DESCRIPTIVE NOTATION; A LOST ENDGAME?

Llandudno Chess Club | home

DESCRIPTIVE NOTATION; A LOST ENDGAME?

by H.T.Dearden

In an article by Mike Cuggy, in CHESS Vol 66, No.9, (The continuing, painful journey from `Adverse King's Rook's third' to `h6'), the protagonists `Algy' and `Des' reviewed the arguments against the English or descriptive system of notation in favour of the algebraic. In truth `Des' did not trouble to offer any defence, and I am moved to intercede on his behalf :

The particular virtue of the descriptive system (also known as Anglo-Iberian or Anglo-American) is that the naming of squares is consistent (not constant!) whichever colour you play e.g., if you advance your pawn 2 squares it lands on a square called `4' whether you are black or white. In some respects this renders the correspondence between opening manoeuvres more immediately apparent and it may be claimed that it is altogether a more intuitive approach: A fianchetto bishop always sits on knight 2, knights are most effectively posted on bishop 3.

The system is criticised for having two frames of reference, but it is this feature that makes it more intuitive, since we actually play the game from two different perspectives. With the descriptive system, advancing men always have increasing square reference numbers. With the algebraic system, we are obliged to subtract as black's men advance. If absolute rather than relative references are so marvellous, why do we continue to number moves as we do? Black's `first' move may be said to be the second `absolute' move of the game; it is only the first move from black's perspective. Very simply, with absolute numbering, all black's moves have even numbers.

For many, the descriptive system seems somehow to chime better with the human psyche and the fact that when we play over the board, we play physically opposite one another. I suspect this is why it evolved in the first place, rather like the imperial system of measurement, for which many still retain an affection, despite the undeniable practicalities of the metric system. (Some are still going metric `inch by inch'!) If the game had originated in the computer age, with moves executed on a screen diagram, perhaps the `two perspectives' approach would have been less likely to evolve.

That said however, given the practical considerations in favour of the algebraic system (unique square names, economy in expression, universal adoption in modern publishing), it looks like the descriptive system is facing a lost endgame. It is in fact a FIDE law that game scores be completed with algebraic notation.

Familiarity with both systems is a requirement for any serious chess enthusiast, since it allows reference to the classic texts of the past and it will forever remain a noble part of chess history. The most hazardous aspect of switching between the systems is the potential confusion between the b file and the queen's bishop file. B3 and b3 are not the same!

Beyond the merely practical, there are the aesthetic considerations. There is a romance associated with the descriptive approach which is absent with the rather soulless, `cold', unambiguous algebraic. This romance helps sustain the drama in the narrative of a game. It also helps in the promotion of the game to the wider public; there is a mystique, a `resonance' associated with `Bishop to Queen's Knight four' which is entirely absent from `Bishop b4'.

Perhaps the endgame is not lost; we still refer to the King's pawn game and Queen's pawn game rather than the `e game' and `d game'. We still have the King's side and the Queen's side. We still refer to the King's knight, the Queen's rook, rather than the `g knight' or the `a rook'. We speak of the inadvisability of advancing rook's pawns prematurely. We speak of back rank mates, not of mate on ranks 1 and 8.

Perhaps the adjudication is for an honourable draw after all?


	Llandudno Chess Club \| home WHY PLAY CHESS? \| MANHANDLING; \| BOARD MEETINGS \| ACHIEVEMENT SCORING; \| DESCRIPTIVE NOTATION; A LOST ENDGAME? \| THE CHESS UNIVERSE PART 1 \| THE CHESS UNIVERSE PART 2 \| CHESS COMBAT \| THE REAL MATRIX DESCRIPTIVE NOTATION; A LOST ENDGAME? by H.T.Dearden In an article by Mike Cuggy, in CHESS Vol 66, No.9, (The continuing, painful journey from `Adverse King's Rook's third' to `h6'), the protagonists `Algy' and `Des' reviewed the arguments against the English or descriptive system of notation in favour of the algebraic. In truth `Des' did not trouble to offer any defence, and I am moved to intercede on his behalf : The particular virtue of the descriptive system (also known as Anglo-Iberian or Anglo-American) is that the naming of squares is consistent (not constant!) whichever colour you play e.g., if you advance your pawn 2 squares it lands on a square called `4' whether you are black or white. In some respects this renders the correspondence between opening manoeuvres more immediately apparent and it may be claimed that it is altogether a more intuitive approach: A fianchetto bishop always sits on knight 2, knights are most effectively posted on bishop 3. The system is criticised for having two frames of reference, but it is this feature that makes it more intuitive, since we actually play the game from two different perspectives. With the descriptive system, advancing men always have increasing square reference numbers. With the algebraic system, we are obliged to subtract as black's men advance. If absolute rather than relative references are so marvellous, why do we continue to number moves as we do? Black's `first' move may be said to be the second `absolute' move of the game; it is only the first move from black's perspective. Very simply, with absolute numbering, all black's moves have even numbers. For many, the descriptive system seems somehow to chime better with the human psyche and the fact that when we play over the board, we play physically opposite one another. I suspect this is why it evolved in the first place, rather like the imperial system of measurement, for which many still retain an affection, despite the undeniable practicalities of the metric system. (Some are still going metric `inch by inch'!) If the game had originated in the computer age, with moves executed on a screen diagram, perhaps the `two perspectives' approach would have been less likely to evolve. That said however, given the practical considerations in favour of the algebraic system (unique square names, economy in expression, universal adoption in modern publishing), it looks like the descriptive system is facing a lost endgame. It is in fact a FIDE law that game scores be completed with algebraic notation. Familiarity with both systems is a requirement for any serious chess enthusiast, since it allows reference to the classic texts of the past and it will forever remain a noble part of chess history. The most hazardous aspect of switching between the systems is the potential confusion between the b file and the queen's bishop file. B3 and b3 are not the same! Beyond the merely practical, there are the aesthetic considerations. There is a romance associated with the descriptive approach which is absent with the rather soulless, `cold', unambiguous algebraic. This romance helps sustain the drama in the narrative of a game. It also helps in the promotion of the game to the wider public; there is a mystique, a `resonance' associated with `Bishop to Queen's Knight four' which is entirely absent from `Bishop b4'. Perhaps the endgame is not lost; we still refer to the King's pawn game and Queen's pawn game rather than the `e game' and `d game'. We still have the King's side and the Queen's side. We still refer to the King's knight, the Queen's rook, rather than the `g knight' or the `a rook'. We speak of the inadvisability of advancing rook's pawns prematurely. We speak of back rank mates, not of mate on ranks 1 and 8. Perhaps the adjudication is for an honourable draw after all?