Does having descriptive notation keep you from buying a book?

Most chess books are now in algebraic notation....Descriptive notation is just cumbersome.  I can read old English, but i prefer modern english... Descriptive notation books will never find their way to my bookshelf, except maybe as a collectors item...i don't need extra stress or strain in chess....well time for a nap....

Funny thing.  I'm hardly a geezer at 32, but I originally learned descriptive notation first (the OLD descriptive, with Kt for knight instead of N), and then I learned Algebraic later on.  Now whenver I read in descriptive, I automatically translate into algebraic in my head; but, strange as it is, whenever I read algebraic, I always translate into descriptive notation in my head, too.

maybe someday someone will figure out a way to make written communication that transmits several ideas in one string, thereby allowing people to read in multiple languages simultaneously....

DJHeilke,

When you dream of chess, which notation do you dream in?

I ask this because, one of my friends who is from Japan and speaks brilliant English, confessed to me she always dreams in Japanese...

stwils

I love descriptive notation, my first chess book was a rather old work written in it

Where do I sign up? I just qualify under the old math. I have room to spare with the new math.

I like descriptive notation better than algebraic. It "feels" more like a game. In one short notation it describes the piece and what it's doing from the perspective of the player making the move. Algebraic is often easier with it's grid-like coordinates but it always seems like it's from White's point of view. In algebraic the pieces take squares, not the opponent's pieces, which makes it seem like you're playing the board and not the opponent.

Of course, I'm probably just old and set in my ways.

The idea is that sometimes a Queen, for instance, can take more than one pawn at once; so you say 10.Qxd4. (Meaning that the Queen captures whatever currently inhabites d4.) This can be confusing if you don't have a good memory and can't remember what piece was on d4; unless you have a board in front of you.

I guess algebraic is easier for me because I learned it first. Whenever I try to read descriptive, I really have to struggle over every move. Still, it shouldn't hinder you from buying great books in descriptive notation.

I won't give a book a second glance if it's in descriptive. I mean I'm sure I could learn the notation, but I feel it would take away from me learning the concepts the book has to offer to the best of my ability if I'm sitting there translating everything into algebraic subconsciously.

Descriptive notation would just say something like QxBP to distinguish which pawn is being captured.  It's not difficult at all. Personally, I wish books were still written with descriptive notation because it's easier and less confusing to me.

It makes no difference to me.   I would prefer a descriptive book to a revised version in algebraic with errors in transcription as often happens (e.g. Levenfish, Rook Endings).  I would imagine that quite a few players in the USA learn from books by Chernev, Reinfeld etc that are abundant in public libraries and used book stores.  Most of those are in descriptive.  This is one issue that I think generates far more heat than is justified.  Going metric might justify it, not chess notation.  Do not forget that the letters for the pieces are allowed to vary from nation to nation (S for knight (I would prefer this in fact, as "springer" is more descriptive of the piece than a "knight" that looks like a horse and is abreviated with an N (for obvious reasons)), L for bishop in German for instance).  Some standard.

But to answer the original question , NO , if a book is in descriptive notation it does not keep me from buying it....I have many books in descriptive notation already and I am "fluent" in either descriptive or algebraic notation.

jswilkmd> Descriptive notation would just say something like QxBP

In Staunton's time notation looked like, K's B. to Q's Kt.'s 5th. From that perspective, B-N5 or Bb5 are both huge leaps forward.

When I first started to look at chess I was reading algebraic notation. I found it tough but as I got better at it I felt really satisfied. It's like learning a small/easy-ish foreign language. My friends that don't play chess wouldn't be able to read the stuff - I felt as if I had learnt the language of a secret club!

So, when I stumbled across descriptive, it was the same process. I remembered how satisfying it was to learn the secert language of algebraic - and now I've got the descriptive too. Although, I do go a lot slower with it, and would struggle to write it.

I always forget that black starts at rank 1 aswell as white, duh :)

I agree with reb.

KIESH2

But descriptive notation is outdated. You have to write in algebraic in tournaments, and all books coming out from now till we can fly to Jupiter are going to be in algebraic notation; or something more advanced. (God forbid! I don't see how you can make this any shorter: 1.e4.) 

The only reason you'd need to learn the stuff is to read older books which should have been translated a long time ago. In fact, I don't see why so many of them are not. All they do is knock down the prices instead of getting a competent author in there to translate the books.

All that said, descriptive notation can be interesting to learn. Imagine! You're learning the very same notation that Tal, Fischer, and Botvinnik used to use. I'm sure that anybody could become proficient in descriptive, it's just that after learning something one way, it's hard to change your thought processes. For example: You screw in screws for a living in your countr. Your country has a policy of making the screws so that if you turn them to the left, they will tighten. 

You have been doing this for five years, but suddenly you have to move to the United States. You are baffled to discover that their screws lossen when turned to the left. Obviously, you have a lot of learning to do.

In descriptive notation, the moves are written according to how the pieces move on the board. In algebraic, the moves are written according to the position of the pieces on the board. Just different systems, that's all. It takes work to learn either, but some don't want to learn both. I'll have to learn descriptive anyway (I want to buy Pachman one day.) so it's all the same to me.

Daniel3> You have to write in algebraic in tournaments.

In Canada, you're forced to use algebraic. In America you're free to choose.

There's also the concise and sensible Udemann Code. a1=11, e4=54, h8=88...like algebraic but all numbers and the piece moved is not designated, just square from and square to.

When trying to create a chess program in BASIC a few decades ago, using Udemann permitted me to express the moves as a mathematical formula. I had no examples of chess progs so I was on my own. I did finish it, which surprised everyone as they thought it wasn't possible.

I have dozens of books in descriptive, some of which have been converted to algebraic by editors that do not always respect the original author's text and added their own "insight." In some cases the original descriptive text is superior.

Money can be an issue, too. Why shell out $25 for a badly bound paperback when the text is available in hardcover for $6.50 at a second hand bookstore? That's what I paid for Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals; the reviews of the algebraic conversions have been negative. Too much alteration.

Renaud and Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate remains the best book in its class-checkmate patterns, and the strategies leading up to the key positions. It is available only in descriptive.

Played postal chess many yaers ago. Discriptive notation is what was used and that's what I learned. That seems easiest to me now but realize I have to use the other.

500 Master Games is another descriptive notation book, and a classic. An annotated collection of games up to the 1940s. Pithy comments by Tartakover. Thick enough to qualify as a "desert island book.

LOL...I am learnin' Chinese