I first learned algebraic, and later picked up descriptive. In my experience, algebraic is much better, especially for visualizing. As a grid, I can unambiguously see where everything is. Additionally, no matter which side of the board you are on, the squares are still the same. Personally, this is very helpful to me. Overall, I think algebraic is a much more precise, efficient, and accurate notation. In the game of chess itself, romanticism and complications are welcome, but I feel that ambiguity and murkiness in recording the moves is rather unhelpful.

I learned the moves of chess from a Reinfeld book  in 1983. That was of course in English Descriptive.

An interesting point about ED is that when I played against Novag chess computers in the 1980's their default notation was ED on their screen. The computer world did not start off using Algebraic.

Batgirl is on the mark. There are so many old works in second hand shops, on Project Gutenberg and so forth that if I werea  chess coach I would ask a student to learn both systems.

I learned chess with descriptive, but then learned AN second.  Funny thing is that although I "think" in descriptive, I absolutely cannot play on a marked board unless the White KR is sitting on h1.  I'll lose if the WK is placed on d8....

Weird huh?

This letter started the USCF on the path to AN from DN.  BTW, I was the first one to use those initials.

http://home.comcast.net/~wporter211/realsite/chess_etc/letter.htm

Descriptive notation is far superior. One can easily play without a board; try that using algebraic!

 

algebraic is fit only for computers!

I learned chess in the 60's, when everything was in DN.  Through force of habit I still record my games in DN, but since everything is written in AN these days, I've become bi-lingual.  I'll admit that it is easier to record games in AN, but I've also noticed that many players leave out move pairs in their games, and I feel that it is because of the "ease" of AN--with DN, I have to take a second to look at the board to ensure that NxP is the only possible move, and not NxQP or NxP/6, and my game scores are normally more accurate than my opponents.

And then we have the dinosaurs who refuse to learn algebraic (ASPCC has a tnmt strictly for these folks) but they will soon all disappear and without the need of a killer asteroid to make them extinct...actually I'd consider playing in this tnmt if it wasn't for the fact that the default transmission method at ASPCC is snailmail (although many of the players use email you can't be forced to use it).

I figure anyone who only uses English Descriptive must also be several decades behind on opening theory as well...

LOL Teary! So I gather that Shakespeare played chess? ;) The thing is, with the lack of attention span today, I highly doubt you'd win anyone over to this lol

You youngsters complaining about your fancy, so called "descriptive" notation! Bah!

Now the 16th century notation, THAT was both descriptive and poetic! I say we go back to it!

Qf6 (the ugly, algebraic way) becomes: "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.

Much better! :D

I have to say I would REALLY prefer a combo of the two to make algebraic MORE descriptive :)  I would MUCH prefer BxQe5 to Bxe5. I think both pieces should be stated but using the algebraic position, though I still can't get them straight. I, too, have trouble "flipping" perspective from white to black when it comes to board positions.

When I was learning the game in the early 1940s, it wasn't called Descriptive Notation but rather English Notation. It's not difficult at all. You do need a tad of foreign language to follow European games (T = Tower = rook, in German, S = Springer, and D = Dame = Queen). Russian gets even better. I believe their word for pawn is "slon."

I too grew up enjoying the poetic flair of descriptive notation, and I still have some books that use it. Algebraic is more matter-of-fact, formulaic in its feel and tone, but I see the advantages and don't begrudge its dominance. But descriptive had...panache.

17th Century chess notation: The white king commands his owne knight into the third house before his owne bishop.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_notation

I learned descriptive as a 2nd language in order to read old chess books that you can buy cheap at used book stores.  Since then I find that its easier for me to keep track of calculating variations in a mix of algebraic and descriptive.  For example:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.NxP d6 4.Nxf7 KxN 5.d4

is how I think of the Cochrane gambit in the Petrov.

@mrwrangler - I believe the pure numerical notation (a1 = 11, h8 = 88, etc) is used in some international correspondence play.  Not all countries use the same algebraic notation.  They make it "fair" by enforcing a totally wretched system.  Hey if everyone is unhappy then no one can complain!  For example, I think in Germany a bishop is 'L' (for laufer) instead of 'B'.  So Lxc6+ instead of Bxc6+, for example.

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 may be classed as a kid but i am familiar with both kinds, but i still prefer the modern notation.

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.