Descriptive notation

[Richard Bates]

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.

I have my Chessbase set up with descriptive notation

[Nick Ivell]

Well, I am pleased to have got this thread moving again. Descriptive notation is close to my heart, and I am annoyed I felt compelled to move away from it in the 1970s. If it was good enough for Bobby Fischer, I felt, it was good enough for me!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

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.

I have my Chessbase set up with descriptive notation

I thought you were joking, then I saw this:

http://www.chessbase.com/workshop2.asp?id=1198

Is it really possible to programme descriptive notation? Must be.

EDIT: Searching for older topics is sometimes useful as well:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1514

[Alex Holowczak]

Well, I am pleased to have got this thread moving again. Descriptive notation is close to my heart, and I am annoyed I felt compelled to move away from it in the 1970s. If it was good enough for Bobby Fischer, I felt, it was good enough for me!

The slave trade was good enough for Prime Ministers of this country for hundreds of years...

[Mike Truran]

Gosh Alex! It's a bit early for Godwin's Law to hit this thread. Then again, we haven't had a good teleological fallacy on ecforum for a while.

[Rob Thompson]

Technically, that was a) not a godwin and b) a valid point.

[Alex Holowczak]

Gosh Alex! It's a bit early for Godwin's Law to hit this thread. Then again, we haven't had a good teleological fallacy on ecforum for a while.

All attempts to sing the praises of descriptive notation must be crushed.

[Mike Truran]

I feel a Dawkins moment coming on.

[IM Jack Rudd]

You may refuse to learn descriptive notation if you wish. And I will get all the scoresheets written by Michael Franklin, Paul Brackner, and various other people who write perfect descriptive with lovely handwriting. I am happy with this arrangement.

[Alex Holowczak]

You may refuse to learn descriptive notation if you wish. And I will get all the scoresheets written by Michael Franklin, Paul Brackner, and various other people who write perfect descriptive with lovely handwriting. I am happy with this arrangement.

Fine by me! You can have the less well-written descriptive notation scoresheets from the 4NCL if you like. David Pardoe and Rod Langham (I think it is, from Oxford 3?) spring to mind.

[Phil Neatherway]

Rod Langham does indeed play for Oxford 3. I hadn't noticed what notation he uses, though I must have sat next to him several times during 4NCL matches.

I changed to algebraic in about 1973. At the time, I felt it was a bit like going decimal.

[Alex Holowczak]

Rod Langham does indeed play for Oxford 3. I hadn't noticed what notation he uses, though I must have sat next to him several times during 4NCL matches.

Well, I think it's him. It's definitely someone in the Oxford 3 team. It took me 15 minutes of complaining about him writing the wrong move in descriptive, his opponent writing illegibly in algebraic, and then it suddenly dawned on me that it was actually an illegal move...

I changed to algebraic in about 1973. At the time, I felt it was a bit like going decimal.

Ah, I think we should have retained imperial units, especially with money!

[Paolo Casaschi]

I changed to algebraic in about 1973. At the time, I felt it was a bit like going decimal.

Ah, I think we should have retained imperial units, especially with money!

Why stopping there? I'd suggest we bring back Roman numerals as well.

What about chess descriptive notation with Roman numerals?

1. PKIV PKIV 2. NKBIII NQBIII 3. BNV PQRIII

[Matt Mackenzie]

I bet there is somebody, somewhere who actually uses that

I speak as somebody who switched to algebraic in the mid 80s, but remains fully "bilingual" - and I say this to the young 'uns here:

LEARNING DESCRIPTIVE ISN'T ACTUALLY *THAT* HARD!

To hear the way some have gone on, you would think it was comparable to mastering obscure Caucasian languages or something

It might take you a day or two - but is well worth it, in particular, for anybody with the remotest interest in chess history. While most of the "classics" might have been "algebraicised" now, there is still a wealth of material out there which will probably never be. In particular, chess magazines and periodicals.......

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Why stopping there? I'd suggest we bring back Roman numerals as well.

What about chess descriptive notation with Roman numerals?

1. PKIV PKIV 2. NKBIII NQBIII 3. BNV PQRIII"

And why stop there?

Surely, I.PRxIV PRxIV, II. MRxEIII MRaEIII, III. EMV PRaCIII

where King = rex (Rx), Queen = Regina (Ra), Rook = Castrum (C), Bishop = Episcopus (E), Knight = Miles (M) and Pawn = Pedis (P)

I would prefer pontifex for bishop, but that's another one beginning with P... and that would just be silly.

I have a horrible feeling that there will now be 27 pages of debate about the correct Latin.

You can start here http://latindiscussion.com/forum/viewto ... 36&start=0