credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (11/14/85)
>> >> 1. P-K4 P-QB4 22.R-R3 B-N2 >> 2. N-KB3 P-Q3 23.B-K3 R-K2 > >This "other" notation is called "inferior." Inferior, all right. All it does is tell you what piece moved to what square, so you can follow the game in your head. Wouldn't want that kind of pandering to human beings now, would we? Might interfere with machine-readability. :-) , I think. Maybe :-( instead. Come on, guys: a lot of people LIKE traditional notation. Me, for one.
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (11/14/85)
> > > > > > 1. P-K4 P-QB4 22.R-R3 B-N2 > > > 2. N-KB3 P-Q3 23.B-K3 R-K2 > >This "other" notation is called "inferior." > Come on, guys: a lot of people LIKE traditional notation. > Me, for one. Heavens, yes. I'll grant you that algebraic notation is probably more precise, especially since it's not uncommon for a person to record a game with ambiguous moves in descriptive notation (e.g., which Pawn did you mean in PxN? The one on K4 or KN4?). Nonetheless, I see no reason why I, as a human, should be forced to limit my available move-recording mechanisms to those most suited to the bloody machine. In a chess program I once wrote, it accepted both forms of input from the user, and was smart enough to demand additional information to disambiguate a move. This certainly seemed like a better idea than just throwing out descriptive notation entirely. -- Karl Kleinpaste
ashby@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/15/85)
When I called descriptive notation inferior, I didn't mean to touch off another descriptive vs algebraic debate. I was simply trying to be humorous; I guess I should have used a :-) somewhere. Oh, well.
tim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/16/85)
Algebraic notation has been around a lot longer than computer chess ( unless Babbage had a chess program for his machines... ) Tim Smith ihnp4!cithep!tim ima!ism780!tim
chris@leadsv.UUCP (Chris Salander) (11/20/85)
> > > > > > > > 1. P-K4 P-QB4 22.R-R3 B-N2 > > > > 2. N-KB3 P-Q3 23.B-K3 R-K2 > > >This "other" notation is called "inferior." > > Come on, guys: a lot of people LIKE traditional notation. > > Me, for one. > Heavens, yes. I vote strongly for the old notation. I think the new notation STINKS! You cannot tell if captures have been made and you have to memorize the new grid to have a mental picture of what is going on. The old notation contained (oops! NOT past tense!) - CONTAINS more information. P.S. - did anyone try the medieval chess rules I posted? - Chris Salander
ashby@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/24/85)
chris@leadsv.UUCP writes: > I vote strongly for the old notation. I think the new > notation STINKS! You cannot tell if captures have been made and > you have to memorize the new grid to have a mental picture of > what is going on. The old notation contained (oops! NOT past > tense!) - CONTAINS more information. As I said before, I didn't mean to start the algebraic versus descriptive debate again, but Chris's comments make no sense. First, you can indeed tell if a capture has been made - and without the ambiguity of the descriptive system. Second, he complains about having to memorize a new grid. Surely this cannot be that difficult. Moreover, as someone who used to use the old notation, I find that the "new" one makes it much easier for me to visualize the board. More important, however, is this: if new players are taught the algebraic notation first, they will have the opposite bias. (I still think all players need to know both systems, since so much is written in each.) Finally, if Chris aspires to the lofty heights of international play, he had better get used to the new system; it is the only system recognized by FIDE. You may not like it, but that's your problem. I will now run for cover as the friends of the English descend upon me...