Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site osu-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!osu-eddie!karl
From: karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste)
Newsgroups: net.games.chess
Subject: Re: Notation
Message-ID: <790@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Nov-85 09:56:51 EST
Article-I.D.: osu-eddi.790
Posted: Thu Nov 14 09:56:51 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Nov-85 05:35:47 EST
References: <359@tekchips.UUCP> <22300011@uiucdcsp> <96@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: OSU
Lines: 19

> > >
> > >     1. P-K4	P-QB4		       22.R-R3	   B-N2
> > >     2. N-KB3	P-Q3		       23.B-K3     R-K2
> >This "other" notation is called "inferior."
> Come on, guys: a lot of people LIKE traditional notation.
> Me, for one.

Heavens, yes.  I'll grant you that algebraic notation is probably more
precise, especially since it's not uncommon for a person to record a
game with ambiguous moves in descriptive notation (e.g., which Pawn
did you mean in PxN?  The one on K4 or KN4?).  Nonetheless, I see no
reason why I, as a human,  should be forced to limit my available
move-recording mechanisms to those most suited to the bloody machine.
In a chess program I once wrote, it accepted both forms of input from
the user, and was smart enough to demand additional information to
disambiguate a move.  This certainly seemed like a better idea than
just throwing out descriptive notation entirely.
-- 
Karl Kleinpaste