Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bbnccv!ISM780B!tim
From: tim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.games.chess
Subject: Re: Kasaparov: at last a new champion !
Message-ID: <39900003@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Nov-85 18:54:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.39900003
Posted: Fri Nov 15 18:54:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Nov-85 22:09:20 EST
References: <359@tekchips.UUCP>
Lines: 27
Nf-ID: #R:tekchips:-35900:ISM780B:39900003:000:1031
Nf-From: ISM780B!tim    Nov 15 18:54:00 1985


> what piece is sitting on c4.  Second (and more important), algebraic
> notation is biased toward white.  When playing through a game, sometimes

No, you are biased toward left-to-right alphabets and counting from
one to eight! :-)  Since I prefer to count down, I think algebraic is
biased towards Black.

> 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?

It's sort of like the argument between the English system of units and
the Metric system.  Sure, both are useable, but why have two systems?

> BTW (just to be fanatical and attack a notational method), I really get
> a chuckle out of the "official" 'figurine algebraic' notation, with little
> pictures, to lessen confusion, I guess.  What a farce.

It's also very difficult to draw those little pictures on the score sheet
when in time trouble!

It is, however, language independent.

					Tim Smith
					ihnp4!cithep!tim
					ima!ism780!tim