On Mar 9, 6:19 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote:
Beliavsky wrote:
I want to teach my son to keep score using long algebraic notation,

Why? Why not teach him to use the notation that's used in all the
books?

First of all it's not used everywhere. Bronstein's Zurich 1953
tournament book uses long algebraic.

I really don't buy this argument. Suppose you want to play the move
``Rook from b1 to b4'' but you confuse the fourth and fifth ranks. In
short algebraic, you write Rb5, which is wrong; in long algebraic, you
write b1b5, which is just as wrong. Suppose you want to make the move
``Rook from b4 to c4'': in short algebraic, you write Rc5, which is
wrong; in long algebraic, you write b5c5, which is also wrong.
Admittedly, in the second case, the move is less ambiguous in the case
where the move ``Rook from f5 to c5'' was legal, too. Suppose you
want to play the move ``Rook from b4 to b1''. In short algebraic, you
write ``Rb1'', which is correct; in long algebraic, you write
``b5b1'', which is wrong.


I think, Dave, using long algebraic, though, trains you to not make
such mistakes, which I think was part of Angelo's point.

A nice trick for doing blindfold simuls is to require the use of long
algebraic, which helps the simul-giver, especially if he/she is
familiar with it. Both with memory (if just Rb5 is announced, then you
may have to think longer, "where did that rook come from?") and with
visualization of the board in your head. Although I could also see
drawbacks there as well....

I think long algebraic is a great training tool. However, today's
emphasis on quicker games may be a drawback; the extra time invested
doesn't sound significant, but I've found anything that takes up just
small amounts of time in say. G/30 can be a hindrance.