Algebraic notation is my type.

That is quite sad since it isn't that hard to learn and there is a whole treasure trove of out of print classics - e.g. the 1970s books published by Batsford by Keene, Bronstein, etc, etc - which can be bought quite cheaply from specialist second hand book shops.

That is quite sad since it isn't that hard to learn and there is a whole treasure trove of out of print classics - e.g. the 1970s books published by Batsford by Keene, Bronstein, etc, etc - which can be bought quite cheaply from specialist second hand book shops.>

Exactly. As I mentioned above, the majority of the books in my chess library are in descriptive notation. Not knowing that system would mean not being able to read those books. Pity the younger players miss out.

<I grew up reading and using descriptive and only gave it up when FIDE made a rule against it with re. to keeping score.>

<Exactly. As I mentioned above, the majority of the books in my chess library are in descriptive notation. Not knowing that system would mean not being able to read those books. Pity the younger players miss out.>

One of the first books I read as a kid was Batsford's "200 Open Games" by David Bronstein. I loved that book and am rather amazed it has only ever been reprinted, years ago, by the Dover publishing house (and in descriptive, too).

That book is perhaps the only thing I have in common with Garry Kasparov. It was one of his first chess books too and he loves it to this day.

...

<One of the first books I read as a kid was Batsford's "200 Open Games" by David Bronstein. I loved that book and am rather amazed it has only ever been reprinted, years ago, by the Dover publishing house (and in descriptive, too).>

Now, concerning Descriptive Notation, let us not forget that Fischer used it all the time and that many very good books were written in it.>

Rest assured, <gars>, that not only have I not forgotten those things for one minute, but in fact, as I have said elsewhere (so much so, in fact, that I'm starting to lose track of just where), descriptive is how I learned it, and it's still my "native tongue" (so to speak) in chess, algebraic being analogous to a second language for me.

Thus, for example, in reading the first three moves of this game, which form the Alekhine Defense, Modern Variation, even though the score says "1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6," in my mind I am thinking, "1. P-K4, N-KB3; 2. P-K5, N-Q4; 3. P-Q4, P-Q3."

in the grand old spirit of one-upmanship, I have the Batsford edition. :P

1) P4R P4R
2) C3BR P3D
3) P4D PxP
4) CxP C3BR
5) C3BD P3TD and I have never been able to think about it any other way.

Funny, I just happen to have a copy of issue 6 of *Informator* myself. (I wonder why I've never seen anybody who has a copy of number 1; limited press run, perhaps?) As for Keres' games, I have an Arco Books paperback that incorporates all three volumes into one book, said book being entitled *Grandmaster of Chess: The Complete Games of Paul Keres*, edited by Harry Golombek. I also have a copy of the Dover reprint of *Paul Keres' Best Games of Chess, 1931-1948, edited by Fred Reinfeld.

<gars: <Infohunter>: My mother chess language is "Descriptive Portuguese"...>

Congratulations! You are the first person I have known to own a copy of number 1.

<I swear I find stuff faster with the books than kids armed with Chessbase.>

In the 1990s, there were two stores in Montreal where Informators could be had. Specialiste d'Echecs is long gone, but I don't know about Larry Bevand's place-haven't been to Montreal in a number of years. Always enjoyed visiting the city though.>