Terry Terry wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Terry Terry wrote:
One reason I really never studied chess was because the notation was
too messy.

Are you sure that was the reason? The notation is very
straightforward compared to the complexity of the game.

Yes, I am sure. I play around 1400-1500.

Compared to a total beginner, that's pretty strong. It surprises me
that you find notation difficult (and I don't mean to mock or belittle
you). Was it descriptive (1.P-K4 P-QB4 2.P-Q4 PxP) or algebraic (1.e4
c5 2.d4 cxd4) that was causing the problem?


I always wanted to see move by move setups. With chess notation, it
took too long for me to set up.

I'm not sure what you mean, here. There are two usual ways in which
notation is used in books. One is to give complete game scores.
Here, you set up the pieces into the familiar initial position and
then just execute the moves one at a time. The other is to give moves
from some specific position. Here, the start position is invariably
given as a diagram and then you just execute the moves one at a time.

In both cases, the only setting up is either the initial position or
from a diagram. Neither of these requires notation. OK, ocasionally,
positions are given as FEN but that's fairly uncommon in books. If
you see it in a newsgroup, just cut and paste to your favourite chess
program.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ screwdriver but you can never put
it down!