I agree with batgirl that there is value in some things being true from both sides of the board. For example, "it's dangerous for queens to take knight pawns." Try saying that in algebraic! Or the famous "A knight on King 6 is like a bone in the throat". How about "A fianchetto is when the bishop is developed to Knight 2"; this is true for all 4 bishops! Try being that efficient in algebraic notation. You could probably think up dozens of these.

i too was bought up on descriptive. So whilst i can follow the old books I must admit i prefer algebraic for everyday  play. Although when annotating games I, like normajeanyates, use a mix of the descriptive and algerbraic.

i much prefer the idea of BxQ rather than Bxe5 say. 

I agree that all should become familiar with it as there are many cheap books to be had in second hand bookshops. 

though i am english and have never visited the USA, i leant chess in descriptive (36 years ago) - i still slip when i am writing algebraic in posts :) eg ..d3 for..d6 -

my present ideolect in which i write doen ideas for myself only is an algebraic-descriptive hybrid - e.g if piece is captured i dont write Nxe4 - i write NxQ [or NxQe4 if there are two quuens captureable by knights :) ]

I first learned algebraic, then I picked up Ruben Fine's "The Ideas Behind The Chess Openings", which is written in descriptive. At first it was hard for me to follow, but then I fliped the board around to study from blacks point of view and found the benifit to descriptive. I use a cheap board to study and have used a marker to label each square in algebraic, but descriptive is easier to follow while reading, for me at least.

If I remember correctly isnt there a third style of notation that ia hardly used anymore where each sqaure is uniquely numbered. a1 I believe was 11 and a8 was 18. h1 was 81 and  h8 is 88. So the move of a pawn fom e2-e4,  algebrically represent by e4, decsriptively P- K4 and by the last as 52-54. The black reply of e5 would be 57-55. I may just be dreaming this after all I went through the 60's as a teen.

I have never seen it used but I think I saw it in a book.

I have to admit I first learned descriptive, but after several games that I messed up the notation and was unable to recreate the game as played I switched. 

I learned algebraic notation when I first learned to play. While I can, of course, read descriptive notation, I don't find it easy and much prefer algebraic. But, the odd part is, if I'm playing with a friend who isn't so into chess that he knows any notation, I resort to descriptive notation in discussing the game. People for whom "Nc3" is meaningless, easily comprehend "Knight to Bishop three."

One attribute of descriptive notation that you didn't mention is that it works exactly the same from either White's or Black's perspective. Unlike most people who seem to have no problem with this, when I play Black, I sometimes mess up the notation from looking at the board upside down. With descriptive notation, that's not an issue. "Knight to Bishop Three" is the same whether you're White or Black.

A second reason to learn descriptive notation is that many fine books have been written in that notation and have never been, and never will be, modernized.

 Thanks for the posting.

When i 1st learn about chess  it was on algrebraic notation, i knew the exisence of descriptive notation but i've never see it, not even in books, after i saw this post and look to your diagram i tryed to figure out a good point of this description but i failed to do it. i dont see any good point about it compared to the algebraic notation. And the point about the nostalgic feeling seems to me like feeling sad becouse now we use calculator instead abacus, sorry i fail to see the point .

the first language i learned was the descriptive .. but i soon transferred to the algebraic and for a long time never looked back .. however, i'm now completing chernev's .. logical chess move by move .. in the old notation .. and i have come to admire it  .. i know the algebraic is more efficient .. but when you say queen five .. it has a meaning which is the same for white and for black .. but to say it in in the algebraic .. you have to say one thing for white and another for black ..

 i know there is no going back to the old style .. but i can't help but feel something was lost in translation

I also grew up on the "old language". When I picked the game up again to teach my grandson, there was difficulty in not seeing an e4 from both sides. Even now with some of my posts I have to double check to make sure the numbers aren't xposed.

sorry ,like metric (i hate to admit some one french actually did something beneficial !)modern notation is simply better

Algebraic is just plain better....

 

Who the f*** cares about 'poetry' when you can have ruthless efficiency?

I can only use algebraic and the descriptive frustrates me for some reason - but it is too bad, I've frequented used bookstores that have excellent reasources but it's not in my "language".

I will admit I can understand the nostalgia for it. It is much more regal sounding - it's evocative of ownership (ie. "The King's Pawn") and it harkens back to the days before computers streamlined the system.

I don't know if I'll ever learn it, but I do like to see it championed. Cool post, SonofPearl.

I personally like the descriptive notation better. It was hard for me to get used to the Algebraic, but that's what everyone uses today, and you know the deal; In this case you cannot beat them, you have to join them.

Very easy the beautiful descriptive notation.  But the old French notation in he journal La Régence? It is so difficult!

Very interesting, thanks.