< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Sep-09-16|| ||Petrosianic: The whole debate about which was "better" was silly, since International Notation was, by those standards, better than either Descriptive or Algebraic, but nobody was advocating it.|
|Sep-10-16|| ||Howard: Reminds me of a letter someone wrote to Evans during that aforementioned debate in which the reader pointed out that both systems were easy to learn, and then he added, "Learn both systems and shut up."|
Evans replied, "Tradition dies hard."
|Jan-07-17|| ||Sularus: nice sac.|
|Jan-07-17|| ||AlicesKnight: Familiar, but pleasurable to see again, as gems often are.....|
|Jan-07-17|| ||Abdel Irada: ∞
<perfidious: <YouRang....Mixing the 3rd rank with the 6th is a dead give-away that you grew up with the old descriptive chess notation....>
As we English and Spanish-speaking players all did, well into the seventies.>
In the mid- to late 80s, I played at Mechanics' Institute in San Francisco, a club with many colorful "characters."
Among them was a retired firefighter, Paul Vayssie (who, in fairness, was in his seventies). When he wasn't busy complaining about positional "chicken chess," he kvetched about algebraic notation and "alphabet soup."
|Jan-07-17|| ||ColeTrane: A rock hound like me loves this pun....|
|Jan-07-17|| ||RandomVisitor: Black is ok up to 11.Nb3
click for larger view
<0.00/33 11...b6> 12.d4 Ba6 13.Bf4 Qc8 14.Ne5 cxd4 15.Nxd4 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Bb7 17.Bxb7 Qxb7 18.Rad1 Rac8 19.Qd7 Rc7 20.Qd2 Nd5 21.c3 Rd8 22.Bh6 Bxe5 23.Rxe5 Rcd7 24.Rde1 f6 25.Rxe6 Nc7 26.Qe2 Nxe6 27.Qxe6+ Rf7 28.Qe8+ Rf8 29.Qe6+ Rf7
|Jan-07-17|| ||morfishine: Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place|
|Jan-07-17|| ||RandomVisitor: As mentioned earlier, 18.Qxf6+ works, as in 18...Kxf6 19.Be5+ Kg5 20.Bg7|
click for larger view
+M7/46 20. ... Qc6 21.Ne5 Kh5 22.g4+ Kg5 23.f4+ Kxf4 24.Bxc6 Kg5 25.Re4 Kh4 26.Kg2 bxc6 27.Nf3+
+M5/46 20. ... Qxc4 21.bxc4 Nf5 22.Re5 f6 23.h4+ Kg4 24.Re4+ Kh5 25.Bf3+
+M4/46 20. ... e5 21.h4+ Kg4 22.Nxe5+ Kh5 23.Bf3+ Bg4 24.Bxg4+
+M3/46 20. ... Nf5 21.f4+ Kg4 22.Ne5+ Kh5 23.Bf3+
+M3/46 20. ... Nc6 21.h4+ Kg4 22.Ne3+ Kh5 23.Bf3+
|Jan-08-17|| ||offramp: When it comes to descriptive or algebraic <[the correct name is <standard>]> notation, it helps to be fluent in both. |
Here's an example where descriptive is better:
<A fianchetto is when you play P-N3 followed by B-N2.>
In algebraic that is
<A fianchetto is when one plays b2-b3 or g2-g3 followed by Bb2 or Bg3 as White, or ...b7-b6 or ...g7-g6 followed by ...Bb7 or ...Bg7 as Black.>
|Jan-08-17|| ||ughaibu: <Here's an example where descriptive is better: <A fianchetto is when you play P-N3 followed by B-N2.> In algebraic that is <A fianchetto is when one plays b2-b3 or g2-g3 followed by Bb2 or Bg3 as White, or ...b7-b6 or ...g7-g6 followed by ...Bb7 or ...Bg7 as Black.>>|
So, descriptive is better because one avoids mistakes such as "Bg3"? Or algebraic is better because you write "one" instead of "you"?
|Jan-08-17|| ||offramp: <So, descriptive is better because one avoids mistakes such as "Bg3"? Or algebraic is better because you write "one" instead of "you"?>|
LOL superb! That is why I don't use - in fact that that is why no one uses - descriptive! I have read magazines read by experts and there are ALWAYS error in descriptive. I am not joking, it is like one error for every three games.
|Jan-16-17|| ||Howard: Regarding offramp's point, it just goes to show that Chernev could be very superficial in his commentary. I'm surprised he didn't point that out in his TMICOCEP.|
|Mar-09-17|| ||Dirkster: Games like this remind me why chess can be so damn BEAUTIFUL!!!|
|Dec-14-17|| ||Penguincw: Looking in the archives, I see this game could be the first ever GOTD on <cg> (Jan/26/2002). Well, there could be others (and there probably are), but can't find evidence of so.|
|Oct-04-18|| ||deSitter: RE offramp's comment about errors in descriptive notation - I have a large library with dozens of books in descriptive notation, and there are extremely few errors in them. Don't know about magazines but it's a non-issue for books, and it's always easy to figure out what is really going on. I find descriptive much easier to read because the text layout is more favorable in almost all cases. Neither is harder than the other, they are simply different, and algebraic is harder to see on the page. I tend to read older books most of which are in descriptive notation anyway. Chess literature declined with extreme rapidity in the early 70s following the Fischer craze, and I (wrongly) associate the rise of algebraic notation in English literature with the degraded chess culture that came about in the mid to late 70s and persists to this day.|
|Oct-05-18|| ||offramp: Right now listen descriptive notation is useless and belongs to the time of the ancient Sumerians and it has no place in the modern world, it is an outdated and useless way of writing down chess moves and it is only used by flat-earthers and moon landing deniers why not try to enter the 21st century? what computer will recognise the RIDICULOUS and SUPERFLUOUS descriptive stupid notation? Etc.|
|Oct-05-18|| ||maxi: So, <offramp>, I will assume from now on that you don't like the descriptive notation.|
<deSitter>, please explain what do you mean by "...the degraded chess culture...". It sounds interesting.
|Oct-24-18|| ||Violin sonata: Where is fischer annotated this game? There is no information about it|
|Dec-09-18|| ||DonChalce: Petrosian is such a meme lol|
|Mar-21-19|| ||Antonin1957: A very elegant game!|
|May-28-19|| ||Pyrandus: Komodo plays better at Petrossian?|
|Jun-28-19|| ||deSitter: maxi you had to be there. Instead of a quiet time playing Dr. Turner with his pipe and his friendly manner, there were a lot of kids making noise and playing 5 minute chess and trying to one-up each other. I myself was a kid but I learned the culture of Chernev and Reinfeld, not Keene and Koltanowski. They carried around these @#$%ty rollup boards and plastic pieces which were beat to hell. The aesthetic aspect of the game seemed to mean nothing, just win baby. They were easy fish. The culture became so repellent to me that I stopped playing altogether once I got to college.|
|Jul-15-19|| ||sorokahdeen: Okay, a couple of quick things.
Sorry, but as a player of a game that requires study and demands logic, I have to say that algebraic is better, hands down, period final.
When we say "descriptive" we mean "English descriptive," which means that the system we use is limited to English. Everyone else who used a descriptive system had their own with it's own vocabulary and idiom in their native language just as English descriptive did .
Algebraic does away with that problem.
In order to play over games in foreign language chess magazines using algebraic, you need only know the language's alphabet which in most cases involving Western European languages will be the Latin alphabet.
Throw a list of the piece names into the mix in alphabets that you don't know and you're pretty much set to look over games in any language of your choice so long as you're using algebraic.
Hell, without algebraic, Chess Informant and all that it has done for international chess would have been impossible.
Dude, you're missing out on the whole circle of life thing.
We all start out as kids who really, really want to win, so we study hard, achieve what we can, and we play for a while at our peaks (whatever that might be for each player) and then we decline—eventually to the point where we reach duffer status.
As kids, we're hot and angry, we're cocksure and arrogant. As adults we're respectable (if we're lucky) and as duffer's most of us are luckiest when no one notices us.
If you don't know what I'm talking about there, try looking over a few games from Senior tournaments where you see what our childhood heroes became over time.
With the exception of a few great players like Viktor Korchnoi, most duffer-aged players are just embarrassing—practical illustrations of the phrase "a shadow of his former self."
Time does those things to us and complaining about those kids on your lawn is not where understanding takes us.
|Jul-15-19|| ||Howard: Your reasoning reminds me of the debate that went on in "Larry Evans on Chess" back in the mid-70's, as to which notation is superior.|
I'll admit that for many years, I used descriptive exclusively, but eventually converted to algebraic. It is definitely superior to descriptive.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·