Talk:Descriptive notation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:09, 24 April 2010

Latest revision as of 18:28, 31 January 2024

(24 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Chess-WikiProject banner shell|class=C|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Chess|importance=Mid}}

}}

==needs improvement==

I think this article needs to be improved. --[[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] 03:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Line 20 ⟶ 21:

Just A little Addition For the Naming The Pieces Table

Icelandic For "Checkmate" is "Skák og mát [[User:Aevarr|Aevarr]] 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Japanese Chess names ==

There must be an error. The Japanese names are exactly as the English names, just written in Katakana. In other words, they are just a transcription of English words using their own symbols. It would be sad that the Japanese nouns are in the process of becoming nothing but English written using their own characters.

:Why should it be otherwise? The Western chess pieces are not native to Japan. The Western king, rook, and bishop do exist in [[shogi]], but naturally have different names. The Western queen and knight also appear in some native Japanese [[shogi variant]]s, but again have different names. The Western pawn does not appear in any Japanese shogi variant. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 05:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

== rearrangement ==

Line 54 ⟶ 55:

:::It was indeed expected that a check would always be flagged in the descriptive notation. I was just commenting on the fact that some annotators felt that the presence or absence of the check symbol was sufficient to disambiguate similar-looking moves, while others didn't. Someone reading an old game collection might be confused if not .aware of this. [[User:WHPratt|WHPratt]] ([[User talk:WHPratt|talk]]) 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

:::One more thing: as decisions regarding the rules of chess are usually eminently logical (I attribute thisnthis to this excellent taste of the people involved), I'm surprised that a potentially-ambiguous as move will be recorded as, i.e., "KPxP". It seems to me that "PxBP" is much better due to the fact that a capturing pawn ''always'' changes its identity. The KP was a KP when the move started, but it was ''itself'' a BP when the move ended. The enemy BP, however, lived and died a BP. I'd therefore recommend "PxBP" (or "PxQBP" or "PxKBP" if necessary) as preferable to "KPxP" -- the file of the ''captured'' pawn should prevail. I'm being picky, but logical. [[User:WHPratt|WHPratt]] ([[User talk:WHPratt|talk]]) 03:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

:::: I disagree a little with that. The notation 9algebraic and descriptive) is "from - to". It is "from" a KP. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|^{(You talkin' to me?)}]], 03:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

One other use that might startle someone who reviews old chess literature may be when a rook who's all alone on his back rank moves "R-R1". As he cannot move to the R1 square upon which he now stands, he must be moving to the ''other'' R1, so it's unambiguous on a technicality. Indeed, the next move could indeed be "R-R1" again, if he's reacting to a new threat, or perhaps just wasting time. In some very old forms, the "1" square goes unnumbered, so one might see just "R-R". [[User:WHPratt|WHPratt]] ([[User talk:WHPratt|talk]]) 14:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is quite interesting, considering that check is generally considered insufficient to disambiguate the move in AN... [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 18:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

==Hindi/Urdu==

According to this page, the Hindi for Rook is "hāthī" and the Urdu for Bishop is "Haathi". Is it really correct that two languages that are so close use the same name for different pieces? 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 [[User:Oxyphenbutazone|Ⓤ]][[User_talk:Oxyphenbutazone|Ⓣ]] 00:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

:Good point. The Urdu may be wrong. It was added recently by an anonymous editor to the [[chess piece]] article in an edit that broke the templated table we use. I moved that edit to [[Template:chess names]], but that may have been a mistake since I haven't verified the accuracy of the Urdu addition. [[User:Quale|Quale]] ([[User talk:Quale|talk]]) 04:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

==About the use in the Americas==

It was written that this notation was common in '''America''' and I replaced the term for '''United States''', avoiding the ambiguity of the word that also describes the whole '''Continent of America'''. I believe that America was used meaning USA by the the autor of the sentence, but I can not say it is sure that he didn't mean it was also common in several of the American countries. As far as I searched, this information would not be correct. If, anyway, somebody has reliable sources that this notation was common in other countries of the continent I believe it would be better to mention the countries. [[Special:Contributions/201.58.141.30|201.58.141.30]] ([[User talk:201.58.141.30|talk]]) 05:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

: That may be OK, but I'm not sure, because [[:File:Planilha_Eisenberg_e_Capablanca_.jpg]] is in DN by the Cuban Capablanca. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ^{[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]}

:: On second thought, that might not be by Capablanca because the writing is in English. Capa's opponent was born in the Ukraine but became a US citizen.) [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ^{[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]} 06:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

::: I think I have seen descriptive notation in Spanish though. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ^{[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]} 06:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:::: AFAIK English and Spanish are the only two languages in which descriptive notation was commonly used in modern times. That can probably be sourced reliably. [[User:Quale|Quale]] ([[User talk:Quale|talk]]) 02:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

::::: I have one - I'll do it later. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ^{[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]} 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

::::: Well, it has some mention of other countries, but I don't know what was used in South America, Central America, etc. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ^{[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]} 05:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

== Chess Life use of DN ==

Does anyone know when [[Chess Life]] stopped using DN? I know they phased it out over several years, probably late 1970s - 1980s. They were probably the last major publication to use DN. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ^{[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]} 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:I was just looking at some old issues, and I can state that as late as December 1975, the magazine ''Chess Life & Review'' was still using descriptive notation exclusively. They did have a box in every issue explaining algebraic notation and encouraging its use, however. Beyond that, I recall that Larry Evans' monthly column was the last holdout: he continued to discuss submissions in whatever form the reader happened to send. (Evans himself argued for algebraic as being unambiguous and universal whenever someone asked.) [[User:WHPratt|WHPratt]] ([[User talk:WHPratt|talk]]) 14:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

== Continued use in some symmetrical contexts ==

Annoyingly I cannot remember where I've seen this, but I think I've still seen DN used in specially symmetrical contexts even when AN is used in the rest of the work. It's like the implicit use of DN in phrases like "rook on the seventh" (which in AN is the second rank if Black's doing it). One might then speak of the weakness at KB2 instead of that at f2/f7, or perhaps PxP listed in variations when it doesn't matter which pawn is doing the taking. Or perhaps in the ultimate sentence justifying the use of DN in such a scenario: "A fianchetto consists of the moves P-N3 and B-N2". Can anyone corroborate this hazy memory, though? [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 18:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

:You often see things like this as English language descriptions rather than formal Descriptive Notation, like your "rook on the seventh" example, or generic references to "rook's pawn" or "knight's pawn". Sometimes it makes for more elegant English. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 02:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)