On 6 Mar 2007 08:53:00 -0800, "SBD" wrote:

I think that some of the Russians - again I am relying on memory -
like Botvinnik (?) preferred long algebraic;

Long algebraic has the advantage of telling you where a piece came
from, which makes it a little easier to check for 3-fold repetition.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

SBD wrote:
Jud McCranie wrote:
The USCF rulebook (chapter 3) says that FIDE recognizes only
algebraic (but it doesn't say anything about long alg.). USCF
supports the use of a single worldwide system but recognizes other
systems such as descriptive and computer notation.

I wonder if that single worldwide system is the German one, which is
what we call it in the problem world. For example, I edit at a
problem magazine called Orbit that uses English as the language of
choice but German notation - K,D,L,S,B.

FIDE article 8.1 says,

``In the course of play each player is required to record his own
moves and those of his opponent [...] in the algebraic notation
(Appendix E...)''

Appendix E describes short algebraic notation using the English
letters for the pieces. However, Article E02 says

``For the first letter of the name of a piece, each player is free
to use the first letter of the name which is commonly used in his
country. Examples: F = fou (French for bishop), L = loper (Dutch
for bishop). In printed periodicals, the use of figurines for the
pieces is recommended.''

(Strangely, the regulations for announcing moves to blind players in
Appendix F requires the use of German.)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Revolting Composer (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a pupil of Beethoven but
it'll turn your stomach and it burns
really easily!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
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?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Disgusting Cat (TM): it's
like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a cuddly pet but it'll turn
your
stomach!

First of all it's not used everywhere. Bronstein's Zurich 1953 tournament
book uses long algebraic. So does www.letsplaychess.com. At first I resisted
it, but it grows on you. The great thing about long algebraic is it is
completely self-consistent and intuitive, and contains a built-in error
check. For example 3-4 times during a game I will confuse the 4th and 5th
ranks, 3rd and 6th, etc. I would hate to lose a time control win because I
had too many incorrect move inputs. This way it's almost impossible as you
must make two mistakes.

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.

OK, and there are plenty of old books in descriptive, too. But the
overwhelming majority of chess books published in, say, the last
twenty years are in short algebraic.


The great thing about long algebraic is it is completely self-
consistent and intuitive, and contains a built-in error check. For
example 3-4 times during a game I will confuse the 4th and 5th
ranks, 3rd and 6th, etc. I would hate to lose a time control win
because I had too many incorrect move inputs. This way it's almost
impossible as you must make two mistakes.

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.

Long algebraic adds redundancy, which helps to correct some kinds of
mistake. However, there's also the possibility of getting the
redundant part wrong and introducing errors that couldn't be there if
you'd used short algebraic. It's by no means clear to me which of
these factors predominates.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Miniature Technicolor Clock (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a clock but it's in realistic
colour and you can hold in it your
hand!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
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.

OK, and there are plenty of old books in descriptive, too. But the
overwhelming majority of chess books published in, say, the last
twenty years are in short algebraic.


The great thing about long algebraic is it is completely self-
consistent and intuitive, and contains a built-in error check. For
example 3-4 times during a game I will confuse the 4th and 5th
ranks, 3rd and 6th, etc. I would hate to lose a time control win
because I had too many incorrect move inputs. This way it's almost
impossible as you must make two mistakes.

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.

Right. It's not foolproof, but it introduces another cue or reference point.
Playing Rb6 but writing Rb3 is a common mistake I make. If the rook were
coming from b1 and moved five squares I might realize it did not move only
two squares, and be less likely to write Rb1-b3. Similarly, if the original
square was on the fifth rank and you wrote Rb5-b3 but the actual move was
Rb5-b6, something might jolt you into realizing, "Hey, I didn't move
backwards but forward" (for White).

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.