One reason I really never studied chess was because the notation was
too messy.

I would like to find some chess sites that use pictures instead of
notation to show some basic chess.

Can anyone recommend one?

Also, I saw a book in the past that showed common mating positions.
Most of them were to a castled king position. Anyone know of such a
demonstration?

Thanks for your time

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:57:30 -0700, Terry Terry
wrote:

One reason I really never studied chess was because the notation was
too messy.

I would like to find some chess sites that use pictures instead of
notation to show some basic chess.

Can anyone recommend one?



Although you may be able to find what you are looking for, if you
seriously want to study chess, you *must* learn to become comfortable
reading standard notation. Without it, you are spurning many important
resources, and will never become any good at the game. You will not be
able to read books and magazines, and you will not be able to converse
about moves with other players.

In fact, you really should learn and be comfortable with, not only the
standard algebraic notation that everyone uses, but also the older
descriptive notation that was commonly used in the USA. There are
older books and magazines that use it that you may want to read.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

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.


Dave.



--
David Richerby Crystal Carnivorous Radio (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a radio but it's full of teeth
and completely transparent!

Ken Blake wrote:
[...] the older descriptive notation that was commonly used in the
USA.

And throughout the English-speaking world. Did other languages have
equivalent descriptive notations?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Electronic Book (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic novel but it uses
electricity!

David Richerby wrote:

And throughout the English-speaking world. Did other languages have
equivalent descriptive notations?

There are/were both French and Spanish descriptive notation
-- I expect there's Portuguese and probably Italian as well.

--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/

On Oct 3, 5:47 am, 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. I always wanted to see move
by move setups. With chess notation, it took too long for me to set
up.

I would rather spend time looking at the board than setting up pieces.

Using the computer as a tool, It should be just as easy to record
games in picture format than chess notation.

On 3 okt, 17:40, Terry Terry wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:47 am, 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. I always wanted to see move
by move setups. With chess notation, it took too long for me to set
up.

I would rather spend time looking at the board than setting up pieces.

Using the computer as a tool, It should be just as easy to record
games in picture format than chess notation.

What do you mean with "picture format"? Figurine notation? Or instead
of listing the moves, draw a new diagram for each move made? The
latter is just completely insane!! If you need such help to learn
chess, go find a simpler game to play instead, like tic-tac-toe or
something.

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!

On Oct 3, 5:49 pm, David Richerby
wrote:

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, occasionally,
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.

For me to study a opening line, I have to first set up the board. I
then have to make a move, look at the book, make a move, look at the
book.

Computers should show each move instead of the notation. Am I missing
something or does one not need to actually need to make the moves on
the chessboard to understand the notation? I sure do.

BTW I never said I was a beginner. I play as often as I can. I just
don't seem to be able to find a way to learn any more depth of the
game.

I wouldn't call notation difficult, it is just not interesting. I
feel it is too much work for not much information. Also making
mistakes in the notation happens frequently with me so that gets
frustrating. I could follow either notation but I found algebraic
caused me to make less mistakes.

Having a game explained move by move would seem to be more information
and less work.

I am sure there are sites out there. I was asking where they are.

I am not really interested in learning more about notation.

Terry Terry wrote:
For me to study a opening line, I have to first set up the board. I
then have to make a move, look at the book, make a move, look at the
book.

Sure. I've not seen anyone have a problem with that. (I'm not trying
to criticize you; just to point out why I'm finding it a bit tricky to
figure out your needs.)


Computers should show each move instead of the notation. Am I
missing something or does one not need to actually need to make the
moves on the chessboard to understand the notation? I sure do.

With practice, it becomes more natural. I would find it very hard to
follow a whole game just from the notation but I can follow five or
six moves without too much difficulty. I still prefer to make the
moves on the board but I don't have to think about it: if I see
something like `Nd5', I immediately know which move to make; I don't
need to work out which square is d5 and which knight is supposed to be
moving there.


BTW I never said I was a beginner.

I know. I was just saying that you already understand a reasonable
amount about what is a pretty complex game. I find it a bit
surprising that you have such a problem with the notation, given the
difficulty of what you've already grasped.


Having a game explained move by move would seem to be more
information and less work.

I am sure there are sites out there. I was asking where they are.

I don't know of any tutorial sites. If you want to look through some
master games, which is an excellent way to learn, go to

http://www.chessgames.com/

You can choose a game from a database of thousands (millions?) and use
a java applet to go through the moves without needing to read any
notation. I'd recommend starting with Morphy's games and then
whichever of Capablanca and Alekhine is more to your taste. However,
without annotations, you're not really getting the full picture.
Maybe the best thing to do would be to get a book of games (say,
Chernev's _The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played_ or a
collection of Capablanca's or Alekhine's games) and use chessgames.com
to go through the moves, rather than a board?


I am not really interested in learning more about notation.

OK. I think that'll hold you back a bit but the important thing is
that you enjoy the game.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Technicolor Perforated Clock (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a clock but it's full of
holes and in realistic colour!