LinearHGIYC Notation (General)
Is it just me? Or does anybody else find the move notation in HGIYC really distracting to the point of annoyance?
All the moves are given by naming the square the pawn or piece is moving from and the square it's going to. In analysis, positions or alternative lines are given in the usual alphabetic format i.e. e4 Nf6 etc. Why are the moves in the games not numbered either? Why is HGIYC not using the move notation which is most commonly used, and familiar, to all chess players?
Sorry for all the questions, but does anyone else have an opinion on this? Oops! Another question.
HGIYC Notation
by CajunDog 
, Tuesday, April 12, 2005, 07:39 (7313 days ago) @ Skoosh
? ?
? All the moves are given by naming the square the pawn or piece is moving
? from and the square it's going to. In analysis, positions or alternative
? lines are given in the usual alphabetic format i.e. e4 Nf6 etc. Why are
? the moves in the games not numbered either? Why is HGIYC not using the
? move notation which is most commonly used, and familiar, to all chess
? players?
?
? Hi Skoosh;
I totally agree with you that it is very hard to follow the game with the current way it is done. The "coordinate" way seems to be outdated and hard to follow. Then, when they go on to explain a move they change to the "algebraic" method. Very confusing..... And yes - in the "coordinate" method the moves are not numbered. I think I spend more time trying to understand what is the move than studying why the move was made.
HGIYC is my favorite part of this club, but it would be so much better for me if the more common "algebraic" method of notation was used.
thx... CajunDog
p.s. thx to Skoosh for posting this thread.......
HGIYC Notation
? ? ?
? ? All the moves are given by naming the square the pawn or piece is
? moving
? ? from and the square it's going to. In analysis, positions or
? alternative
? ? lines are given in the usual alphabetic format i.e. e4 Nf6 etc. Why are
? ? the moves in the games not numbered either? Why is HGIYC not using the
? ? move notation which is most commonly used, and familiar, to all chess
? ? players?
? ?
? ? Hi Skoosh;
? I totally agree with you that it is very hard to follow the game with the
? current way it is done. The "coordinate" way seems to be outdated and
? hard to follow. Then, when they go on to explain a move they change to
? the "algebraic" method. Very confusing..... And yes - in the "coordinate"
? method the moves are not numbered. I think I spend more time trying to
? understand what is the move than studying why the move was made.
?
? HGIYC is my favorite part of this club, but it would be so much better for
? me if the more common "algebraic" method of notation was used.
?
? thx... CajunDog
?
? p.s. thx to Skoosh for posting this thread.......
Here are my two cents. I totally agree with your point about coordinate notation. And I found another feature that makes working with this program difficult. It's the inability to move backwards. I don't always catch which piece moved after I hit the "Next" button, so I have to follow the chess-awkward coordinate notation to determine that. Then, the inability to step into variations discussed in the annotation also makes using this program cumbersome. What I have to do is set up a board on the side so I can follow along with the annotation. When I do that, I'm doing what I used to do when I studied chess from books. So how is using this program an improvement?
What I don't understand is why the powers that be on this site decided to reinvent the wheel by developing this software. I'm sure there are programs out there that do what this program is supposed to do. And even if you have a good reason to develop your own software, why not design it to have the features that make other chess playing programs successful?
Stan
HGIYC Notation
? What I don't understand is why the powers that be on this site decided to
? reinvent the wheel by developing this software. I'm sure there are
? programs out there that do what this program is supposed to do. And even
? if you have a good reason to develop your own software, why not design it
? to have the features that make other chess playing programs successful?
?
? Stan
I think this program is quite unik in its way of working. From a file you can instruct the program to go forward/backwards etc. and ask quiz. Only Chessmaster have something similar but in it you have no free guesses but get a list of moves to select from. I like the approx of free guesses like in this hgiyc program better. And of course any method is better than the old one with covering the book with a piece of paper.
It isn't more than 4-5 years ago since long algebraic notation was very common so I don't think many people have problem with it. But maybe it could help to have separated the comment and the movelist, and only showing the actual comment for current position. Then they also could add a feature to go over the game after you are finish with the quiz.
My belive is that it is better to play out the moves on a normal chessboard in addition to the program. Not because you think better then (it should be the same), but you get in a mood like playing a real game. At least for me, I move/play a lot faster on the pc screen, maybe too much blitzing on ICC and against computers. So to get into a mood where every move counts, I need a real board.
There is of course bugs in all new software so if you find any you should describe a way to repeat the bug and send in a bug report. It will help us all.
