Algebraic vs Descriptive

anyone out there (mostly older players) still use descriptive notation when they write?

At otb tournaments, I find that many players still write their notation in descriptive.

I've had to force myself to be more proficient at descriptive so that I can go through Alekhine's book, My Best Games of Chess, without having to spend too long deciphering the stuff like QKtxKBP. THe problem that I have with it is when you randomly see a move like BxN (or god forbid, the even older BxKt) when you have to look at the board for a Bishop that can capture a Knight, as opposed to just saying Bxd4 when you can just grab the bishop that's on the same color as the square d4 and stick it there.

I write BxN, I tried Bxd4, but it seem I go back to BxN without knowing it.

I find its pretty easy, I can read descripitive as well as algebraic, the cool thing about descripitive is that you can skip through right to the important parts of the game by glancing over it

Algebraic. Easy and effective.

Descriptive can get confusing to me like after doubled pawns.

I often use http://www.eudesign.com/chessops/ch-clear.htm , which has mostly descriptive notation, so I learned to understand it at least partly, but I wouldn't be able to use it. But even with algebraic notation I'd probably lose a lot of time for the notation if I'd play an OTB tournament. I still have to think about it every time.

I used descriptive for thirty years, but find algebrais much cleaner and esier to visualize. It is helpful that every square has one name, instead of two as in descriptive,

I see a lot of players at tournaments that mix systems, and from time to time I will confuse some kid by saying bishop to bishop five when the bishop has moved to knight five (b5). It's hard to shake the system you grew up with even when it is younger and inferior to the system now in use even in the US and Britain.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I used descriptive for thirty years, but find algebrais much cleaner and esier to visualize. It is helpful that every square has one name, instead of two as in descriptive,

I see a lot of players at tournaments that mix systems, and from time to time I will confuse some kid by saying bishop to bishop five when the bishop has moved to knight five (b5). It' ...[text shortened]... with even when it is younger and inferior to the system now in use even in the US and Britain.

I started using descriptive (not 30 years of it though). I was a little stubborn in that I was still using in long after most converted.

But I soon realized how much easier algebraic was.

When I read older books, it is really confusing since black moves are numbered from the black perspective (e.g. 1.P-K4 P-QB4 verses
1.e4 c5)

Originally posted by YUG0slav
anyone out there (mostly older players) still use descriptive notation when they write?

At otb tournaments, I find that many players still write their notation in descriptive.

I've had to force myself to be more proficient at descriptive so that I can go through Alekhine's book, My Best Games of Chess, without having to spend too long deciphering th ...[text shortened]... en you can just grab the bishop that's on the same color as the square d4 and stick it there.

Descriptive every time! My two reference books are ancient, and old habits die hard. Descriptive much easier to read and visualise than algebraic. Ok ok, I'm out of step with modern society. Good!

Originally posted by English Tal
Descriptive much easier to read and visualise than algebraic.

In 1995, I sat at a table on my back porch with a chess set and Pawn Structure Chess by Andrew Soltis. After a few hours spread over several days I have been able to think and visualize in algebraic; descriptive has been a bit more difficult since (despite more than two decades of practice).

A lot of old timers tell me they find it easier to visualize in descriptive. I don't get it. I played blindfold chess thirty years ago using descriptive, and have played it with algebraic several times the past few years. Algebraic is based on a simple grid, while descriptive has two intersecting grids. I have lots of books in both: the algebraic texts are much easier to read and visualize.

Consider a game I played OTB recently:

1. P-K4 P-K3
2. P-Q4 P-Q4
3. N-Q2 N-KB3
4. P-K5 KN-Q2
5. B-Q3 P-QB4
6. P-QB3 N-QB3
7. N-K2 PxQ4
8. PxQ4 P-KB3
9. PxP QxP
10. QN-B3 P-KR3
11. O-O B-Q3
12. P-KN3?? and the rest was a matter of technique

I find it easier to type from memory and to visualize (especially at moves 9-10):

1.e4 e6
2.d4 d5
3.Nd2 Nf6
4.e5 Nfd7
5.Bd3 c5
6.c3 Nc6
7.Ne2 cxd4
8.cxd4 f6
9.exf6 Qxf6
10.Nf3 h6
11.O-O Bd6
12.g3?? hanging a piece, but luring the queen to a vulnerable square.

When I play blindfold chess, I like descriptive notation. I always lose my place anyway after !. Pawn- King four.

It's like a language. I was brought up with descripting so it's no trouble. I learned "algabraic" later and found it annoying until i got used to it. Now i can do both easily. I have books in my library which are both. So, like knowing two languages, it makes you more versatile. Again, i don't know why they call it "algabraic" because it has nothing to do with algebra. It should be called "alphanumeric." My problem with algabraic occurs when some books do not use x for takes. That little clue helps me keep track of the game. When books leave it out, i find it really confusing. How about some real old books: "Then the black king for his second draught brings forth his queene, and placest her in the third house, in front of his bishop's pawne." Did you know that Philip Stamma, a Syrian born chess player invented algabraic notation? Mr. Stamma was a competitor to Philidor and lost a match with that great player.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I used descriptive for thirty years, but find algebrais much cleaner and esier to visualize. It is helpful that every square has one name, instead of two as in descriptive,

I see a lot of players at tournaments that mix systems, and from time to time I will confuse some kid by saying bishop to bishop five when the bishop has moved to knight five (b5). It' ...[text shortened]... with even when it is younger and inferior to the system now in use even in the US and Britain.

Do you announce the move you play? Is there some rule the you have to announce the move played?

Originally posted by gambit3
Do you announce the move you play? Is there some rule the you have to announce the move played?

um...no...you don't have to verbally announce your move (except in blindfold I suppose...)

I don't even say Check, because if your opponent can't figure out by himself that he's in check, then he shouldn't be playing.

Originally posted by YUG0slav
um...no...you don't have to verbally announce your move (except in blindfold I suppose...)

I don't even say Check, because if your opponent can't figure out by himself that he's in check, then he shouldn't be playing.

Perhaps it is a tournament trick that Wulebgr tries. I am sure that you are not allowed to speak to your opponent unless you are offering a draw.