Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site lanl-a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg
From: jlg@lanl-a.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.chess
Subject: Game 4 (error)  -  AN better?
Message-ID: <14002@lanl-a.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Sep-84 13:34:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl-a.14002
Posted: Fri Sep 28 13:34:39 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Sep-84 03:44:33 EDT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 32

>Opening:
>White:          Anatoly Karpov
>Black:          Garri Kasparov
>
>1       P-Q4    N-KB3
>2       P-QB4   P-K3
>3       N-KB3   P-QN3
>4       P-KN3   B-R3
>5       P-N3    P-N5 ch <----  B-N5 ch
>6       B-Q2    B-K2
>
>It was printed wrong in our paper too.  I guess this strengthens the stand
>of algebraic - RATS.


Not at all!  The two moves in question are:

   descriptive          algebraic

5 ... P-N5 ch   vs.  5 ... b4 ch
or
5 ... B-N5 ch   vs.  5 ... Bb4 ch


In both cases, the first move is clearly illegal.  In descriptive notation
the typographical error was a character substitution, in algebraic notation
the same bad move could have been printed because of a dropped character.
I don't think that any case can be made that algebraic is any more error-
tolerant than descriptive - neither has much built-in redundancy.  Both are
ambiguous in similar ways too (if two pieces of the same type can move to
the same square for example).  As far as I am concerned, the main difference
is commonality of usage and what you're familiar with.