Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ur-cvsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!rochester!ur-cvsvax!bill
From: bill@ur-cvsvax.UUCP (Bill Vaughn)
Newsgroups: net.games.chess
Subject: Re: Re: Kasaparov: at last a new champion !
Message-ID: <244@ur-cvsvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Nov-85 23:34:35 EST
Article-I.D.: ur-cvsva.244
Posted: Fri Nov 15 23:34:35 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Nov-85 04:05:47 EST
References: <359@tekchips.UUCP> <22300011@uiucdcsp> <395@uwvax.UUCP>
Organization: Center for Visual Science, U. of Rochester
Lines: 27

> > This "other" notation is called "inferior."
> 
> I know that this subject was beaten to death a while ago, but I can't remember.
> 
> Why is descriptive notation 'inferior'?  Seems to me that any notation
> that accurately describes the moves is pretty much equal to any other
> notation.  Perhaps it can be argued that it is possible to carelessly
> 
> What I really can't understand is how people are so religious about it,
> that they fanatically attack one notational method and defend another.
> I mean, how important is it?
> 
> derek
> -- 
> Derek Zahn @ wisconsin

Given that chess has the largest literature base of any game played today,
the method of notation is rather important (at least to publishers).
Algebraic notation is more compact, concise and, to me, more readable. When
I use algebraic myself, I make one concession to the English notation: I use
capital letters for the pieces. I've seen several books do that and Ken
did it that way when he posted the World Champioship games.
I think it combines the best of both notations.

Bill Vaughn
U. of Rochester
rochester!ur-cvsvax!bill