Why algebraic notation?

All Things Chess
1

One of the things I’ve had trouble getting used to as I’ve returned to chess is algebraic notation. I learned the game about a year before Fischer vs Spassky, and all of the books I bought in the years immediately after that used descriptive notation. It’s a type of notation that I’ve very comfortable with.

But these days, every game I’ve seen published is in algebraic notation. To me, it’s not very intuitive at all, and I have trouble following games. I always find myself counting off a-b-c-d-e, rather than paying attention to the concepts underlying various moves.

When did everything change over to algebraic? Why? I’ve read that it is a more precise way to record moves, but to me it is merely “centric” to whichever person is playing white.

I suppose I will eventually get used to it, but for now it feels like something was fixed that was not broken.

2

If you count off a-b-c-d-e in a tournament, you will look extremely unprofessional.

Once you’ve recorded even one game in algebraic, you should lose the need to count off. One author, several decades ago, suggested the following mnemonics: Knights are b and g for bold and gallant. Bishops are c and f like those other religious figures, the cardinal and friar. Queen is d because the French word is Dame. King is e for King Edward. And if you can’t remember a and h, you shouldn’t be playing chess.

Bill Smythe

3

I would suggest taking the time to manually convert algebraic games from whatever source to descriptive notation using a pencil first. After doing so, enjoy them without any distracting notation. If you follow this procedure long enough I believe you will become more comfortable with algebraic notation.

Why algebraic notation? I would imagine that it is more universally language friendly. Imagine having to know a few languages to decipher scoresheets. Is S-KL3 a move in German descriptive? Nf3 is pretty unambiguous.

4

In German algebraic, wouldn’t it be Sf3?

5

It is in my German books.

Alex Relyea

6

Having been in the same position myself when I returned to chess, I can say with confidence it will take a lot more than one game.

I had seen some algebraic notation just before I left chess years ago (about the same time Antonin did), and at the time it looked a lot more confusing than the descriptive I first learned. But now that I’ve learned algebraic, I think it’s actually a lot easier.

The rule of thumb I read somewhere was it would take recording about 14 games, 7 as each color, to get over the hump with algebraic, and that seemed about right for me. I wouldn’t say I was terribly proficient with it at that point, but at least I wasn’t so distracted from my game with the “new-fangled” notation. I recorded casual games to speed the process up. (Now I need other excuses for the way I play :confused:.)

I think using boards with the printed file letters and rank numbers, while obviously helpful when first learning algebraic, actually prolong getting it down without having to think about it, as we get used to those guides as a crutch. Once you feel you’re getting the hang of it, try playing on a board with the guides backwards a few times as you notate (white on the 8th rank, black on the first), and you’ll quickly make the final transition.

7

I took about 8 years off from 1977 to 1985, and when I came back I decided to make the switch to algebraic notation. I think it took me 3-4 tournaments to feel comfortable in algebraic, but it was at least 2 years before I was really thinking in algebraic rather than thinking about the Queen’s Knight file, etc.

8

I was attempting to recreate what German descriptive notation would look like if it existed. Sf3 is algebraic notation which was a big hit in Europe long before we in America got the benefit of it.

9

Someone writing a letter to the editor of Chess Life in 1968 suggested emporer for e but either one works. Also, memorize the location of one of the k-side files and use that as a reference.

More info here.

10

If I remember correctly, the transition was a gradual process that took place mostly around the late 1970s. From my point of view, a turning point seemed to be when the algebraic 1982 book, Batsford Chess Openings, appeared. I think it was about that time that the descriptive notation book, Chess Openings: Theory And Practice, began to disappear from the book stores. Whatever the merits of the change, I think that there is zero chance that it will ever be reversed. There have now been decades of adjustment, including the rewriting of many old classics in algebraic notation.

As far as I know, that is one book that has not been modernized. If I remember correctly, most of the book was about openings. Perhaps one could get a modern form of approximately the same sort of opening information from Discovering Chess Openings or Winning Chess Openings.
uscfsales.com/chess-books/ch … -9901.html
uscfsales.com/chess-books/ch … 10121.html
If you are really determined to go for something in descriptive notation, you might want to look at How to Play the Chess Opening, How to Win at Chess, or Point Count Chess.
uscfsales.com/chess-books/ch … ening.html
uscfsales.com/chess-books/ch … ume-i.html
uscfsales.com/a-complete-che … me-ii.html
uscfsales.com/point-count-ch … chess.html

11

Exactly the time when chess began to fade from my life.

I played against relatives in the year or so before Fischer-Spassky, then played competitively in high school. Around 1975-76 I played a lot against an old friend, but he joined the army and I went to college, and I rarely played during my college years. My friend played a lot while stationed in Germany, and when he came home I was no match for him.

12

I found myself a bit bewildered, too, when I returned after a 30-year hiatus. Much has changed, and I do miss some things.

Algebraic, though, was an improvement for me. Visualization exercises were easier with a1-h8 instead of WQR-BKR diagonal, a-file instead of KR or QR file depending on what color I was playing.

<caution – somewhat off this topic, though related, so skip if you’re not interested>
Some things I miss, though. The old ticking clocks had a comforting sound. And I liked the depth of <40/60,20/30 --edited: actually 40/120,20/60 – they say the second thing to go at my age is the memory…> games with adjournments. Of course time scrambles are less of a problem with delay or increment, and tournament schedules are easier to keep. Many say the faster games (blitz, lightening) have made chess, if not more popular, at least kept it from being a lot less popular among those who don’t want to spend several hours on a game, and more interesting for spectators so I’m told. I can’t argue with that, but I still can’t help missing the old time controls and even the ceremony of the sealed move which has gone away (although it’s still in the rules) – I guess because I grew up with them.

I’ve updated my equipment. I have a nice folding board, as well as a nice tournament roll-up, good pieces, and a Chronos. I may even get a Monroi someday. There aren’t many tournaments or clubs in my area, but I will be attending what I can (maybe even try to start a club), as distant travel is still somewhat of a problem, what with my day job and other local responsibilities. I play online, which is new, and of course, correspondance hasn’t changed that much except for the use of email and the use of chess engines being allowed by some organizations (FICGS for one), and of course, chess databases for study are an immense improvement, but my trusty ECO’s (which didn’t exist when I started) are also well-thumbed, now (I like real books).

So, much has changed, some of which I miss, but the challenge and joy of learning are still there, and with online play now, the opportunities to play opponents all over the world are much greater, now. Change isn’t always bad.

13

How well I remember: “TICK TICK TICK TICK ticka ticka ticka ticka” as the clocks went in and out of phase.

14

Chessbase allows you to present the games in either, switching between Descriptive and Algebraic with a couple of mouse clicks.

15

Or even FAN, right?

Alex Relyea

16

You’re right. I hadn’t messed with those options until I read your post, but it even does a bizarre hybrid of FAN and Descriptive.

17

FDN?

Alex Relyea

18

Yeah, like [figurine pawn] - [figurine king] 4
:slight_smile:

19

I don’t think we used clocks when I last played competitively, in the mid-1970s. We might have, but I don’t remember them. I remember some of my games–what the weather was like, where I was sitting, etc–but not clocks.

My only equipment is a small board, one of those things that folds in half to hold the pieces, like a box. It’s made of wood, as are the pieces, and was made in Switzerland. I have had it for almost 40 years.

I also like real books, but almost all of mine are quite old, and they use descriptive notation. I still have “Fischer vs Spassky: The Chess Match of the Century,” annotated by Svetozar Gligoric.

I have a Palm Tungsten E2 that I was planning to use for practice, but recently discovered that Palm Tungstens won’t sync with Win 7, so now it’s just a piece of junk. I certainly cannot afford a $300 chess computer.

20

Universal notation (aka informant style), is interesting, but tends to feel sterile in my opinion. That is if your using universal notation, the entire game and all sub lines would be done the same way, without any additional text. One has to reason by the sublines what insight the author is inferring. Depending on a person’s skill level, it can come across as intelligent and well thought out, or a complete mystery… or something in between.

In any event, universal style would not be something you’d find anybody using to jot their moves down at a tournament.

Chess Informant is as was designed so that the periodical could be used with the greatest possible available audience without needing to translate the games into various languages.