The Maverick Philosopher provides a discussion on Algebraic Versus Descriptive Chess Notation. Just a few points I would add:
- Other than pawn moves, most players typically use symbols to represent the pieces, e.g. KQRBN in English. Without these designations, I think you would have to use "full" algebraic, e.g. 1.g1-f3 instead of 1.Nf3, to avoid ambiguity.
- Where two rooks can move to d8, Ra8d8 is certainly clear but Rad8 is more compact and just as accurate. There is another variation on this, e.g. Rooks on d8 and d5 could lead to a move like R5d7.
- While "x" is the universal symbol for a capture in descriptive notation, in algebraic ":" is also used. However, no capture symbol is actually necessary as there is no practical difference in meaning between N:e5 and Ne5. In either case the knight now resides on the e5 square and the opponent's piece that was there (if any) is obviously there no longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment