I came across this lovely post in the forums the other day. And it got me interested in reading some of the works of the true masters such as Tarrasch and Lasker et c. Though when I checked the books out on amazon there was someone who had written an angry review because apparently Lasker's Manual of Chess uses english notation.

I have tried reading Engish notation before and I didn't like it at all. So here I am wondering, is this the sacrifice I have to make if I want to read such old books as these: Tarrasch's and Lasker's?

There is also another version of Lasker's Manual but it doesn't say what notation it uses, so if any one who owns a copy could post here and tell me that'd be great! Here is a link.

If I'm not mistaken Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_chess_notation

I hate P-K4 and so on cos it gets so confusing in the middle! Go algebraic! It is much easier! I must say though that I have other good books that you might be interested in written by grandmasters! that are written in algebraic!

Might just be the one actually but its still cool!

Isn't "Manual of Chess" released or soon to be released in algebraic notation?

Descriptive notation is just another way of viewing the board. The descriptive notation divides the board into 4 quadrants, each numbered from each player's side. Thus white's 1.e4 becomes P-K4, black's 1.e5 is also P-K4 from black's side. It does become difficult when you try to visualise the notation while reading it, but it is actually easier for the black player while writing it (- in algebraic he has to visualise the board from white's side).

I learned descriptive notation before I learned algebraic, so I got really messed up when I started buying chess books. My preference was for the descriptive; but now when I reach for those books (such as the invaluable Pawn Power in Chess), I'm frustrated beyond belief. I guess it's what you're used to.

I suspect that a lot of older books keep getting reprinted in descriptive because it requires a person (and thus, extra effort and cost) to convert the notation and check for errors. But apparently people keep buying these books. One would think Lasker had something important to say ;)

The older notation can be a little tricky, but it didn't take me long to learn it, really.  One has to think about each move more, but there are a ton of places to look it up.  You should be able to master it in no time.

Damn - I convert *new* books into descriptive notation :)

my take: English notation :)

Algebraic notation can be tricky...

open up a blank board and play though em instead of reading book diagrams

Good advice, xchaos.  That's what I did too, when using older books.