Question: does anyone else find chess notation confusing?

I've always preferred Descriptive, personally...but I'm old lol. Still, seems easier to identify KB5 that to count out f5.

But as far as getting familiar...my old-fashioned self would recommend getting some stone-age tools (i.e. Pen and Paper) and recording some of your games by hand, assuming you play with long enough time controls. You'll

IDK

Same here. I find it easier and it's annoying when chess books dont have the notation as it slows down your thought processes having to count it out.

+2 because everyone (myself included) had trouble with this for a while at first. Worse is that most all chess books and chess streamers, annotators, writers and so on all use algebraic notation. 

I made it a point to learn the notation well; vision trainer on chess.com helps a lot and so does practice, but it still takes some time to get used to learning. Eventually, you'll barely need to think it and it happens almost as if automatically. I promise it gets easier if you stick with it

haha I hear ya. 

I learned that notation (well after learning algebraic notation) because My 60 Memorable Games is written in this format. Yes, they also have algebraic translations of that book, but Fischer denounced them for changing things or "improving" his analysis that he knew was best and didn't need improving. Not saying all translations did this, but several "translations" really did change some things (either intentionally or by error). 

Despite Fischer passing away, I purchased an original copy of the text in honor of him and chose to learn this notation so I could read the book as it was originally presented 

Ain't that the truth!  When I got back into chess after many years, I had to get used to algebraic.  All my old chess books are descriptive, but now it's hard to go back to descriptive.  

The Pirc in descriptive notation:

1. P-K4  P-Q3

2. P-Q4  N-KB3

3. N-QB3  P-KN3

4. P-B4  B-N2

5. N-B3   0-0

My problem is I last played chess in the 1970s. Just getting back into it and I am still thinking in terms of P-K4 and QN-B5. I'm having trouble adjusting to the new (to me) notation.

you know, when the medieval people played chess and took descriptive notation, if it was a tough game, things could get pretty nasty (Ex. "white queen murders black churl... black bishop commits felony against rival monarch...")

When I first learned to play, back around 1968-69, the so-called Descriptive notation was used: P-K4, B-KB4, etc.  I stopped playing for a number of years, and when I came back it was a shock to see that Algebraic was in use. I didn't like it at all, partly because it seemed like a "White-centric" type of notation to see the board and label it from the viewpoint of the White player. 

But I got used to it, more or less. But because I'm an old guy, I find that I really need a board with the notation letters and numbers printed along the sides. It's too tedious for me to keep counting over and across when I am playing out a game. 

But I'm used to it now, to the point where Algebraic notation now seems strange. 

    I'm old too and originally learned descriptive, but there's no doubt algebraic is better. f5 is always f5, but KB5 can be f5 or f4, depending on who is moving. Probably the best system is algebraic using only square numbers, as 1. g1-f3. Then an English speaking player would be sure of what was meant when a German-speaking player wrote down his move, rather than being unsure when seeing Sf3.

I played back in the 60s and just started playing again about a week ago. It took me a couple days to get used to algebraic. What helped me the most was playing bot games and then replaying my games on a physical board from the notation. It's like anything. The more practice you get the quicker you learn.

Never heard this account, so I'll just chalk this one up as a likely troll account since the join date was less than a week ago. I apologize if this snap judgement is not accurate. 

p.s. How old is "medieval" by these standards? Greco analyzed chess in the early 1600s (year: not rating lol) and I've seen nothing of that sort.

+1 This is exactly it and algebraic is very common nowadays, so it is worth investing some time into learning it. chess.com vision trainer is suited for this, but of course one can also improve by reading notation and recording games by hand etc.

Yes

What's surprising is that algebraic has been around since the 19th century, but for some bizarre reason someone decided descriptive was--easier? more elegant? more fun?--who knows. I'm 69, and I love algebraic. Several of my books are still descriptive, but I avoid them whenever possible.

No

+1 I love algebraic chess notation. Once I learned it, I found it much easier than other methods and most chess literature and commentary in algebraic makes it a must to know. Why is descriptive notation still even around? I don't know. Probably because the chess community is slow to change. Descriptive notation has been around for a long time and some players prefer it. In fact, Bobby Fischer preferred this to algebraic even though algebraic was more common even in his era. 

It comes down to taste, but part of it is also likely because in that method, captures are easier to write (example: QxB "Queen captures Bishop) instead of needing the location of the capture. One virtue I love about algebraic is that the squares are not "flipped" so the e4 square is still the e4 square regardless what board orientation you have.