|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| 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 viewKomodo-10.1-64bit:
+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. °°°
De Sitter,
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. |
|
Dec-16-19
 | | sea7kenp: I'm being dragged, Kicking and Screaming to Algebraic Notation. I still purchase used Chess Books in Descriptive and enjoy it. As a Computer Professional (Troubleshooter, not a Developer), I might start one, Development Project, to Translate Algebraic Notation to Descriptive, at least as a Display "extension". |
|
| Dec-17-19 | | Granny O Doul: What with the algebraic-descriptive debate and the Fischer-Karpov-FIDE argument raging, you could barely handle an issue of CL&R in the mid-70s without burning your fingers. I used descriptive notation in my first few tournament outings, but soon switched to algebraic. I think Joel Benjamin inspired me. I even tried figurine algebraic, but with my time trouble addiction, it was not a good fit. Anyway, algebraic is better for scorekeeping, but descriptive has its uses when it comes to discussion. Seventh rank, wrong-colored rook pawn, that sort of thing. |
|
| Dec-17-19 | | spingo: Granny O Doul: ... I used descriptive notation in my first few tournament outings, but soon switched to algebraic.> If you look at the superb annotations here by User: keg you'll see that he uses an easy-to-read hybrid notation that suits the Belle Epoque games he favours perfectly. |
|
Oct-09-21
 | | kingscrusher: Petrosian Immortal Game even praised by Bobby Fischer :) |
|
| Jan-07-22 | | N.O.F. NAJDORF: <Here's an example where descriptive is better:
A fianchetto is when you play P-N3 followed by B-N2.> Here's another example: Fischer's manoeuvre N-R1, N-B2, N-N4, N-R6 was doubtless based on Nimzowitsch's manoeuvre N-R1, N-B2, N-R3, N-N5. The above observation could not be expressed so well in algebraic notation, as Fischer had black but Nimzowitsch had the white pieces. |
|
| Jan-08-22 | | Sally Simpson: Descriptive v Algebraic.
Sometime in the future Descriptive makes a comeback. All the sci-fi books that I have read where the story takes place many centuries from now and features a game of chess. The moves, either spoken or written down, are always in descriptive notation. Also when Dr. Who play K9 at chess, K9 gives the moves in descriptive notion. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSo... |
|
| Jan-08-22 | | Z truth 000000001: <Sally> another example of descriptive notation, an oldie but goodie: https://fossbytes.com/unix-co-found... (Ken Thompson's BSD password has finally been cracked) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 19.Qxf6+