Does having descriptive notation keep you from buying a book?

There are so many good books that I see recommended here - like Horowitz's and Pachman's. But descriptive notation makes me pause then put the brakes on before ordering.

Are there any "must have" books that you own and love despite descriptive notation? If so, what are they?

For me descriptive notation turns me off. It is difficult for me and cumbersome.

stwils

I'm not a fan of discriptive notation either.  Not that I can't read it quickly... it's just that with algebraic notation, I often don't need to pull out a board... I can just visualize a game.  Whereas with discriptive it takes up too much of my CPU just understanding it :).  My 60 Memorable Games is a good book, in descriptive.  You'd probably have to pull out a board either way because there are very few diagrams and some games are 70 moves long :P.

It does turn me off, but I have a few written in it anyway -- My 60 Memorable Games and The Art of Attack in Chess, in particular.

Spiffe, I have The Art of Attack in Chess as well and mine is in algebraic...you must have an older edition?  One book that I just purchased in descriptive that is good is the art of the middlegame by keres and kotov.  It is a good book, but it takes some time to get through, because as ih8sens said, you really need to have a board in front of you. 

you should always have a board in front of you regardless.

is discriptive notation the ones that look like... Q-R4ch

if so, then I agree, it is very annoying, but I don't think it should prevent you fron getting a chess book though.

skwirlguts you should always have a board in front of you regardless.

As one gets stronger, one sometimes finds they don't need a board to follow a game.

I had thought about "How to Win in the Chess Openings" by Horowitz and "How Not to Play Chess" by Znosko-Borovsky but both have descriptive notation. Does anyone own these and like them despite the notation?

stwils

Never read Horowitz’ book. However I did read his "How To Think Ahead" in which he recommended playing the Stonewall and Sicilian Dragon. The book probably did more damage to my chess than any book I ever read.

I pulled my 40-some year old copy of Z-B’s book off the shelf to take look at it. His instruction can be summed up in the following quote: "To avoid mistakes is the beginning, as it is the end, of mastery in chess." He gives a few tidbits of advice like: don’t make opening moves automatically without thinking, don’t memorize variations, don’t give up open lines, seize & hold them, don’t modify your plan, etc. then a few examples to illustrate the point. Unless they are selling for a dollar I think you’d be better off investing in something else.

Thanks. I can do without these two books. 

Life is complicated enough without adding inferior books with descriptive notation.

stwils

Just learn the descriptive notation .......if an ole farm boy like me can then so can you ! 

NY 1924   Art of Attack in Chess   My 60 Memorable Games

Even NY 1924 has been reprinted in algebraic now.

Some good and old Reinfeld books may never make it to algebraic. I've got a nice stack of US and British chess mags in descriptive. A few years of Chess Review from the 1940s--some great fun reads that wouldn't be as great if I had a hard time making it through the descriptive.

I grew up with descriptive so have no problems reading it even if I prefer algebraic.

Absolutely wouldn't touch a book in descriptive notation. I find it too hard to read, plus the fact that the notation depends on whether one is looking from black or white's perspective. Imagine if reading north on a map depended on whether one lived in Australia or Russia! I've also heard that many books in descriptive contain errors or ambigious moves as there are many ways to write a move in descriptive. So unfortunately, many classics shall go unread by me. Still, there's enough good stuff out there in algebraic, with Everyman and Gambit producing some good stuff at the moment.

I survived for over 35 years when all we had was descriptive notation. Man, it was rough in those days! These punks today couldn't have handled it.

I LOVE descriptive notation--I grew up on it--and find it much easier to visualize "QxN" than "Qxf5" because I know what piece is taking which.  It's particularly easy to visualize combinations with it: "12 PxP PxP, 13 NxP, BxN" is really easy to imagine in one's head--far easier than the same combination written algebraically.

Furthermore, I struggle to visualize that the f-file is the King Bishop file and that the g-file is the King Knight file;  I similarly struggle to realize at a glance that c5 for black means P-QB4 and not P-QB3 or P-KB4.  I have a tough time using algebraic notation when playing black because the letters and numbers are backwards.

It's an easy system to use and often quicker.  I find it baffling that some people can't use it.  I can use algebraic notation, but it's like speaking a second language.

 LOL  Fischer even learned enough Russian so he could follow/understand Russian chess literature, young folks these days would be horrified at the thought I reckon ! I mean, they cant even handle something as simple as descriptive notation..

These "punks" are currently taking the chess world by storm!

I have also had trouble with descriptive notation. With algebraic notation, I can pretty much visualize all the moves; and even when I can't, I can still play them like a breeze on the board. I also "think" in algebraic. (If you said: 15.Q-KR4 I wouldn't know what you meant right away, but if you said 15.Qh4 I could visualize it immediately.)

The main problem for me would be that it would take a long time to work through some of the classics, but that doesn't mean that Packman's Modern Chess Strategy book, for instance, is useless just because it's in descriptive.

I do however try to find books in algebraic, if I can. If I can't, then I'll have to wiegh the value of the book with some more modern translations of other books first.

 Another old geezer !?  LOL  Maybe we should form an old geezer's team here ? None under half a century !  ( that was 50 years when I was in school but with today's "new math" might no longer be ) 

I have Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy. I got a used copy that is old and cracked. And though I try to read it, I am overwhelmed with all that descriptive notation. It is tiring.

I know it is a good book, but I just can't enjoy it . If it is such a classic, why on earth doesn't "someone" publish it in a new edition with algebraic notation????

stwils

In these topsy-turvy days of the credit crunch and impending deflation, I think you'll find that a half century is now 45 years.