rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi) (11/17/85)
[] In article <872@whuxlm.UUCP> dim@whuxlm.UUCP (McCooey David I) writes: >> This "other" notation is called "inferior." >{ lots of comments on how much simpler it is to use descriptive > notation rather than algebraic notation } I have seen many people take it for granted (and state it) that the descriptive notation is simpler and givs you a better idea of what is happening. I don't want to look at all cases, just point out that in my case it is not true. I learned descriptive notation first when I was 7 years old, and played through games with great effort trying to map the notation to the moves. When I started serious play I also had to learn algebraic notation since I lived in Italy at the time. That made a really big difference to me: I found that I could talk to someone about a game and see it even without a board, without having to figure out where the "N" is in "PxN". Then I started playing blindfold, and I ended up always insisting that my opponents tell me moves using algebraic notation. It is simpler to me and allows me to visualize things much better. I find it is "superior" once you have passed the beginner's stage. -- Mark Galassi ...!tektronix!reed!rosalia ...!tektronix!tekig4!rosalia { these opinions are mine and should be everybody else's :-) }