I agree that this type of notation you write about is too longwinded, but I really like descriptive notation. Yes, I am an old-timer and it is what I learned first, but that is not why I still like it. I like it because it better tells the story of what is going on over the board. Infiltrating the 7th rank is more descriptive than dry algebraic -- from *both* sides. So, is the idea of a Knight outpost on the 6th rank.
Descriptive notation more easily paints a picture of a move in my minds-eye, so I don't think of descriptive notation as something to wrestle with... it is simply more --- descriptive of each move.
I actually listened to your interview with Kevin, and I find it interesting that you preferred this way in order to create a narrative. But I guess that algebraic is my native chess language then 😄
I downloaded the app and “watched” a few games on it. I honestly thought this was just a clumsy AI providing commentary rather than a new notation system. It’s just awful.
It looks like take/take/take has algebraic squares/coordinates (g5, etc.). So this is not like moving backwards to long form notation with 2 names for every square. Am I missing something?
It's odd to leave out the classic abbreviations for pieces, castling, etc., and I don't like taking out columns for White and Black. They should have a button that lets you select classic layout next to their human + computer analysis.
I just find it counterintuitive and lacking respect for the visuospatial abilities. Like a rite of initiation to learn before being able to communicate, and for some reason preferring the absolutism of a coordinate system with the cognitive logic of it. Which is spatial. Not just a graph of 8x8 grid points. Chess has essential core symmetries, and even the lack of lateral symmetry is informative of the very little change from symmetry. The queen instead of the kind. The rest is symmetric.
I find that the descriptive notation problem was not the more natural symmetric naming.
The checker board diagonals don't really need to be emphasized by black and white.
those psychologically and redundant signals are there to take a load off on cognition using all our spatial innate abilities so we can play the hard chess without being saturated with such stupid cognitive load.
### only problem with descriptive in relation to visuospatial concerns:
The following of initial position location all through the game in the notation was the problem. Not the king side vs queen side awareness. And certainly not the double indexing acknowledge the 2 players' subjectivity (which implies own spatial point of viewing reference).
Why can't there be 2 labels for one square? This is indeed was I exactly find a negation of the psychological reality. The brain that does not need that kind of contortion that the origin being a spreadsheet top left or bottom-right corner imposes.
Lichess even has to make a training feature for people to warp their brain around it.. sand in the cogs. now. I would say, not to change it, because there are more important absurdities to challenge in chess culture.. and this is getting moot with more visuospatial computer tools doing the sequential noodling for us.
I don't need to look at the binary code to understand the higher level language, for example.. I delegate that to the compiler and the CPU. No need to become CPU fluent oneself (although I did do a course long ago just to taste the pain of it: assembly to emulate structured programming). Sorry.. Algebraic is counter-cognitive and counter pedagogical. It can be trained, and there are too many veterans that swear by it. That alone makes it a problem. I think culture inertia is not to be trifled with.
But I will surrender to the argument that we are stuck with it. That is enough, no need to contort one's argumentation to justify it, other than cultural inertia in which I can find other things to have revised;
The top chess neck overexertion looking up theory of learning might be more important to me. That bad chess should be learned on equal dosage as best chess, for example. RL is not just for machines (it actually comes from human psychology of learning principles... very low level...).
I like the center. nor just one of the four corners as center of a coordinate system. And descriptive was the closest to it. besides its other superfluous things.. why not use negative ranks and positive, that would keep the uniqueness, and also the symmetry coordinate system? The file might stay the same.
As they might keep the asymmetry orientation. ok. done. I did let myself loose a bit much.
Sometimes it's natural, sometimes it isn't. While descriptive has its limitations, so does algebraic. E.g., I saw an old article that was entitled, "When is P-R3 a good move?". Now it would have to be called: "When is a3, h3, a6, or h6 a good move?" (Note: because I learned descriptive as a kid, sometimes I accidentally write down that black just played Nd2 instead of the correct Nd7)
OTOH, obviously, when we see "seeing P-B4" -- wait, was that QB4 or KB4? -- and having to reverse orientation for black is also tough. And so while the title of that article (P-R3) enploys the amiguity in a good way, during a game, it usually makes it more complicated.
Both have limitations in the following example: if you are browsing a published game (with not enough diagrams for one's comfort), and in the middle game, and see Bxf5, unless you've reached a good level of visualization, you don't know what piece the bishop just took. Conversely, if you see BxN, you have to remember where the knight was! (I once played a guy and I noticed that he was using algebraic, but upon every capture he would use both! He wrote down BxN(f5) )
So, imho, while I prefer algebraic, I do see its limitations.
I also find it hard. I admit. But it has some good things that AN are missing.
I find that there are lots of obstacles to real chess learning out there. And some traditions might need revising. Also, the technologies nowadays can handle more than one coordinate system. I was not saying go back to that. I was just challenging the argumentation. The conclusion for me, is, too late. too many people have been assimilated to that BORG. resistance is futile... That is the argument. not psychology of chess, and not needing one name for one square (there are 2 sides and 2 players).
Neither is natural then. Good topic though. Thanks for the news.
Nobody is going to adopt that Take Take Take style; at least no chess players are. I have a feeling that was just an ill-advised idea of the app developers to try to reach a broader audience of non-chess playing spectators; and yes, the app needs an option to show algebraic notation instead of that lugubrious move record.
I agree that this type of notation you write about is too longwinded, but I really like descriptive notation. Yes, I am an old-timer and it is what I learned first, but that is not why I still like it. I like it because it better tells the story of what is going on over the board. Infiltrating the 7th rank is more descriptive than dry algebraic -- from *both* sides. So, is the idea of a Knight outpost on the 6th rank.
Descriptive notation more easily paints a picture of a move in my minds-eye, so I don't think of descriptive notation as something to wrestle with... it is simply more --- descriptive of each move.
P-K4. Best by test.
I actually listened to your interview with Kevin, and I find it interesting that you preferred this way in order to create a narrative. But I guess that algebraic is my native chess language then 😄
I downloaded the app and “watched” a few games on it. I honestly thought this was just a clumsy AI providing commentary rather than a new notation system. It’s just awful.
Really hope they make some changes to it otherwise I think they will fail
Excellent piece, thanks for that.
Thank you, Brian! 🎸
Algebraic Notation can be used in FRC and Chess324, too. But English notation not...
It looks like take/take/take has algebraic squares/coordinates (g5, etc.). So this is not like moving backwards to long form notation with 2 names for every square. Am I missing something?
It's odd to leave out the classic abbreviations for pieces, castling, etc., and I don't like taking out columns for White and Black. They should have a button that lets you select classic layout next to their human + computer analysis.
Descriptive notation, best by test.
I just find it counterintuitive and lacking respect for the visuospatial abilities. Like a rite of initiation to learn before being able to communicate, and for some reason preferring the absolutism of a coordinate system with the cognitive logic of it. Which is spatial. Not just a graph of 8x8 grid points. Chess has essential core symmetries, and even the lack of lateral symmetry is informative of the very little change from symmetry. The queen instead of the kind. The rest is symmetric.
I find that the descriptive notation problem was not the more natural symmetric naming.
### Existing cognition offload friendly traditions:
The checker board diagonals don't really need to be emphasized by black and white.
those psychologically and redundant signals are there to take a load off on cognition using all our spatial innate abilities so we can play the hard chess without being saturated with such stupid cognitive load.
### only problem with descriptive in relation to visuospatial concerns:
The following of initial position location all through the game in the notation was the problem. Not the king side vs queen side awareness. And certainly not the double indexing acknowledge the 2 players' subjectivity (which implies own spatial point of viewing reference).
Why can't there be 2 labels for one square? This is indeed was I exactly find a negation of the psychological reality. The brain that does not need that kind of contortion that the origin being a spreadsheet top left or bottom-right corner imposes.
Lichess even has to make a training feature for people to warp their brain around it.. sand in the cogs. now. I would say, not to change it, because there are more important absurdities to challenge in chess culture.. and this is getting moot with more visuospatial computer tools doing the sequential noodling for us.
I don't need to look at the binary code to understand the higher level language, for example.. I delegate that to the compiler and the CPU. No need to become CPU fluent oneself (although I did do a course long ago just to taste the pain of it: assembly to emulate structured programming). Sorry.. Algebraic is counter-cognitive and counter pedagogical. It can be trained, and there are too many veterans that swear by it. That alone makes it a problem. I think culture inertia is not to be trifled with.
But I will surrender to the argument that we are stuck with it. That is enough, no need to contort one's argumentation to justify it, other than cultural inertia in which I can find other things to have revised;
The top chess neck overexertion looking up theory of learning might be more important to me. That bad chess should be learned on equal dosage as best chess, for example. RL is not just for machines (it actually comes from human psychology of learning principles... very low level...).
I like the center. nor just one of the four corners as center of a coordinate system. And descriptive was the closest to it. besides its other superfluous things.. why not use negative ranks and positive, that would keep the uniqueness, and also the symmetry coordinate system? The file might stay the same.
As they might keep the asymmetry orientation. ok. done. I did let myself loose a bit much.
It’s important to acknowledge how different systems affect players differently, but to me thinking descriptive is not at all natural
Sometimes it's natural, sometimes it isn't. While descriptive has its limitations, so does algebraic. E.g., I saw an old article that was entitled, "When is P-R3 a good move?". Now it would have to be called: "When is a3, h3, a6, or h6 a good move?" (Note: because I learned descriptive as a kid, sometimes I accidentally write down that black just played Nd2 instead of the correct Nd7)
OTOH, obviously, when we see "seeing P-B4" -- wait, was that QB4 or KB4? -- and having to reverse orientation for black is also tough. And so while the title of that article (P-R3) enploys the amiguity in a good way, during a game, it usually makes it more complicated.
Both have limitations in the following example: if you are browsing a published game (with not enough diagrams for one's comfort), and in the middle game, and see Bxf5, unless you've reached a good level of visualization, you don't know what piece the bishop just took. Conversely, if you see BxN, you have to remember where the knight was! (I once played a guy and I noticed that he was using algebraic, but upon every capture he would use both! He wrote down BxN(f5) )
So, imho, while I prefer algebraic, I do see its limitations.
I also find it hard. I admit. But it has some good things that AN are missing.
I find that there are lots of obstacles to real chess learning out there. And some traditions might need revising. Also, the technologies nowadays can handle more than one coordinate system. I was not saying go back to that. I was just challenging the argumentation. The conclusion for me, is, too late. too many people have been assimilated to that BORG. resistance is futile... That is the argument. not psychology of chess, and not needing one name for one square (there are 2 sides and 2 players).
Neither is natural then. Good topic though. Thanks for the news.
Nobody is going to adopt that Take Take Take style; at least no chess players are. I have a feeling that was just an ill-advised idea of the app developers to try to reach a broader audience of non-chess playing spectators; and yes, the app needs an option to show algebraic notation instead of that lugubrious move record.
Moving on ...