One of the qualms I have with algebraic notation is that you can't easily step backwards.  This often times causes me grief when reading instructional material containing a lot of variations (particularly the deep variations).  Do many of you play with 2 chess boards simultaneously, keeping the real game going on one, and driving through the variations on the other? 

I'd love to hear from your experiences using this method or other similar methods, as I currently only play with one chess board at home but find that I sometimes skip over the variations if they are too deep, as I'm afraid I won't be able to easily return to the actual state of the game (most books don't have too many snapshots of the board).  I raise this issue because there might be very important considerations I'm missing when I choose to overlook variations and I figure countless others have come across similar issues.

I obviously review matches on the computer frequently as well, but nothing beats sitting down and relaxing on a chair with a chess board and book in your lap.

Cheers!

huh?  I use Winboard and save any variation I need to as a file in the folder of whatever I'm studying.i.e. I have a Ruy Lopez folder with subfolders of Exchange, Steinitz, Classical, Berlin defense, etc.  Sicilian folder with subfolders of Dragon, Najdorf, Taimanov, etc.

I don't understand the problem you're having with algebraic notation...descriptive notation gives me a headache and I can't visualize any of it.

I pull the game up in Chessbase db and use the book in conjunction with the database.

If you are going to get good at chess, algebraic notation should not be a formidable roadblock.

I use an iPod - pretty much any chess app will do.  I used to use a magnetic analysis board.  I don't want to be tethered to a PC to read a chess book. 

(Having said that, I think it would be GREAT if every chess book told me a URL where I could go download a PGN file for the games in the book.)

I think wiseachoo is talking about the difference between short and long algebraic: "Nf3" vs. "Ng1-f3".  The latter is much easier to read in reverse.

DeepGreene, correct.  I have no problem with algebraic notation.  Play 7 moves into a variation from a book on a physical chess board, now try to find your way back to where you started from solely by reading the chess notation (short variation - most common). 

Overall it sounds like few of you actually use a real chess board anymore for game analysis, which I personally find far more instructive and relaxing, than sitting glued to my computer screen.

I don't use a board. As long as the author provides an image every 10 moves or so, I can follow the games.

I don't use multiple boards even though the utility recommends itself.

I grew up with my chess pre comps, and so far I expect my important and meaningful games to mostly be real world, so I study mostly with board and pieces. One exception is the tactics exercises which just make so much more sense using software. click solve click solve and no setting up positions.

Well, studying hard is not about relaxing (to me), and they are two different things to me, so I give you that.   Boards and pieces are more "relaxed."

However, using the db allows one to go back and forth very easy, much easier and faster than setting up pieces.  It also allows one to look at more games in less time, allowing for about a 5 fold increase in efficiency and use of study time.  There are never any mistakes with moving pieces to wrong squares or setting things up wrong or even having to "check back".  When moving "backwards" your problems are solved.

Also allows for note taking, checking analysis, adding new lines, linking to other games and references, and going through many many variations without losing one's place regardless of complexities.

It has nothing at all to do with personal picadilloes and everything at all to do with what is most effective.