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: 27



As 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."