GameKnot: Chess related, Descriptive notation

Chess related: Descriptive notation

From

Message

sunaru1
15-Nov-13, 05:02

Descriptive notation

Does anyone agree with me that the descriptive (i.e. P-K4 P-K4, Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 etc) is far easier and logical and should be brought back?

ketchuplover
16-Nov-13, 00:08

far easier?

please enlighten us. tyia

sunaru1
16-Nov-13, 05:22

With the letter-number system, 64 different combinations have to be memorised. With the descriptive notation, this is not necessary - P-K4 is the same for both black and white.

bigpeta
17-Nov-13, 07:00

absolutely not

having played since 1955 i have experience of both systems and i would not go back to descriptive for anything.
if you like it so much there are programmes that will auto convert from algebraic for you.

sirissac
17-Nov-13, 21:45

In short, NO.

The main problems arise from the ambiguity of square names during general discussion. Since a move might be 1....P-K4, but then one refers to it as the pawn on K5. I also had some book, I think Horowitz's Chess Openings, which referred to e5 as Black's K5 because it was in Black's territory, and later as Black's K4 because it was using his perspective. The list goes on and on....

These are generally author errors but easy to make and miss because of the ambiguity in the notation itself.

Besides, you don't really need to memorize the algebraic positions to use the notation well, you just practice the coordinates until you internalize them.

tactical_abyss
18-Nov-13, 04:26

As I mentioned in my club forum,i'm with you guys on the algebraic.It would be nice however,to have an "option" to be able to view your side of the game board moves in descriptive notation with a built in conversion program if one desires it.Online,i've seen a descriptive to alg converter(its in my club forum),but I have yet to see an Alg to descriptive conversion program,at least online.I suppose just from a learning experience,it would be nice to have this option,or use it as a copy/paste self help converter for old books.

Most players now days have no issues with Algebraic,but I can remember the days when they did,especially from the black side with e5 vs P-K4.Technically,even though there are "more"ambiguities with descriptive,ambiguities exist in all chess notations that still occur in Alg from time to time(but mainly in the postal form)with Rac1 or Rhc1 which players do forget to write sometimes and the card must be sent back.But of course,postal is not nearly as popular in most countries anymore,but it does exist.

sunaru1
18-Nov-13, 04:45

Once mastered, and that does not take long, descriptive is incredibly easy. Why not pick up a few old chess books with the descriptive method and play through the games? I bet that you'll soon realise that descriptive notation adds to the soul of Chess.

tactical_abyss
18-Nov-13, 05:02

I agree with you 100% sunaru1.To me,descriptive does indeed(as I mentioned many times before) represent the pure soul and real language form of chess.But today,with the modern age and the FIDE rules stating that moves MUST be recorded in Alg,well,there you have it.

Again,a built in converter for your GK games would be nice,but due to the unpopularity of descriptive nowdays,I doubt that it will ever be considered a serious option on GK.I'd still like to see it,however!Someone once told me that some chess programs have the descriptive converter,that may be,but I have not personally seen that in anything I own.

If anyone see's a free alg to descriptive converter online somewhere,post the link here!I'm waiting!

I already have a descriptive to alg converter,but it does not do it in reverse,unfortunately.

sirissac
18-Nov-13, 08:00

The only facet of descriptive notation I consider superior is the captures. It does feel more appropriate to record what one is taking. Outside or that, I don't feel either does better or worse with the soul of chess.

Of course this is yet another place where descriptive notation is more ambiguous than algebraic. Both could have ambiguity in where a piece is moved from; Only descriptive has ambiguity in where a piece is moved to. But there are ways to clarify these things as tactical_abyss pointed out.

tactical_abyss
18-Nov-13, 08:15

I'll take a descriptive notation "optional choice" any day over a wobbling/shaking King!Ha ha!
Which is more truly educational for any of those who simply want to learn a different language?
A shaking King,a buzzer,a tiny green light or the Descriptive notation as an option?Bells and whistles come and go,but most languages never truly die off.Even Latin(a dead language)has usage today.Just take a look at your paper prescription before it is filled.

sunaru1
18-Nov-13, 18:14

ambiguous?

sirissac, there is no ambiguity in descriptive notation. If, for example, two knights can take a piece, the one taking the piece is defined e.g. Kt(KKt3) x B - that is, the kt on king's knight 3 takes the bishop.

Consider The Prisoner episode 'Checkmate'. The game starts with the white saying in his megaphone 'Pawn to King 4'. In algebraic that would be 'e4' - sterile, not poetry. A bit like Newspeak in 1984.

Algebraic is like a Shakespeare play in modern English - ugh!!!

sirissac
18-Nov-13, 22:03

You're miss reading my post. I said the ambiguity exist, " ... but there are ways to clarify these things as tactical_abyss pointed out."

I was referring of course to changes like adding the file in "Rac1 or Rhc1" for algebraic, or adding coordinates in descriptive like "Kt(KKt3)xB" (or as I would write N/KN3xB, or simply N/N3xB if unambiguous).

Anyway, the added this information is to clarify ambiguities (i.e. for 'disambiguation') and that is the since in which I used the word. So I did not mean descriptive notation is ambiguous itself or in general, but that it has more ambiguities to clarify and thus even more opportunity for error.

I really hope that clarifies things.

Oh, and the newspeak reference was humorous but calling 'King's 4' poetic and 'e4' sterile is something I don't agree with. Your permitted your opinion of course, and I mine. And I think if anything, what you call the files is the most inconsequential part of the notation since KN is always g, and vice versa, regardless of which side your playing (and so on for all the other files as well). What is more significant for me are the 'grammatical' differences in these 'languages', the reversal of coordinates for black being the main fault of descriptive notation in my opinion.

On a side note, if you want to call International(ICCF Numeric) or Coordinate notations sterile and newspeak-esque, go right ahead. I would agree with that fully.

baddeeds
19-Nov-13, 21:42

Deleted by baddeeds on 20-Nov-13, 16:03.

baddeeds
19-Nov-13, 21:44

Deleted by baddeeds on 20-Nov-13, 16:03.

sirissac
20-Nov-13, 13:44

Well, FEN is a different class of notation. It records positions not moves. Descriptive notation records moves (and its coordinate system denotes squares for general discussion); as does Algebraic. It would be very hard to converse in FEN for these things.

Anyway; we seem to have left the initial topic a bit and I wanted to ask what you guys find most logical about Descriptive. Is it the file names, the reversing ranks for Black, the noting of captured pieces, etc?

baddeeds
20-Nov-13, 14:12

@sirissac:

I absolutely apologize. I thought we were talking about positions because the word descriptive rings a bell, believe it or not. When I hear that, I also think ok, there is a lot to describe about the position. Because the thing is that I often get confused. So, when talking about the moves, I thought that the positions were just implied, and not as to completely different things. That's because a move always affects a position. So, my question then is how does a descriptive notation work? Instead of FEN, does it involve PGN? If not, how can one obtain the descriptive notation on GK?

sunaru1
20-Nov-13, 16:52

jkarp

That is the problem - no one learns descriptive anymore and so a new Chess player cannot compare the two systems. My son figured out the descriptive notation himself (he had to - I gave him my old Chess books) and he definitely prefers it to the algebraic. The descriptive notation defines the pieces and the squares from the player's (white or black) perspective - for example, algebraic needs two identifiers for K4 (e4 for white, e5 for black) but K4 in descriptive is the same for both white and black (the P is four places in front of the K1 square)

baddeeds
20-Nov-13, 17:09

I think

That only way, and this is very brutal and would not show up on computer is to physically write down and record the positions. I did this for a couple of coaching games with my friend Jack Stockel, my all time favorite coach. The only reason I stopped doing is that the coach actually recommended that I do so because the other problem is that then you're so busy recording that there's never enough time to study the positions. And, what actually happens in a game is more important then anything else.

baddeeds
20-Nov-13, 17:12

One example of what I'm alluding, but was the problem with this thing one of the lasts descriptive notations for me, unfortunately. That notation, and the reason for it being my last one is shown in the annotation below. gameknot.com

sirissac
20-Nov-13, 19:17

Well jkarp, you can check en.wikipedia.org for more links and details, but essentially the moves in PGN are given in Algebraic notation. A sample being:
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Ke2 Qe4#
Which is read:
"pawn to e4, pawn to d5, e-pawn takes d5, queen take d5, king to e2, queen to e4 checkmate!"

Descriptive notation is an older way of listing moves and squares in particular; files are given by starting peice and ranks flip to accommodate each player (plus a few other differences). The same moves would be written:
1. P-K4 P-Q4 2. PxP QxP 3. K-K2 Q-K5mate
Which is read:
"pawn to king's 4th, pawn to queen's 4th, pawn take pawn, queen takes pawn, king to king's 2nd, queen to king's 5th and mate!"

FEN can give the position at any point in the sequence, the final position being:
rnb1kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/8/4q3/8/PPPPKPPP/RNBQ1BNR w kq -
which displays nicely on GameKnot as

baddeeds
22-Nov-13, 10:27

That makes sense. And, btw, I started a new thread about the FEN notation. It's interesting to note that chess can have multiple notations.

buddie
22-Nov-13, 15:55

I think the only place where descriptive notation scores over algebraic is in endgame textbooks.
This is because it allows for reversal and reflection of the position without having to describe it 4 different ways.
For example, "P-B6" covers c5-c6 and f5-f6 for White and c4-c3 and f4-f3 for Black.

archduke_piccolo
14-Dec-13, 18:07

I've always preferred the Descriptive...

... for recording my own games. My old chess game-score books are nearly all in Descriptive.
But I have become so used to Gameknot's Algebraic that I've recorded most of my games that way. However, I'm equally comfortable with either. I find it a bit easier to follow a game 'sans board' with descriptive, though. I also find that I do make to occasional 'clerical' error, writing Nc3 when I mean Nc6 (and vice versa) for example.

The main virtues of Algebraic is that it is unambiguous and easy to follow on a board. The virtues of Descriptive are more subtle. It is better for describing the situation from either player's point of view - the subjective view. Suppose I want to talk about establishing a 'rook on the 7th rank'. If using Descriptive, context will tell you whose 7th rank we are talking about. If we are speaking from Black's point of view, than his 7th Rank is White's 2nd rank.

If we are annotating a game in Algebraic, and Black wants to establish a rook on the Number 2 rank - or White's second rank - it is hard sensibly to speak of the 7th rank from Black's point of view. You might make yourself understood, but readers' confusion is just as likely.

You could simply, of course, speak White establishing a rook on the 7th rank, and Black establishing one on (White's) 2nd rank, but it seems to me we now have two expressions meaning the same thing, the difference being only the point of view.

This might seem trivial, but as one who has annotated a few games and commented on others, I have not yet found a way around this problem that I consider satisfactory. I do like to be well understood.

pop_queen_legend
15-Jan-25, 11:27

Deleted by pop_queen_legend on 15-Jan-25, 11:53.

pop_queen_legend
15-Jan-25, 11:53

I love these old posts where I also contributed.Brings back memories.

The bottom line is that while Alg is by far the accepted norm for today,descriptive has many hidden values that even the newbies to chess might find a big learning lesson.Out of many lessons would be old books that were only written in Descrip and could be explored and cherished for their value and analysis.About half of my library of 2000 chess books has books and reports dating back to 1892 with descrip notation.The days before online chess,before home computers and much more OTB chess,led way to the descrip standard notation of the day.

To many,descript still gives an aura of depth and a 3d effect psychologically on the mind.
Its good to learn both Alg and descrpt.Take this old LOST Bobby Fischer game in this link.
It was found,if I remember correctly,in a trunk somewhere and related to a game when Bobby was very young and before his world championship in 1972.You will have to scroll way down on the link to find it.Its in 1957 against Max Euwe.In 1957,Fischer was only 14 years old! So,gems like this need to be looked at,but then,you must understand descriptive.
That is easy for some and difficult for others:

www.uschess.org

So,there is a psychology as well as a richness in exploring older books,old reports like above with Bobby and simply rounding yourself out with both chess languages.So many things in life,especially in High School seemed unnecessary to learn.For example,I hated to learn any foreign language in H.S.but had to take it up in a college prep,rather than general H.S. level.
I decided on German,even though many recommended Spanish,for there were far more Spanish speaking people in my area than German speaking.One day,I decided to move to Germany for business reasons and ended up staying in Germany for almost 3 years.Well,you can well imagine the advantage I had in understanding the language and then polishing it up after 3 years of living in Germany.So,whether it be alg notation,descrip notation or learning a foreign language...many times,the true value comes out years later.

TA

pop_queen_legend
15-Jan-25, 12:30

Now,above that Fischer descrip. game was transposed to Alg.for other readers in that link.
But the point is,this will not always be the case.Once in a while for example,
I grab MCO-12 and that was written in Descriptive,not Alg.Only later versions
of MCO came out in Alg.and not all MCO's are equal in games and subvariations.
I have actually won many games over the years by exploring footnote variations
of many obscure games,that you will not simply find on a database somewhere.
Some of those games may have been played in Cuba for example with opponents
you never heard of before.So,there is a richness of exploration and more with
the old Descript that you cannot always envision with Alg.

Pass' auf dich auf,
TA

markb56
15-Jan-25, 18:07

TA, thanks for the link to Brady's "Endgame" book review. I look forward to getting a copy. Seeing the score sheet from the Fischer/Euwe match was a treat. In OTB play I sometimes switch between algebraic and descriptive, and I'm happy if my opponent notices (I assume doing this is legal in USCF play?). For me it's easier to play moves in my head and talk about openings using descriptive. If one says I opened with P-K4, P-Q4, or P-KB4 it sounds more like a human talking and less like a computer.

pop_queen_legend
16-Jan-25, 00:41

Yes.That was a lost game of Fischers according to some of my info,so its a rare one.
And yes,it is legal to switch in OTB play from either alg or descript.,as long as you are writing it correctly.If there is any ambiguity,the TD will intervene.However it depends on the TD!One or two I had in the past wanted only one language.

As to preferences with either system...
It all depends many times if a player is old school like me and perhaps you.
I wish GK had an option to send and receive moves by means of descriptive,maybe even just to receive and send by Alg to the opponent.My old posts were never taken seriously by GK,but here is one of the old links:

gameknot.com

Also,this may come as an interest to those who want to input Descrip to Alg.Maybe an old book read,then a conversion to Alg:

www.abdelnauer.de

These,and many other things can be found in my old(now closed club) when you explore:
gameknot.com

You know,when I look at Fischers score card,take note to..."The Manhattan Chess Club".
That club is long since closed,but in the late 1960's I met Robert Fischer at that
Manhattan Chess Club.I was however,only 12 years old and was just learning to play.
He was playing unofficially with several players at one time.It was not a tourney.
Yes,I shook the hand of Bobby.He said...."get the kid a soda!".

TA

pop_queen_legend
16-Jan-25, 00:51

Above,I am not sure if that converter works anymore,but I am sure there are others.I just now read something about out of date java.Try it and see.I am too tired right now to try it!

« Back to forum