< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-16-25 | | stone free or die: I was looking into the USCF transition a little and think I've identified a key moment - between <Sept 1973 and Oct 1973>. This does mean there aren't other critical moments, nor, certainly, is this necessarily the first instance of algebraic notation being used - but it seems that a decision point was reached, and a commitment to conversion adopted. So, here's a link to the <Sept 1973> link: https://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/C... Please note that <Saidy's> article uses English Descriptive, and no algebraic notation is to be found (I think). Then compare the <Oct 1973> issue: https://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/C... Not only is <Kavalek's> article on the <IBM Amsterdam (1973)> in algebraic, which is somewhat to be expected (though might have been surprising given the conventions of the day) - but <Saidy's> article is also in algebraic in this issue! Not only that, but there's an introduction to algebraic notation feature prominently in Kavalek's article on p559. This same introduction showed up in the June-July 1973 issue of <Chess Voice>, which I found on the west coast <chessdyrad.com> site: http://www.chessdryad.com/articles/... |
|
Jan-16-25 | | stone free or die: <'Chess and Checkers' (1918) by Edward Lasker uses algebraic notation for chess. The only difference from today it uses a 'P' (1.e4 is 1.Pe4.)
https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo...> How apt! |
|
Jan-16-25 | | Petrosianic: <stone free or die>: <It didn't catch on, though the single letter <N> notation (far superior to <Kt>), does owe him at least a tip of the hat.> Yeah, it's better for every piece to have one single letter to designate it. A letter that's phonetically correct is okay. In the Macintosh version of Star Fleet I (an 80's Star Trek game that I still play on an emulator once in a while), they have similar one-letter abbreviations for commands, in addition to mouse support. T for Torpedoes is fine. N for Navigation, S for Long Range Scan, also okay. Why not "L" for Long Range? Because they use L for Lower Shields. B for Battle Shields, M for Maximum Shields, W for Wait, also fine. But then they use F for Phasers. (Like N for Knight, at least it's phonetic.) P for Transporters, since T is already taken. (I guess "P" for "Porter"?) And R for Tractor Beams, since, again, T is so popular, and B is taken too. After all this, N for Knight doesn't seem so bad. |
|
Jan-16-25
 | | Sally Simpson: <Petrosianic>
Nothing wrong with the old games. I still play the Windows 95 version of Command and Conquer.
I also recall the ZX81 Star Trek There were no graphics. You moved a capital 'E' through space fighting capital 'K's' on your T.V. I thought it was fantastic. https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/... One main complaint you hear from algebraic purists is including the 'x' in captures as 34.Bxc6 or 34 Bc6. I prefer it with the 'x' but not really bothered. |
|
Jan-16-25 | | stone free or die: You guys better watch out or I'll start posting the keycodes for <Rogue>! |
|
Jan-16-25 | | stone free or die: (Yes, I know my gaming history - ha) |
|
Jan-16-25 | | Petrosianic: <stone free or die: You guys better watch out or I'll start posting the keycodes for <Rogue>!> <Space Rogue>, or just plain old <Rogue>? |
|
Jan-16-25 | | Cassandro: This is a good place as any to brag about the fact that I was the regional champion of <Pole Position> back in the mid-eighties. Remember <Space Rogue> well, but cannot recall a game simply called <Rogue>. |
|
Jan-17-25 | | stone free or die: <P - <Space Rogue>, or just plain old <Rogue>?> Just plain old Rogue.
https://britzl.github.io/roguearchi... It long predates the 1985 PC manual versions in the link above, here's a bit from wiki about it's creation: <<Development><At UC Santa Cruz> The concept of Rogue originated with Michael Toy and Glenn Wichman.[2] Toy grew up in Livermore, California, where his father was a nuclear scientist. Once a year, his father's workplace allowed employees' families to visit, which included allowing them to use the facility's mainframe system to play games. Toy took interest in the text-based Star Trek game (1971), which represented space combat through characters on screen, and required players to make strategic decisions each turn. Toy took to learn programming and recreate this game on other computer systems that he could access, including the Processor Technology Sol-20 and the Atari 400.[3] Toy subsequently enrolled in computer science at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) in the late 1970s. Working first on UCSC's PDP-11 and then its VAX-11, Toy began exploring what games were available over ARPANET, the predecessor of the current Internet. One game that intrigued him was Colossal Cave Adventure (also known as Adventure) (1976) by William Crowther and Don Woods. Adventure, considered the first text-based adventure game, challenged the player to explore a cave system through descriptions given by the computer and commands issued by the player. Toy was impressed by the game and started writing his own.[3]> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue... |
|
Jan-17-25 | | Cassandro: <sfod> Enjoyed reading the wiki article about <Rogue>. What is great is that almost all of these early PC and arcade games from the 80s can be played today on regular PCs through emulators. |
|
Jan-17-25 | | stone free or die: <<Cassandro> What is great is that almost all of these early PC and arcade games from the 80s can be played today on regular PCs through emulators.> Yep.
https://www.mamedev.org/
That includes the iron too!
https://www.pcjs.org/machines/dec/p... |
|
Jan-21-25
 | | perfidious: <Petrosianic>, was just perusing the May 1989 <CL> for information and came across Soltis' column, in descriptive: https://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/C... |
|
Jan-21-25 | | Petrosianic: I think Soltis and Evans used Descriptive until around 2007. Not all the time, or even very often, but occasionally. I do think of 1980, and Fairfield W. Hoban's tenure as the point at which it went from predominantly descriptive to predominantly algebraic, though. But let's see. I've just pulled up Burt Hochberg's last issue, October 1979. Soltis's Column: Descriptive
Troy Line Advertisement: Advertises books called "English, 1...N-KB3 Systems", and "English, 1...P-K4". Karpov got married. The magazine doesn't say it, but I think it was a mixed marriage. He used algebraic, she used descriptive. Benko's Column: Algebraic
Gheorghiu's Column: Algebraic
Cienfuegos '79: Algebraic
Puzzles on p. 579: Descriptive
11-year old wins $2,000: Algebraic
1979 Paul Masson: Descriptive
Pandolfini's Column: Algebraic
Thinking Techniques For the Amateur: Descriptive Ask The Masters: Both
Puzzle on p. 587: Descriptive
Larry Evans On Chess: Descriptive
What's The Best Move: Descriptive
I'm still looking for the first ever algebraic game in CL&R. Ed Yetman, the publisher of a Descriptive Notation Newsletter didn't know. |
|
Jan-21-25 | | Petrosianic: I haven't played Rogue, but I did pull Space Rogue out and replay it. And I'm intimately familiar with Colossal Cave. |
|
Jan-21-25 | | Petrosianic: I know in the mid-70's there were lots of little inserts explaining how algebraic worked, to prepare people for eventually moving to it. And lots of debates in Larry Evans about its merits. January 1976: "Additions to our Inventory" says that all books are in descriptive unless marked otherwise. But of the 14 new books, only "The Best of Karpov" is marked algebraic. |
|
Jan-21-25 | | stone free or die: <<petrosianic> Karpov got married. The magazine doesn't say it, but I think it was a mixed marriage. He used algebraic, she used descriptive.> chuckle |
|
Jan-21-25 | | stone free or die: Did we fully suss out the change-over in the BCM yet? . |
|
Jan-21-25
 | | perfidious: I have the bound volume of <BCM> for 1978 and there is a fair amount of descriptive in that, though by then algebraic predominates also. |
|
Jan-21-25 | | Granny O Doul: (For USAans)-- if you'd had to guess in 1975 whether algebraic notation or the metric system would take firmer root, which would you have bet on? |
|
Jan-21-25 | | Petrosianic: <Granny O Doul: (For USAans)-- if you'd had to guess in 1975 whether algebraic notation or the metric system would take firmer root, which would you have bet on?> Algebraic, no question. It's a smaller change that affects fewer people. There's a need for chess players to be able to read each other's stuff, FIDE probably wouldn't allow Descriptive forever, and they were already beginning to transition people over to algebraic very slowly. |
|
Jan-22-25 | | stone free or die: My question is why did the changeover happen when it did? Clearly, algebraic is superior - so it was simply a matter of time. But why such a long, long delay (remember, as <Missy> points out, even Staunton pointed out the superiority of the German notation). And even more importantly, why circa-1973? Perhaps because of Fischer's winning of the WCC and exposure to international chess it precipitated? . |
|
Jan-22-25 | | Petrosianic: Algebraic isn't really "better". Or if it is, postal notation is even better than algebraic, but we won't be shifting to that any time soon. But algebraic, is what most OTB players were using, and FIDE wanted to standardize. Fischer had nothing to do with it, he used Descriptive (even in 1992, I believe) and the US had always been in FIDE. Come to think of it, I think Soltis once told a joke (pre-1992) in which Fischer came back to World Championship play, and challenged for the title again. It was the last game, score tied, and I forget the exact details, but Fischer tried to claim a win that would give him the title back, but need a valid scoresheet to do it, and only then did they discover that he was still using Descriptive, which FIDE didn't recognize. No valid scoresheet meant he didn't win the game or title and went back into seclusion again. |
|
Jan-22-25
 | | MissScarlett: The Era, June 27th 1858, p.5:
<We hail with great satisfaction the fact that Mr. Boden, so distinguished a member of the Chess circle, shares our views as to the feasibility of adopting the German Notation; but he very properly proposes before advocating its use, to consult the wishes and opinions of our country Chess Clubs. We shall, therefore, have great pleasure in hearing from the Secretaries of Chess Clubs on the subject. Should the majority of English players be in favour of the German Notation, we should propose that the Chess editors of the country do hold a Congress for the purpose of adopting the nomenclature of the German system in their articles.> The summer of 1858 proved to be a most unfortunate time to hope for consensus in the English chess world. |
|
Jan-22-25 | | stone free or die: <<Petrosianic> Algebraic isn't really "better".> This is clearly a minority opinion.
(No need to rehash points like compactness, reliability, or clarity - just do a google search on "algebraic vs descriptive notation".) <... FIDE wanted to standardize. Fischer had nothing to do with it> I wasn't suggesting that Fischer personally advocated for it (as we know he didn't), but that he was instrumental to exposing the US chess playing public to the international world of chess. But your mention of FIDE is interesting. Did they change policies in the 70's? Also - did the emigration of various Soviet Refusniks and other refuges from the Communist East to the US provide an impetus? The 1973 CL&R I cited above did have the lead article by Kavalek after all. . |
|
Jan-22-25
 | | keypusher: I started playing as the changeover was nearing completion. Robert Byrne's columns in the NYT were still in descriptive, my early chess books (Dover reprints, mostly) were all descriptive, but Chess Life was pretty much all algebraic. There can't be many systems of notation where one is so clearly superior to the other. Arabic numerals versus Roman numerals, I guess, for anything other than decorating a monument. But there did seem something a little antiseptic about algebraic at first, and I miss the symmetry of descriptive (1.P-K4 P-K4 versus 1.e4 e5). <SFOD> Maybe Informant had an impact? |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|