HGIYC Notation (General)

by stanr, Wednesday, April 13, 2005, 10:06 (7312 days ago) @ CajunDog

? ? ?
? ? 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 The "coordinate" way seems to be outdated and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