Hello and welcome to this week’s edition of The Chess Doctor Is In. As usual I’ll be answering all of your chess related questions. Send them in to grayson@grandmaster2b.com.
Without further delay, let’s get to this week’s question, coming again from an anonymous email submission:
Dear Chess Doctor:
I have a problem related to chess notation. As is usual, I grew up reading and writing in algebraic notation. It’s all I’ve ever known and needed to know.
But this past Christmas my friend gifted me an older chess book. When I cracked it open to begin I couldn’t understand a thing! It had move notations such as 1. P-K4. I don’t want to not read it and disappoint my friend, but I also have no idea what that means!
Thanks for the help!
Interesting question! From what I know the move notation type you are describing is called Descriptive Notation. Indeed algebraic is simpler, but knowing descriptive is a useful skill to have. I’ll first describe how it works and give some reasons why you should even bother.
In descriptive notation the board is essentially split into two quadrants: the king’s side (in algebraic notation, the e-h files), and the queen’s side (a-d files). Numbers are also added by rank. So, a1 would be Queen’s rook 1, b2 would be Queen’s knight 2, c3 would Queen’s bishop 3, etc.
One other note for descriptive notation is that it does not work the same every move. For each side it is different. With white, for instance, King 1 would be e1 in algebraic, while with black King 1 would be e8. So, you have to adjust for the different sides for each move.
Undoubtedly this is more complicated than algebraic but it can be useful to learn. So, the example you give, 1. P-K4, is easy enough to work out. White’s square King 4 is the equivalent of e4. So, white’s first move is pawn to e4! And if black responds in kind, 1… PK4, we now know that this pawn did not magically move on top of white’s pawn. It went to black’s King 4, or e5.
There are various forms of descriptive notation. It is also useful to know what happens if more than one piece can move to a square. In the version that I first learned, if, let’s say white rooks on a1 and f1 can both move to d1, it would be specified accordingly. So, if the rook on a1 moved to d1, that would be written as QR-Q1. So, the Queen’s rook moved to Q1 (or d1). And if the rook on f1 moved to d1 it would be KR-Q1. In this version it doesn’t matter where the rooks started, but where they are at the time of movement.
To make matters more complicated, I have also come across other versions of descriptive notation too. For instance, let’s say a rook started out on h1 but somehow got to a1 and then moved to d1. If the rook that started out on a1 can also get there (let’s say via f1), then if the rook on a1 (that was originally on h1) moves to d1 it would be written as KR-Q1. In this version it is not dependent on which sector the rook is currently on, but which sector it started on, which can get confusing at times.
For one other version of this, recall the scenario above, with rooks on a1 and f1. In older versions of descriptive, the move will often state both where the rook is going and where it came from, e.g. R(B1)-Q1.
A few more small notes. Often in descriptive, castling is written (instead of 0-0 or 0-0-0) as simply “Castles”. Also, check is not “+” but “ch” (e.g. 3.B-Kt5 ch). Additionally, En Passant is written as “e.p.”.
Finally, I have recently read a book that contains an interesting variation. Consider a position with a white bishop on e2 (or K2) that can move to d1 (or Q1). If the bishop does indeed move to Q1 it may not be written as BQ1 but instead simply BQ! Of course, the reason is that the bishop landed on the square that the queen started on. This is possible for every file, e.g. a1 becomes R as does h1, b1 becomes N as does g1, etc.
Now, again, descriptive is a little complicated but I hope my description (pardon the pun) will help you figure it out. Having said this, there is a very good question in the air: Why even bother to learn descriptive notation if it takes so much effort? All books these days are in algebraic anyway.
Indeed, why bother? Well, any book made before, say, 1980 or so is almost certainly going to be in some form of descriptive notation. While many older books have reprints in the algebraic form, there are some excellent books that just happen to be out of print that feature descriptive notation. If you happen to stumble upon one of these gems, you will be very grateful you know descriptive notation.
Descriptive opens up a whole new wealth of chess knowledge that many are unable to access due to the limitation of only learning algebraic notation. I can tell you for a fact that at least half of my chess library is made up of very good books that happen to be in descriptive notation. Right from the start I was more or less forced to learn it, and I suggest you do too.
While it may seem a great effort is needed to learn descriptive notation, in reality it takes at most an hour and then some practice going over some games. After that it is more or less a life skill, like riding a bicycle, that you will be very grateful you have.
I hope my answer was informative! Once again, if you have a question of any type you can email me here or just click the button below. Goodbye until next time!
0 Comments