🚀 go-pugleaf

> This "other" notation is called "inferior."

I know that this subject was beaten to death a while ago, but I can't remember.

Why is descriptive notation 'inferior'?  Seems to me that any notation
that accurately describes the moves is pretty much equal to any other
notation.  Perhaps it can be argued that it is possible to carelessly
just record 'BxP' when two such moves are possible, but that just
means that one has to be careful (and in some cases, like Nbd2, algebraic
could fall into the same type of carelessness with just Nd2).

Personally, I like descriptive notation, for two reasons:  First, it
seems somehow to to be easier to understand without a board in front of
me; BxBP is easier to understand than B:c4 when I might not remember
what piece is sitting on c4.  Second (and more important), algebraic
notation is biased toward white.  When playing through a game, sometimes
I like to sit with white by me, and sometimes black.  However, it is
much easier for people with tiny little minds like mine to say the
alphabet forward (left to right), so I usually just play as white if
the game is in algebraic.

Seems to me like the ideal notational method to avoid ambiguity is
moves of the form e2e4, giving just starting and destination squares.

What I really can't understand is how people are so religious about it,
that they fanatically attack one notational method and defend another.
I mean, how important is it?

BTW (just to be fanatical and attack a notational method), I really get
a chuckle out of the "official" 'figurine algebraic' notation, with little
pictures, to lessen confusion, I guess.  What a farce.

derek
-- 
Derek Zahn @ wisconsin
...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek
derek@wisc-rsch.arpa