Descriptive Notation Dead?

Is it completely dead now?

Here are multiple ways of writing the same move.

1. e4
2. e2-e4
3. P-K4
4. Pawn to King 4th Square (Yes, I've actually seen this in older books.)

Is 1 the only one accepted nowadays?

You forgot one way.

King's pawn to King 4.

It's probably because I'm relatively new to chess and it's the way I learned, but everything except "1. e4" seems redundant, unnecessarily long, and potentially confusing to me.

I prefer descriptive notation and still think in terms of descriptive notation. I learned notation from my first chess book which gave explanations of both the descriptive and algebraic forms. I came away with the feeling that algebraic notation was a way of dumbing it down. That it was for people who couldn't comprehend which file was the King's file so they had to put numbers and letters on the board for them. Now I know that algebraic notation is better because it's simpler and more accurate but when I sit down in front of a chess board I don't see the e file, I see the King's file. Plus it just sounds cooler. Pawn to King four is way better than just saying e4.

I have a couple of older books which I learned descriptive in order to read, but I much prefer algebraic.

Capablanca's Best Chess endings by Chernev
Alekhines best games of chess 1938-45
How Good is your Chess byt Barden
Logical Chess Move by Move

Originally posted by zebano
I have a couple of older books which I learned descriptive in order to read, but I much prefer algebraic.

Capablanca's Best Chess endings by Chernev
Alekhines best games of chess 1938-45
How Good is your Chess byt Barden
Logical Chess Move by Move

I found a 1926 copy of Edward Lasker's "Chess Strategy" in a used bookstore ($9 US!) and I can barely use it because of the descriptive notation. I find myself halfway through replaying a game and suddenly the position on my practice board and the book's text don't match. It's my fault, I transpose QR for KR or saw N-B5 and I put it on the square b5, etc. But I think the descriptive notation is by its nature more prone to confusion. The game score is almost pretty to look at, but e4...e5 is the way to go.

Originally posted by MontyMoose
I found a 1926 copy of Edward Lasker's "Chess Strategy" in a used bookstore ($9 US!) and I can barely use it because of the descriptive notation. I find myself halfway through replaying a game and suddenly the position on my practice board and the book's text don't match. It's my fault, I transpose QR for KR or saw N-B5 and I put it on the square b5, etc. ...[text shortened]... ne to confusion. The game score is almost pretty to look at, but e4...e5 is the way to go.

Originally posted by MontyMoose
I found a 1926 copy of Edward Lasker's "Chess Strategy" in a used bookstore ($9 US!) and I can barely use it because of the descriptive notation. I find myself halfway through replaying a game and suddenly the position on my practice board and the book's text don't match. It's my fault, I transpose QR for KR or saw N-B5 and I put it on the square b5, etc. ...[text shortened]... ne to confusion. The game score is almost pretty to look at, but e4...e5 is the way to go.

One's comfort zone has a lot to do with one's age. When I started learning chess descriptive notation was it. I still have my old books and go through them and have no problem with descriptive notation. With algebraic it's a little easier to spot editorial errors or typos but not much. I don't mind the errors in descriptive because I feel that I should be seeing and understanding the problem or game enough to spot the error.

There are a fair number of out of print books that are worthwhile to read and you're only going to get there with an understanding of descriptive notation.

Fischer again. He was the last world champion to use English Descriptive Notation. There was a famous cartoon where Spassky was preparing with his team when his Second said, "But Spassky, what if he doesn't play 1. P-K4?"

This is time dated. In the first place, his Second would have used algebraic notation, but I guess "But Spassky, what if he doesn't play 1. e4?" wouldn't have been as funny.

Originally posted by petrovitch
Fischer again. He was the last world champion to use English Descriptive Notation. There was a famous cartoon where Spassky was preparing with his team when his Second said, "But Spassky, what if he doesn't play 1. P-K4?"

This is time dated. In the first place, his Second would have used algebraic notation, but I guess "But Spassky, what if he doesn't play 1. e4?" wouldn't have been as funny.

Originally posted by zebano
I have a couple of older books which I learned descriptive in order to read, but I much prefer algebraic.

Capablanca's Best Chess endings by Chernev
Alekhines best games of chess 1938-45
How Good is your Chess byt Barden
Logical Chess Move by Move

All of them are easy to read. The descriptive ones are the hardest heh. Actually the hardest thing for me to read was fen until I understood it then it was easy.

Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics
Is it completely dead now?

Here are multiple ways of writing the same move.

1. e4
2. e2-e4
3. P-K4
4. Pawn to King 4th Square (Yes, I've actually seen this in older books.)

Is 1 the only one accepted nowadays?