19 Nov 10
Originally posted by KneeCapsI haven't been able to find such a rule; I doubt that it exists. (But if you can tell me the rule number, I'll look it up.)
Going off memory here, but I think USCF rules also state that if you do use descriptive notation then you cannot use your score sheet as evidence if some sort of dispute should arise about an illegal move or something.
You might be thinking of Rule 13C7, which requires a reasonably complete scoresheet. But that has to do with recording all or most of the moves, not which notation system is used.
Other situations in which you might not be able to make claims would be if you are excused from keeping score, or if you stop keeping score in time trouble.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by TomBarristerWhich also means, IME, that replaying games written in English notation is a rotten job. I keep confusing the two meanings. It's probably somewhat swifter to use if writing down your moves is all you ever intend to do, but if you want to replay the game later, you either have to have two people there, keep walking around the board yourself, or pay more attention to the notation than to the game. It's like the Imperial measurement system: it all sounds very natural and reasonable, but in practice it simply proves to be inferior to a more logical system.
The main advantage of Algebraic is that each square has only one name, whereas each square has two names in English Descriptive: one each for White and Black.
Richard
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by greenpawn34"The square c6 is weak."
I along with all my generation started out with descriptive and am happy
playing over games in either format.
However writing about the game is far easy in algebraic and from
a printing point of view it is less expensive.
Example.
A Ruy Lopez.
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bb5
Less than 10 seconds.
1. P-K4 P-K4
2. N-KB3 N-QB3
3. B-QN5
...[text shortened]... algebraic though I know
players who still record in descriptive and have not been puled up.
Xc6
I prefer the Chess Informant system, as it is far more compact.
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by Mad RookI was mistaken. It's actually in the FIDE rules.
I haven't been able to find such a rule; I doubt that it exists. (But if you can tell me the rule number, I'll look it up.)
You might be thinking of Rule 13C7, which requires a reasonably complete scoresheet. But that has to do with recording all or most of the moves, not which notation system is used.
Other situations in which you might not be able t ...[text shortened]... would be if you are excused from keeping score, or if you stop keeping score in time trouble.
Appendix C
"Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose."
20 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by EinZweiDreiBrings up another question that's always in the back of my mind...who gets to add those symbols to notation? I always had just assumed whoever annotated the game added them.
Do you have a link to a comprehensive list of Informant symbols?
Wikipedia only has the standard !'s, ?'s, +'s, and -'s, plus a couple others. The X isn't there, and it's new to me. I'd be excited to know more shorthand.
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by ketchuploverComputer notation is notation made by computers. 😛
What's computer notation? tia
The USCF rule book doesn't go into a lot of detail on computer notation, but the example given is the same as "Coordinate notation" given in this Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_notation
Oddly enough, the USCF rule book doesn't mention exactly how promotions would be handled in computer notation. I guess the rules committee figures that the computer knows how to handle promotion notations. One gets the impression that computer notation wasn't high on their priority list. (Probably justifiably so.)