Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!rosalia
From: rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi)
Newsgroups: net.games.chess
Subject: Chess notation
Message-ID: <2141@reed.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Nov-85 17:02:47 EST
Article-I.D.: reed.2141
Posted: Sat Nov 16 17:02:47 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Nov-85 06:25:26 EST
Reply-To: rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi)
Distribution: net
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 31

[]

In article <872@whuxlm.UUCP> dim@whuxlm.UUCP (McCooey David I) writes:
>> This "other" notation is called "inferior."
>{ lots of comments on how much simpler it is to use descriptive
>	notation rather than algebraic notation }

    I have seen many people take it for granted (and state it) that the
descriptive notation is simpler and givs you a better idea of what is
happening. I don't want to look at all cases, just point out that in my
case it is not true.

    I learned descriptive notation first when I was 7 years old, and
played through games with great effort trying to map the notation to the
moves. When I started serious play I also had to learn algebraic
notation since I lived in Italy at the time. That made a really big
difference to me: I found that I could talk to someone about a game and
see it even without a board, without having to figure out where the "N"
is in "PxN".

    Then I started playing blindfold, and I ended up always insisting
that my opponents tell me moves using algebraic notation. It is simpler
to me and allows me to visualize things much better. I find it is
"superior" once you have passed the beginner's stage.
-- 

					Mark Galassi
				...!tektronix!reed!rosalia
				...!tektronix!tekig4!rosalia

{ these opinions are mine and should be everybody else's :-) }