I have a number of books considered classics in descriptive notation, most are Dover reprints.
But I prefer algebraic, yes.
Does having descriptive notation keep you from buying a book?
Sort:
ih8sens wrote:
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.
Better yet, get a decent database, if you don't already have one, and just pull the game up and follow along on your laptop. You can run down all the variations without having to set up the pieces and start over. Nearly any notable game by a GM or IM should be readily available.
If you are reading something by John Nunn, who loves long variations, there is really no other way to go 
Yeah, I know, I'm dredging up an old thread. That's because I dredged up a couple of my old books and found that they aren't in descriptive nor in algebraic. They look like this:
1.♙e4 ♟e5
2.♘f3 ♟d5
3.ed ♝c4
I wil not buy another book with that notation. Ever. Whatever it's called.
May 7, 2009
0
#45
The cool thing about Descriptive: Books using it are cheaper at used book stores !
I was raised in descriptive notation and cannot seem to grasp algebraic, thus I only read old school lit!
and I is young folk