Anyone prefer descriptive notation?

I like how easy it is to glance over a game and go straight to the meat of the game, why do so many people refuse to read descriptive notation? Its just as easy as algebraic IMO.

Originally posted by HomerJSimpson
I like how easy it is to glance over a game and go straight to the meat of the game, why do so many people refuse to read descriptive notation? Its just as easy as algebraic IMO.

I hate how White's K4 is not the same as Black's K4. In general, the whole idea that the numbering of ranks changes with each move is clunky and confusing.

I also hate the way 'ambiguous' moves are clarified. If it's "QN-Q2", I have to figure out which Knight started on b1...err, QN1. That gets pretty hard towards the endgame. The only alternative? "N/4-K5" or some other clumsy string.

Furthermore, any digital or technological person has got to love algebraic. It's easy to program, it describes the same moves using less characters, and is the most natural notation for computers to use.

I never buy or read a book with descriptive notation. Its too much confusing.
The algebraic notation is the most natural notation there is. In my humble opinion.

Indeed Algebra is 20 times easier for me to read and follow....

I cant be dealing with descriptive. I wont buy a book with it.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I hate how White's K4 is not the same as Black's K4. In general, the whole idea that the numbering of ranks changes with each move is clunky and confusing.

I also hate the way 'ambiguous' moves are clarified. If it's "QN-Q2", I have to figure out which Knight started on b1...err, QN1. That gets pretty hard towards the endgame. The only alternative? ...[text shortened]... me moves using less characters, and is the most natural notation for computers to use.

I agree.

Originally posted by HomerJSimpson
I like how easy it is to glance over a game and go straight to the meat of the game, why do so many people refuse to read descriptive notation? Its just as easy as algebraic IMO.

N-KB3 for me 🙂

I was taught descriptive at school and having returned to chess a year ago I am still using descriptive ....

I was raised on descriptive, so it's no problem for me. Again, i ask, why do they call it algabraic? It should be called alpha-numeric because it has nothing to do with algebra.

Originally posted by buddy2
I was raised on descriptive, so it's no problem for me. Again, i ask, why do they call it algabraic? It should be called alpha-numeric because it has nothing to do with algebra.

algebra is more general than arithmetics (if that's what you were thinking about), ie. working with symbols of some set. which pretty much describes what algebraic notation in chess is about.

I find descriptive notation a lot more cumbersome. algebraic I picked up almost instantly, but descriptive gives me trouble even after a couple of books. somehow it just is more confusing.

I grew up with descriptive and used it through the 70's, until algebraic became the norm. After discovering algebraic I never looked back, descriptive sucks.

I learned descriptive in my youth, and learned to prefer it. Once I started using algebraic, however, I found it much easier to visualize. Eventually, my capacity to play blindfold chess using descriptive withered.

I have several dozen chess books that use descriptive, and add more when one of interest in appears at Defunct Books, or a similar store. It remains useful.

Algebraic is easier to learn, and easier to visualize. Descriptive is worth knowing to read old books.

I can read both but prefer descriptive for its aesthetic qualities. Plus I don't have to miss out on all the older books.

Originally posted by point
I can read both but prefer descriptive for its aesthetic qualities. Plus I don't have to miss out on all the older books.

I totally and 100% agree with you

Descriptive notation is still handy in old movies, though, if only because Christophe Lambert saying "Knight to Queen's Bishop Seven" sounds cooler than "Nc7".

Descriptive notation is ambiguous, especially in endings like B + B + Ps vs. B+ B + Ps.