Algebraic chess notation sucks

When I first learned how to read chess books as a kid in the 1970s, descriptive notation is what was used. But now, everything is written in the much uglier and harder to follow algebraic notation.

The beauty of “1. P-K4 P-K4” has been replaced by the ugliness of “1. e4 e5” The former clearly tells us that both white and black are moving their king pawn to the fourth rank. The latter tells us absolutely nothing unless you memorize the location of “e4” and “e5” on the chessboard. The really confusing part about algebraic is that if you’re looking at the board from black’s perspective, everything is upside-down.

“Pawn to king four” has a poetic sound to it that “ee four” will never come close to.

The US Chess Federation forced algebraic on us in the 1970s, which happens to coincide with the time that certain powers also tried to get us to adopt the metric system. The average American had the common sense to realize there was no good reason to switch from miles to kilometers. But the typical chess player, geekier than the average American and thus lacking in common sense, was easily brainwashed into thinking that algebraic was more scientific, and that if Europeans were doing it then it had to be good for Americans.

All the arguments given for algebraic seem bogus.

1. Europeans were using it. Who care? Why didn’t Europeans adopt our system instead?

2. Less ambiguous. Algebraic is only unambiguous in the long form (as in “Ng1-f3”). Once you convert that to short form (“Nf3”) as commonly used in books, it’s just as ambiguous. There could be two knights able to move to f3.

3. Easier to learn. Huh? Algebraic makes you memorize the coordinates of the board from both a white perspective and an upside-down black perspective. How exactly is that easy? In contrast, you already have to know which pieces start on which files in order to play the game, so descriptive notation requires no additional memorization at all.

4. Takes up less space in books. Only true if you use short form algebraic, and you don’t save that much space. Is this, by itself, really a good enough reason for the switch?

It’s sad that classic chess books have been rewritten in ugly algebraic notation, and the old versions are on longer in print.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

From reading the comments, it seems that criticizing algebraic notation is the most horrible thing I've ever written.

SECOND RESPONSE

If you pulled a random group of 100 people off the street, how many people would know the difference between algebraic and descriptive notation? One? Five?

Yet it seems like a substantial percentage of readers of this blog are actually familiar with this debate.

Comments

[GuessWho]

Why is everything always black and white with you!

[Vishy Anand]

Or you could just play enough chess to internalize the 8x8 grid lettering and number scheme (which is more rational and efficient than descriptive notation), so that it becomes second nature to use and you can easily visualize something like: e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Bb4 etc...

For someone with a genius+ IQ, surely this task won't unduly tax you; 8 year olds taking up chess can master the notation in a couple weeks.

P.S. With regard to point 2, if there is more than one piece able to move to a square, the notation handles that by adding the unique identifier, Such as Ndf3.

[GreySwan]

I have to disagree with you analysis. Just because you are more used to a specific notation it does not mean that that notation is any better.

Also, Algebraic notation is never ambiguous; if two knights can move to g3, then you would write 'Nfg3' which specifies the knight on the f file goes to g3. On the other hand, descriptive notation is subjective to the point of view to the player.

How come it suddenly got all Asperger-ry in here?

[keypusher]

I am old enough to have learned chess via descriptive notation, but I far prefer algebraic now. I found it easier to play chess without a board (not that it will ever be easy for me) once I knew it, probably because (i) algebraic tells you the square on which a piece is taken rather than identifying the piece itself (e.g. Bxc6 rather than BxN, which makes remembering where the capturing piece winds up simple) and (ii) algebraic assigns a single designation to each square on the board. If I see Bb7 I know exactly where the bishop has gone; if I see B-N2 there are four possibilities.

I also find algebraic more attractive, probably because descriptive reminds me of someone "shouting" on a message board (1. P-K4 P-K4 2. N-KB3 N-QB3 3. B-B4 B-B4 4. P-QN4 BxNP versus 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4). Each to his own.

[JewishAtheist]

I also first learned with descriptive and much prefer algebraic now. The thing is that anybody who takes chess at all seriously internalizes the board pretty early on and it's much easier to talk about the f2 square than it is to say "white's king's bishop 2." It's also simpler to talk about the h file than the white king's rook's file. Finally, chess diagrams are always presented from White's point of view so it's easier to always talk and think about the board from that side. And as greyswan pointed out, there is zero ambiguity in algebraic notation.

[Patzer]

There's a reason why no serious chess player prefers Descriptive to Algebraic. If Black and White are vying for control of square e5, it makes sense in analysis to have a single way to refer to that square, a way that does not depend on one's frame of reference as Black or White.

Furthermore, there is little advantage to thinking of a file in terms of the piece that starts on it, especially once the opening is over.

[SFG]

Actually, the metric system makes a lot of sense in the scientific world, and it certainly is easier to learn. The chess notation, eh.

[DML]

I too prefer the descriptive notation because there's less stuff to load into my head. There's an extra degree of indirection with the algebraic notation. This is where the ambiguity comes from.

I used to play chess competitively (just fun tournaments, not trying to be a grandmaster like some kids), and the notation differences was our version of the Israel/Palestine conflict. One is really not better than the other, though I suspect it makes a lot of people feel smarter when they use the algebraic notation.

[SFG]

If you pulled a group of 100 people off the street, how many of them read this blog? How many of them are willing to admit the possibility of racial differences in IQ? How many of them enjoy arguing about this stuff?

You're not average, and neither are your readers. For better or worse.

[tommy]

Yet it seems like a substantial percentage of readers of this blog are actually familiar with this debate.

I was going to jump in this debate, but now I think I'll stay out. ;-)

[Douglas Knight]

P-B3 is ambiguous and P-KB3 is longer.
Not that it's important.

It makes as much sense to say that descriptive forces you to memorize an upside-down board as to say it of algebraic. I will grant, though, that descriptive is easier to learn.

The issue with the Europeans is, of course, that they didn't all speak English!

From reading the comments, it seems that criticizing algebraic notation is the most horrible thing I've ever written.

If that's the worst thing you've ever written, you're not doing too bad, right?

The issue with the Europeans is, of course, that they didn't all speak English!

Exactly. Another nice thing about algebraic (figurine algebraic, anyway) that it's instantly legible to any chessplayer anywhere in the world who has taken a few minutes to learn it.

It's amazing how universal algebraic is. I have a few old Soviet chess books and they use the roman alphabet for square designations (e.g. a8, e4, d5, etc.), though of course they use Cyrillic letters for their piece abbreviations.

[Nick]

In addition to the points made above, try reading a book on the endgame written in descriptive notation. It's far simpler and less confusing in algebraic.

[PhoenicianTalgar]

"Why is everything always black and white with you!"

In chess you can either be Black or White...

[brazil84]

By analogy, most chess players are scientists.

i.e. Just as scientists generally use the metric system, people who play enough chess that they need to read and write about moves use algebraic notation.

Personally, I'm pretty hostile to the metric system -- for everyday use. But in science, I think it's pretty useful.

[Half Sigma]

The metric system is obviously useful in science applications, where it's used anyway.

The issue was whether we needed to describe the length of a football field in meters, and the distance from NY to San Fran in kilometers. The answer to that is big NO.

I agree with Vishy Anand, if you dont have the visual sense for algebraic notation to be helpful, then that is the issue- not the type of notation being used.

All of the lines of force and constraints should make sense to you even without seeing the board. I was only an expert but I could still play a blind game.

I'd suggest you work through the visualization exercises in Rapid Chess Improvement . In a month I dont think this will be an big deal.

I remember years ago in grade school, there was a big push to get the US to use the metric system because "everyone else uses it," "the US will suffer economically if it isn't adopted" and so on. Somehow using the old system was "bad." I can't help but think it was some kind of liberal/leftist scheme. Since it was public school, it probably was.

[The Ghost of David Alexander]

The average American had the common sense to realize there was no good reason to switch from miles to kilometers

Just to spite you, any measurements that I refer to in this blog will be done in SI units...

[BJ and The Bear]

In time, you'll change your mind. I first picked up chess using older books in descriptive. Once I got accustomed to algebraic, you couldn't pay me to go back.

[BJ and The Bear]

Oh, and if you ever play in live tournaments and have to keep your scores, you'll appreciate it too.

[eponymous_coward]

Come on, Algebraic is more compact, and it's more rhythmic in your mind when you go over the moves. 'e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cd Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6...'

Patzers should stick to things they know about, dude.

[anonymous]

Algebraic notation takes up less space, is more efficient, and is less confusing. When using algebraic notation, a square from whites perspective is the same square from blacks perspective. in algebraic notation, the square e4 from whites point of view is...guess what? it's also e4 from blacks point of view. In descriptive notation, however, the square is k4 from whites point of view, but k5 from blacks point of view. tell me THAT isn't confusing.

You just can't handle new things, that's all.