Is this another prank by <Sally>, now abetted by <HTW>?

The original <Mein System> was not published in English descriptive, surely.

I hope <HTW> is not mistaken. A handful of us enjoy setting teasing trivia question on the ECF.

I've just set them; 'What Beatles song has a chess move in the title?' (The Knight b4)

<HTW> does not mention what book it was. It could have been other publications that were collected, bound into a hardback book and sold to their grandfather from a library.

This is a classic practical joker Sally-ism.

But the answer is definitely not Nimzowitsch.

<HTW states they can only read descriptive and want people to post in descriptive. This site and it's members (renown for being polite, caring and obliging) should comply with this request.>

I don't think so.

(<HTW> would be far better served learning algebraic - it's not hard at all, in fact, it's a 5-minute task, if that)

<I also think an option to view games in descriptive notation should be taken into consideration.>

It is a half and half joke. But <HTW> did request we go descriptive in posts and I was thinking how to convert the PGN viewer to descriptive.
It would be a rather quaint feature and I'm sure unique.

Now instead of wondering what I'm posting how about using your research skills and find the moves to the game (Vladimir) Panfilov - Novgenin ( or Novozenjin ) 1975, that is all we know, though in some cases the names have been reversed.

Panfilov - Novgenin, 1975 in '40 lessons' (pub 1984) by Kostyev and yet we see Novozenjin v Panfilov, Vladimir 1975 at https://allanbeardsworth.com/2017/0...

White to play.

click for larger view

OK, since you mentioned this I'll get a note of my own in...

When I transcribe a game into my personal db, I normally don't make a note of the notation used, as it's readily apparent from the source (which is always included, of course).

But I will make a note, via a <Source Note> tag if the notation is ambiguous or needs correction - often including the move text verbatim.

So yes, I speak, and sometimes, use descriptive notation myself.

Time and place for everything, you know.

I'm actually perversely interested in finding a chess program that recognizes Descriptive Notation. I THINK Chessmaster 3000 can handle it, but when I tried to load it up in Dosbox, it was smart enough to know that my virtual Drive A wasn't a real floppy drive. I think to use that I'll have to copy the program onto four physical floppies and install it.

I think Chessmaster 6000 can use Descriptive, but I also think it only works in Windows 9x. I have Windows 98 loaded in Windows VirtualPC, and might try that, and if it doesn't work, will have to try it on a real Win98 system.

I know I had a legitimate copy of this program at one point, and maybe still do. The problem is it was on 5 1/4" floppy disks. I've got one system system with a 5 1/4" floppy drive, which hasn't been booted in years. If it still works, it would only be a minor headache to set it up. If it doesn't, I'd have to take a 5 1/4" floppy off the shelf, take the CD drive out of a 98 system, install the floppy, hope I still had a 5 1/4" floppy cable, and try to install the program that way. The first step would be confirming that I still have the original program disks.

https://marianogappa.github.io/osti...

Thanks, this looks pretty cool. I've never heard of Smith notation, but it looks like coordinate notation with only minor differences.

From doing chess research I've seen Uedemann notation, but thankfully was able to just skip over it.

I'm a bit reluctant to post it because my opponents name is 'Parzer' and you can just imagine what the wits here will do with that.

However I think it may be popping up in a 'swindles book' the author has been in touch, so I'll post it later on today.