Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site trwspp2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp2!kovalsky From: kovalsky@trwspp2.UUCP Newsgroups: net.chess Subject: Re: Algebraic Notation (AN) vs. Descriptive Notation (DN) Message-ID: <149@trwspp2.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 13:06:41 EDT Article-I.D.: trwspp2.149 Posted: Mon Sep 24 13:06:41 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Sep-84 02:40:59 EDT Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach CA Lines: 27As an experienced tournanment player also, I totally agree with Bruce Cheney's comments about the advantages of AN vs. DN. I switched to AN several years ago and have not looked back. For you 'oldtimer' players who have used DN for many years, you should try learning AN. It's not very difficult to learn: all you have to do is memorize the alphabet from A to H and be able to count from 1 to 8, and that's all there is to it. You can also use boards that have the rank and file numbers and letters already on the board. It shouldn't take long to get the hang of it. I also might add that the majority of chess literature (80-90% ?) these days is being published in AN (or figurine AN) so if you don't learn it then you will be falling behind in new anaylsis published. And a final comment: lots of stronger players these days when discussing analysis verbally (post-mortem analysis, openings, etc.) typically use AN when describing certain attributes of a position. For example, comments such as 'pressure on the c-file' or 'weakness on g6'. You rarely hear these type of comments stated in DN because of its ambiguity. So all you DN traditionalists, let's hear from you! ----- Bruce Kovalsky ..sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!trwspp2!kovalsky "Bobby Fischer used Algebraic Notation."