Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcsp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsp!ashby
From: ashby@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.games.chess
Subject: Re: Re: Notation
Message-ID: <22300015@uiucdcsp>
Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 13:11:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsp.22300015
Posted: Sun Nov 24 13:11:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 20:13:46 EST
References: <790@osu-eddie>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:osu-eddie:-79000:uiucdcsp:22300015:000:1280
Nf-From: uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU!ashby    Nov 24 12:11:00 1985


chris@leadsv.UUCP writes:

>	I vote strongly for the old notation.   I think the new
> notation STINKS!  You cannot tell if captures have been made and
> you have to memorize the new grid to have a mental picture of
> what is going on.  The old notation contained (oops!  NOT past
> tense!) - CONTAINS more information.


As I said before, I didn't mean to start the algebraic versus
descriptive debate again, but Chris's comments make no sense.
First, you can indeed tell if a capture has been made - and
without the ambiguity of the descriptive system.  Second, he
complains about having to memorize a new grid.  Surely this
cannot be that difficult.  Moreover, as someone who used to
use the old notation, I find that the "new" one makes it much
easier for me to visualize the board.  More important, however,
is this: if new players are taught the algebraic notation first,
they will have the opposite bias.  (I still think all players
need to know both systems, since so much is written in each.)
Finally, if Chris aspires to the lofty heights of international
play, he had better get used to the new system; it is the only
system recognized by FIDE.  You may not like it, but that's your
problem.

I will now run for cover as the friends of the English descend
upon me...