Tearing Down A Tattered Ensign

     When I grew up almost all chess literature was in descriptive notation and that’s the way I recorded my games. And, because I learned chess mostly by reading books, I used "Kt" for Knight because that’s the way it appeared in books. I didn’t know there was another way to do it...namely using an "N" for the Knight. My games were recorded thus: 

1.P-K4 P-K4 
2.Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 
3.B-Kt5 etc. 

    And, it was many years before I changed. But, I wasn’t alone. Looking at the letters to the editor in the January 1944 issue of Chess Review, there was a debate raging over whether or not the Knight should be recorded as Kt or N. Here is just a sampling of the letters published: 

John P. Scott of California wrote, “I think the only reason N isn’t used...is because enough courageous pioneers have not raised their voice in protest against an outmoded custom. I raise mine now! N for Knight!” 

A.W. Liger of Massachusetts said, “Since chess is a logical game, any shortening of notation is also logical...including clarity, time, ink saving, paper saving, reduction of eye strain.” But not all wanted change. 

C. Rosenfeld of Texas asked, “Would you tear down the tattered ensign Kt? Many an eye has danced to see that banner a-flutter on fields wet with heroes’ blood, where fought the glorious armies of Morphy, Pillsbury, Marshall, Lasker, Capablanca, Horowitz and others of the host of the mighty.” and added, “Chess is as much tradtion as a game. Let us keep all the lore and trappings.” 

G. Englehardt of Connecticut said, “This chess is an old game. Let’s keep it a-going as it is. The Kt has been used for hundreds of years; why change?” 

     Chess Review editor Al Horowitz issued a rather long reply, “Readers have expressed themselves fully and with much freedom on this subject. Those who prefer N believe that the use of this symbol...prevents typographical errors, makes it easier to read and write game scores, avoids confusion between King and Knight (pieces or squares) and other reasons. For these and other reason, 121 readers voted for N.” 

     “Opposed were 29 readers who voted to retain Kt. Main reason given: that a change would be breaking tradition. Secondary reason: that confusion would exist if two symbols if two symbols were used in publication.” 

     Horowitz then went on to explain, “To the editors of Chess Review, the arguments of the large majority in favor of N seem logical and convincing. The contrary argument that two symbols would cause confusion bears some weight, but a simple announcement would acquaint readers accustomed to Kt with the change and enable them to readily follow game scores...It is our belief and experience that most chess players in this country use the symbol N in their own recording. Practically all postal players use N. Some magazines and newspaper columnists have long since adopted N. However, most books are published with the symbol Kt, although at least one (Comparative Chess by Frank J. Marshall) has used the letter N.” 

     “As to tradition, some readers seem to be under a misapprehension in this respect. The traditional name of the piece would not be changed in any way. The Knight would remain a Knight, it would not be referred to as Nite. It is merely a symbol...” 

    “No iconoclasts, the Editors...have no desire to break tradition just to see the pieces fly. It should be realized that descriptive notation has been changed many times in the past, that tradition in this respect is one of constant change.”

    Horowitz then devoted a couple of paragraphs chronicling the changes in descriptive notation. He then concluded, “Prior commitments prevent the immediate adoption of the symbol N by Chess Review. However, when serials now appearing in the magazine are completed, the change will be made. Announcement will appear at that time.” 
     Chess games appearing in newspapers and magazines of the day were a mixed bag; the West Virginia Chess Bulletin used N while the New York Times used Kt. The Australian magazine Check! used N as did Purdy's Chess World, but The Australasian Chess Review preferred Kt as did the British Chess Magazine.  Eventually we all, in the words of C. Rosenfeld, tore down the tattered ensign Kt.
     Later there was to be another big brouhaha when publications switched over to algebraic notation, but by that time I had become owner of a number of European chess books that used it, so it was no mystery. The only problem was that when I began recording my games they were often a mix of both descriptive and algebraic, but I eventually got it straight. 
   
     While on the subject of recording games, Viktor Korchnoi recorded his games in what appears to be Martian: