Descriptive notation

In descriptive notation moves are recorded diferently than in Algebraic notation

The pieces have the same symbols , but the name of the squares is different.In Algebraic notation every square has a "name" that is determined from the file and the rank it is.8 files , from a-h , and 8 ranks, from 1-8 gurantee that no square will have the same "name" with another one.

So if a square is on c-file and 3rd rank it's the c3 square.If a knight moves to c3 square then the move is recorded as Nc3, if a pawn moves to c3 square the pawn is recorded as simply c3.

Let's see the differences of the descriptive notation.Starting with the files, in DN(descriptive notation) the files have no letters.Instead they are named from the piece that has it's initial position on it and the wing.

     So a-file and h-file are rooks files as at the sarting position a rook is plaed on them.For the same reason b-file and g-file are knight's files , c-file and f-file are bishop's files , d-file is queen's file and e-file is king's file.To determine specifically which file we mean the board is divided in 2 halfs , q-side(files a, b,c and d) and k-side(files e,f,g,-and h).That means that:

a-file is the queen's rook file(QR)

b-file is the queen's knight file  (QN)

c-file is the queen's bishop file  (QB)

d-file remains queen's file

e-file remains king's file

f-file is the king's bishop file(KB)

g-file is the king's knight file(KN) and

h-file is the king's rook file(KR)

Let's see how the ranks are.

For  white nothing changes, ranks are numberted exactly the same way as in algebraic notation.

1st rank is the rank the pieces are placed at the starting position.

2nd rank is the rank the pawns are placed in the starting position and the rest ranks follow as 3rd ,4th , 5th , 6th , 7th and 8th.

For Black though the rank of the pieces starting position( which is 8th for white) it's again the 1st rank.The rank of the pawns starting position(which is 7th for white) is again 2nd and the rest ranks follow.

That means that white's queen rook's intitial position(a1) is  QR1 for white and QR8 for black and black's queen rook's initial position(a8) is  again QR1 for black and QR8 for white.

The follow board show the names of the squares for both white and black

Let's see an example:

1.e4 e5                                 1.P-K4  P-K4 

2.Nf3 Nf6                              2.N-KB3 N-KB3

3.Nc3 Nc6                             3.N-QB3 N-QB3

4.d4 exd4                              4.P-Q4   PXP

===============================================

1.e4 c5                                  1.P-K4 P-QB4

2.Nf3 d6                                 2.N-KB3  P-Q3

3.d4 cxd4                               3.P-Q4  PXP

4.Nxd4 Nf6                              4.NXP  N-KB3

5.Nc3  g6                                 5.N-QB3  P-KN3 

Have you seen any benefit of using this descriptive notation, other than being able to read old (US-based) chess books?

There is a benefit.Talking about general middlegame concepts is far more easy when you use descriptive notation.

For example , a well known strategic concept is the invasion on the 7th rank.In Algebraic notation you have to determine that invasion on 7th rank for white is equivalent of the 2nd rank for black.

That is true to many other concepts. For example , 8th rank weakness ,  Q4 isolated pawn ,P-KR4 attack against k-side fianchetto,P-QN5 typical minority attack pawn break and many many others.Descriptive notation helps also in the endgames as all rules are the same with colors reversed(obviously).

Got it, thanks for the clarification, Michael!
From your explanation, I understand that this notation makes expressions less dependent on which color one plays with (though one can still tell by P-KR4 vs. P-KR5, in the example of a king-side pawn attack), and so helps to capture the corresponding concepts and ideas more succinctly in notation, without referring to details ("if playing black", "if playing white").

Still, for some reason it hasn't been adopted (or rather, has been dropped) from the more mainstream modern books and forums, perhaps because it looks somewhat heavy and largely duplicates an already adopted (algebraic) convention for most purposes.

Hmm... on further thought I see another problem with the descriptive notation.  It cannot be used for chess960 at all (ironic, since Fisher himself used descriptive notation to talk about chess, yet he also invented chess960), since there's no concept of a queen's rook in chess960: the pieces are placed in no special order.  

So, therefore one would have to use different notations to describe moves depending on which version of chess (classical or chess960) one refers to.  Inconvenient...

We live in a world that prefers the easy solution in everything.Just take a look at the advertisements.Machines that promise that will make you a divine body by watching TV.We all know that this can't happen yet all these sell like crazy.In chess ,books that promise a "killer opening repertoire" become best sellers in a  night.Why?Because for every beginner studying openings is much more easy than studying endgames.A whole generation of self-assigned coaches earn money by teaching openings.No one wants to accept that openings actually don't contribute in understanding chess.Why?Because it is the easy solution.Anyone can teach openings but who can really teach the relation between endgame and middlegame and how easy that is?

     In a world that craves for easy solutions descriptive notation were doomed to die.

You have some good points there, Michael.  

I was referring more to ideas (drawbacks of the descriptive solution) that don't clash with the quality of being "easy" so much; rather, they hint at a design that isn't flexible.  Granted, it wasn't designed in the first place to accommodate subsequent possibilities that emerged (like chess960).

If you (or others reading this thread) know about engineering principles, the relevant term there is "strong coupling": the descriptive notation makes the expression of a move strongly dependent on the piece layout on the board, so if you change the piece layout (as in chess960) the notation is no longer of use.

That said, there is an important space and reason for seeking solutions that have the quality of "ease of use", too.  If you only have professionals participating in a discourse, anything goes; but if you wish to attract lay people to any domain, it's critical that the artifacts from the domain be designed with ease of use in mind, or else they'll be deterred from participating.  (Try speaking in Latin to a crowd of people -- it's a nice language, but who understands it besides a few enthusiasts?)

Trying to attract people is one thing , trying to take advantage of their ignorance is another.

   In chess many take advantage of people ignorance selling variousDVDs and books that most of them are real junk.In another topic  player of about 1500 rating claimed that Capablanca was incapable of training adults because he said that opening and middlegame should be studied in relation to endgame.

    I am quite sure that Capablanca would be unemployed if he lived today while people like Jeremy Sillman and Andrew Martin would still make millions from useless DVDs and books.30 years ago only if you were one of the best you could sell books , today anyone can be a writer.I once saw a book that an unknown  guy wrote , it was supposed to be for beginners and it had games that this guy played with his, also unknown , wife(!!!) and later analysed them.

     Don't try to speak Latin but that doesn't mean you shouldn't even talk correct English.