sridhar@tekchips.UUCP (S Sridhar) (11/10/85)
Finally and finally after ten long years and many many duels later,
there is a new world champion. And to boot he is the youngest champ
ever.
Gary Kasaparov (pronounced cuss-PARuff) won the last game in grand style
"fashioning a Sicilian decence into a firm defensive line and seemed
intent on hunkering behind it for the duration" of the match.
Here is the 24th game in the "other" notation. (I believe the postings
by Ken Thompson were in the algebraic notation. I forget what this
notation is called).
Sicilian Defense
Karpov Kasaparov Karpov Kasaparov
1. P-K4 P-QB4 22.R-R3 B-N2
2. N-KB3 P-Q3 23.B-K3 R-K2
3. P-Q4 PxP 24.K-N1 QR-K1
4. NxP N-KB3 25.R-Q1 P-B4
5. N-QB3 P-QR3 26.NPxBP NxKBP
6. B-K2 P-K3 27.R-N3 R-KB2
7. O-O B-K2 28.BxP Q-N1
8. P-B4 O-O 29.B-K3 N-R4
9. K-R1 Q-B2 30.R-N4 N-KB3
10.P-QR4 N-B3 31.R-R4 P-N4
11.B-K3 R-K1 32.PxP N-KN5
12.B-B3 R-N1 33.Q-Q2 NxB
13.Q-Q2 B-Q2 34.QxN NxBP
14.N-N3 P-QN3 35.Q-N6 B-QR1
15.P-KN4 P-QB1 36.RxQP R-QN2
16.P-N5 N-Q2 37.QxRP RxN
17.Q-B2 B-B1 38.RxP RxP
18.B-N2 B-N2 39.Q-B4 K-R1
19.QR-Q1 P-N3 40.P-K5 Q-R2ch
20.B-B1 QR-B1 41.K-R1 BxBch
21.R-Q3 N-N5 42.KxB N-Q5ch
Source: The Oregonian Nov 10.ashby@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/12/85)
> Here is the 24th game in the "other" notation. (I believe the postings > by Ken Thompson were in the algebraic notation. I forget what this > notation is called). > > 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."
sohancr@ut-ngp.UUCP (Sohan C Ramakrishna Pillai) (11/13/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** > Finally and finally after ten long years and many many duels later, > there is a new world champion. And to boot he is the youngest champ > ever. > Gary Kasaparov (pronounced cuss-PARuff) won the last game in grand style > "fashioning a Sicilian decence into a firm defensive line and seemed > etc...." >Source: The Oregonian Nov 10. I am surprised to see all this news about Kasparov being the youngest World Chess Champion. Wasn't Mikhail Tal (or Talj) just 20 years old when he beat Botvinnik in the World Championship match in 1960? Enlightenment is called for! Sohan C R
tim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/14/85)
> Here is the 24th game in the "other" notation. (I believe the postings > by Ken Thompson were in the algebraic notation. I forget what this > notation is called). Obsolete
kvk@ihlpm.UUCP (Kevin) (11/14/85)
> > > Here is the 24th game in the "other" notation. (I believe the postings > > by Ken Thompson were in the algebraic notation. I forget what this > > notation is called). > > > > 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." No, this "other" notation is called "easily understandable". Many people (me too!) who over the years had read quite a few books in the "understandable" notation find algebraic notation a pain in the ***. Now if only I can figure out how many liters of gas my car holds... :-) Kevin Kinder ihnp4!ihlpm!kvk
derek@uwvax.UUCP (Derek Zahn) (11/14/85)
> This "other" notation is called "inferior."
I know that this subject was beaten to death a while ago, but I can't remember.
Why is descriptive notation 'inferior'? Seems to me that any notation
that accurately describes the moves is pretty much equal to any other
notation. Perhaps it can be argued that it is possible to carelessly
just record 'BxP' when two such moves are possible, but that just
means that one has to be careful (and in some cases, like Nbd2, algebraic
could fall into the same type of carelessness with just Nd2).
Personally, I like descriptive notation, for two reasons: First, it
seems somehow to to be easier to understand without a board in front of
me; BxBP is easier to understand than B:c4 when I might not remember
what piece is sitting on c4. Second (and more important), algebraic
notation is biased toward white. When playing through a game, sometimes
I like to sit with white by me, and sometimes black. However, it is
much easier for people with tiny little minds like mine to say the
alphabet forward (left to right), so I usually just play as white if
the game is in algebraic.
Seems to me like the ideal notational method to avoid ambiguity is
moves of the form e2e4, giving just starting and destination squares.
What I really can't understand is how people are so religious about it,
that they fanatically attack one notational method and defend another.
I mean, how important is it?
BTW (just to be fanatical and attack a notational method), I really get
a chuckle out of the "official" 'figurine algebraic' notation, with little
pictures, to lessen confusion, I guess. What a farce.
derek
--
Derek Zahn @ wisconsin
...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek
derek@wisc-rsch.arpajohnk@bocklin.UUCP (11/14/85)
> > > Here is the 24th game in the "other" notation. (I believe the postings > > by Ken Thompson were in the algebraic notation. I forget what this > > notation is called). > > > > 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." The sample notation is called "descriptive;" it is more verbose, yet hardly "inferior."
dim@whuxlm.UUCP (McCooey David I) (11/15/85)
> > > Here is the 24th game in the "other" notation. (I believe the postings > > by Ken Thompson were in the algebraic notation. I forget what this > > notation is called). > > > > 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." Why be so harsh on descriptive notation. In my opinion, it is much simpler to get a (quick) idea of what is going on in a game if it is recorded in descriptive notation. For example, if you see something like 'ed', or 'e:d', or whatever in an algebraic column, all you can deduce is that it is a pawn doing the capturing, but you cannot tell what is being captured. Descriptive notation does not have this problem. Also, algebraic notation comes in too many varieties. Be traditional. Be classical. Use Descriptive!
wjh@bonnie.UUCP (Bill Hery) (11/15/85)
> > I am surprised to see all this news about Kasparov being the > youngest World Chess Champion. Wasn't Mikhail Tal (or Talj) just 20 > years old when he beat Botvinnik in the World Championship match in 1960? > > Enlightenment is called for! According to Harold Schonberg's 'Grandmasters of Chess' (Lippencott, 1972) Tal "at the age of twenty three in 1960 became the youngest world chess champion in history." Bill Hery
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.
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (11/15/85)
The follow-up I am following up is really to a mild diatribe against algebraic notation. Difficult to debate matters of taste. Algebraic required internationally for several years now primarily because the descriptive notation was used only in the English and Spanish speaking countries, I know not why. Now, with respect to ambiguity. I find my error rate in recording games is much lower with algebraic than it was with descriptive. Here is the reason. The error Nc3 when you should have written Nbc3 because there is a knight on e2 which could also go to c3 is equally easy to make, or avoid, in both systems. And it is easy to form a habit pattern that avoids that error. If two instance of the same piece can go to the same square, you are likely to notice that fact. However, a case like B x P is the booby trap in descriptive. During the game, you are thinking of the tactical or strategic importance of that bishop taking that pawn, and are not likely to notice whether the other (at the moment irrelevant) bishop is capable of taking a very different pawn. Some years ago, a friend and I who belonged to the same chess club in England decided to take the plunge and switch to algebraic notation. We both found that for a few months it was sufficiently distracting that it probably lost us a few games. By the time we were at home with it, we were both thoroughly glad that we had switched. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
zarifes@bnrmtv.UUCP (Kenneth Zarifes) (11/16/85)
> > > Here is the 24th game in the "other" notation. (I believe the postings > > by Ken Thompson were in the algebraic notation. I forget what this > > notation is called). > > > > 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." You've got it all wrong. The "other" notation is called "aesthetically pleasing". The algebraic notation is called "sterile" or "repugnant". -- {hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!zarifes --Ken Zarifes
tim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/16/85)
> what piece is sitting on c4. Second (and more important), algebraic > notation is biased toward white. When playing through a game, sometimes No, you are biased toward left-to-right alphabets and counting from one to eight! :-) Since I prefer to count down, I think algebraic is biased towards Black. > What I really can't understand is how people are so religious about it, > that they fanatically attack one notational method and defend another. > I mean, how important is it? It's sort of like the argument between the English system of units and the Metric system. Sure, both are useable, but why have two systems? > BTW (just to be fanatical and attack a notational method), I really get > a chuckle out of the "official" 'figurine algebraic' notation, with little > pictures, to lessen confusion, I guess. What a farce. It's also very difficult to draw those little pictures on the score sheet when in time trouble! It is, however, language independent. Tim Smith ihnp4!cithep!tim ima!ism780!tim
bill@ur-cvsvax.UUCP (Bill Vaughn) (11/16/85)
> > This "other" notation is called "inferior." > > I know that this subject was beaten to death a while ago, but I can't remember. > > Why is descriptive notation 'inferior'? Seems to me that any notation > that accurately describes the moves is pretty much equal to any other > notation. Perhaps it can be argued that it is possible to carelessly > > What I really can't understand is how people are so religious about it, > that they fanatically attack one notational method and defend another. > I mean, how important is it? > > derek > -- > Derek Zahn @ wisconsin Given that chess has the largest literature base of any game played today, the method of notation is rather important (at least to publishers). Algebraic notation is more compact, concise and, to me, more readable. When I use algebraic myself, I make one concession to the English notation: I use capital letters for the pieces. I've seen several books do that and Ken did it that way when he posted the World Champioship games. I think it combines the best of both notations. Bill Vaughn U. of Rochester rochester!ur-cvsvax!bill
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (11/17/85)
> > > Here is the 24th game in the "other" notation. (I believe the postings > > by Ken Thompson were in the algebraic notation. I forget what this > > notation is called). > > > > 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." It's good to have pundits around to enlighten the rest of us plebs about such things. -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet
trb@haddock.UUCP (11/19/85)
/* Written 3:43 pm Nov 10, 1985 by sridhar@tekchips in haddock:net.games.ches */ /* ---------- "Kasaparov: at last a new champion !" ---------- */ At the conclusion of the final game of the KK championship, Kasparov played 42 ... N-Q5ch when he could have played N-K6ch, winning Karpov's queen, at least. Karpov resigned anyway, and "which move was stronger" isn't my question. I was wondering, while going over the game, whether Kasparov was trying to humiliate Karpov or spare him humiliation, by playing the "inferior move." Or maybe there was a quicker mate after N-Q5ch that I missed. Andrew Tannenbaum Interactive Boston, MA 617-247-1155
trb@haddock.UUCP (11/20/85)
/* Written 11:04 am Nov 19, 1985 by me in haddock:net.games.ches */ /* ---------- "Kasaparov: at last a new champion !" ---------- */ > I was wondering, while going over the > game, whether Kasparov was trying to humiliate Karpov or spare him > humiliation, by playing the "inferior move." Or maybe there was a > quicker mate after N-Q5ch that I missed. Kasparov, oddly enough, played the best move. After N-K6ch, Karpov gets in RxRch, RxBch and possibilities of doubling his rooks, etc. N-Q5ch is quite a bit better. What a hairy game. Andrew Tannenbaum Interactive Boston, MA 617-247-1155