Ingo_Zachos wrote:Sorry Michael that my reply is very late,
Those by John Nunn are always good, but all of them can not be dangerous, just try to solve the diagrams with a board first, and later without a board "from the sheet" In chess, visualization is as aimportant then in checkers, but it is more based on seeing more then seeing deeper.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:I am sorry Sune,
but you are completely wrong,
In correct notation both the squares the piece came from and the square it moved to is recorded, just like in checkers/draughts.
However, just like some in checkers only give "X" (without square numbers) to indicate that the compulsary capture was made (big sigh, as some use it even if there are choices how to take!!), some use a "short" notation, and leave the square they came from out, but that is not the correct, long, way of recording the move.
In books and magazines, for space purpose, short notation, is extensively used, but that does not mean that correct ("long") notation does not include both squares.
Maybe we should start a discussion about a notation standard required in books and on score sheets for our game, what do you think?
liam stephens wrote:The old Chess notation was quite easy to follow:
like: P-QR4 Pawn to Queen's Rook 4
P-KR4 Pawn to Kings Rook 4
(could it be a two move restriction in Chess )
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests