it was later digitised by a Google project.

[Nick Ivell]

I still miss descriptive. All my early study, for example 'The Games of Robert J Fischer', was from books in descriptive notation. I remember the trauma of switching to algebraic in 1976. I am still not sure I am over that trauma! Nowadays I compromise by using descriptive for captures - for some reason I find this easier.

Do young players learn descriptive for the purposes of studying old books which have not been reprinted in algebraic? I hope so.

[Alex Holowczak]

Do young players learn descriptive for the purposes of studying old books which have not been reprinted in algebraic? I hope so.

No, they don't. They will only learn algebraic, and will stick to books written in algebraic. By contrast, they'll learn a lot more from DVDs, videos and ChessBase than they would have done forty years ago.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Do young players learn descriptive for the purposes of studying old books which have not been reprinted in algebraic? I hope so.

No, they don't. They will only learn algebraic, and will stick to books written in algebraic. By contrast, they'll learn a lot more from DVDs, videos and ChessBase than they would have done forty years ago.

I think anyone seriously studying chess would be willing to learn descriptive in order to read older books. This raises the question of whether young players that can't be bothered to learn descriptive are seriously studying chess or not. On the other hand, you could also say that serious students of chess would learn Russian (and other) languages and notations to be able to read books published in Russian and so on. Some do, but I never bothered to do that, so I've shot down my own argument here...

[Nick Ivell]

I was just asking. Since I stopped coaching 10 years ago, I have lost touch with what young players are up to. Luckily, I think most of the descriptive classics have been updated. I would not like to think people are missing out because they have not learnt descriptive.

Which brings me on to a further point for discussion. Are there any 'must have' books which have NOT been printed in algebraic? If there are, it may be an argument for younger players becoming 'bilingual', as all older players are.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think anyone seriously studying chess would be willing to learn descriptive in order to read older books. This raises the question of whether young players that can't be bothered to learn descriptive are seriously studying chess or not. On the other hand, you could also say that serious students of chess would learn Russian (and other) languages and notations to be able to read books published in Russian and so on. Some do, but I never bothered to do that, so I've shot down my own argument here...

I don't think that young players study chess as actively as you might think. Generally, they're happy to just play for enjoyment, and most of their learning will be done via DVD, YouTube video or hiring a coach. Many young players won't sit down and learn chess from a book written in algebraic or descriptive.

If you can find a child of age 15-18 who has time to learn chess from books, you're finding an extremely rare person.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think anyone seriously studying chess would be willing to learn descriptive in order to read older books. This raises the question of whether young players that can't be bothered to learn descriptive are seriously studying chess or not. On the other hand, you could also say that serious students of chess would learn Russian (and other) languages and notations to be able to read books published in Russian and so on. Some do, but I never bothered to do that, so I've shot down my own argument here...

I don't think that young players study chess as actively as you might think. Generally, they're happy to just play for enjoyment, and most of their learning will be done via DVD, YouTube video or hiring a coach. Many young players won't sit down and learn chess from a book written in algebraic or descriptive.

If you can find a child of age 15-18 who has time to learn chess from books, you're finding an extremely rare person.

Hmm. Thinking back to when I was that age, you may be right. I feel old now.

[Nick Ivell]

I feel old too! I well remember battling through 'My System' aged 15, and much good did it do me. I don't think I was unusual; that kind of book learning was the norm, as I recall, despite the stodgy translations. I still think there is a place for what might be called 'general chess education'. Boris Gelfand waxes lyrical about Rubinstein in the last edition of Chess Magazine. Now, THAT I can relate to. But of course, Boris is almost geriatric now...

[Daniel Young]

Do young players learn descriptive for the purposes of studying old books which have not been reprinted in algebraic? I hope so.

No, they don't. They will only learn algebraic, and will stick to books written in algebraic.

I beg to differ! My school has many boxes of chess books donated by an ex-pupil, which almost no-one else takes any interest in largely because they are all in descriptive. With what amounts to a library of its own all to myself, it would be insultingly wasteful not to learn how to read them. I freely concede however that I am in the minority.

But of course you are quite correct that time is a rare commodity for people of my age, and so progress through books is slow. Learning in this way is certainly not the norm now; the best I can hope for in terms of persuading my team-mates to improve their play is to get them sign up to Chess.com (or similar), and even then they just play blitz games...

[Alex Holowczak]

I beg to differ! My school has many boxes of chess books donated by an ex-pupil, which almost no-one else takes any interest in largely because they are all in descriptive. With what amounts to a library of its own all to myself, it would be insultingly wasteful not to learn how to read them. I freely concede however that I am in the minority.

Actually, I think you're agreeing with me here. You have a library of chess books which don't get read. We had some at my school. I dipped into them occasionally, but apart from that, there was a 15 year old book that looked brand new.

But of course you are quite correct that time is a rare commodity for people of my age, and so progress through books is slow. Learning in this way is certainly not the norm now; the best I can hope for in terms of persuading my team-mates to improve their play is to get them sign up to Chess.com (or similar), and even then they just play blitz games...

Exactly. This shows that they're just playing for fun, with little interest in self-improvement at the game. Which in my opinion, is a far more healthy attitude to adopt.

[Nick Ivell]

A boxful of old chess books! Sounds like heaven to me.

Reading the old posts in this thread, I agree that descriptive is a problem in the endgame. I remember struggling to play through Fischer's 'proof' that he still had a win against Botvinnik. It was hard work.

Also, the conundrum as to how to avoid ambiguity. I remember the old pocket sets which distinguished between one rook and another. Trouble is, the only meaningful distinction is between the bishops, forever condemned to control one square colour only.

[Rob Thompson]

I personally have no idea how to read descriptive, but no matter - if i want to look up an old master's games i have chessbase. There is no need for me to learn descriptive.

[Alex Holowczak]

There is no need for me to learn descriptive.

What if some awkward sod (say, me) decides that you'd be the perfect man to input the 4NCL game that's just been handed in, where the moves are written in descriptive notation?

[Nick Ivell]

I would still like to know which classic books have never been printed in algebraic. Then we will know how important descriptive is for a knowledge of the old chess culture.