Algebraic vs Descriptive Notation...

When I was young my father taught me descriptive notation (P-K4 or N-QR4, etc.), so over 30 years later, I still find it very difficult to follow games with algebraic notation. Listening to the games on Chess Live I want the commentators to use descriptive - I would understand instantly then, whereas when they say G5, or C2, I'm having to "hunt" the square.

So, does everyone use algebraic, or are there still some old fashioned players, like me, who prefer descriptive?

I agree with RF that descriptive is better for people; it is easier to visualize the moves. But with the advent of the computer (descriptive is foolishness to the computer), algebraic became the norm.

I don't particularly like it either. But the advantages, taking computers into account (such as our being able to play on the internet), are overwhelming.

Do what I (and many others) do: stiff upper lip. 

Algebraic is far more easy for me than descriptive.

I still record my games in DN, but I think that is because the local TD lets me.  If I'm not mistaken, the USCF rule is that you have to record in AN.  But, yeah, I like DN better, but I've become "bilingual" over time.

I'm fluent in both, but I find algebraic more mathematic (hence the word "algebra", I guess), and thus easier for me. Assuming that you went to elementary school, you'd now how co-ordinates work, so this corrosponds to that knowledge well. 

For the less mathematically inclined (not that I am - I'm no math genius), I'd think that descriptive is easier.

Well, I'm 44 and still prefer DN to AN. But I can understand AN is a lot easier (and shorter) for most people. It's like I still understand feet and inches, where as centremetres and metres leave me confused.

Algebraic is far superior in every way simply because it's logical and consistent.  None of that unintuitive or illogical P-K4 P-K4 garbage.  Though I like long algebraic better for studying side variations. 

 As for what's easier to visualize Algebraic all the way since it translates far better from language into chess as squares consistently have the same names. 

I don't want an argument breaking out - I'm not saying DN is better than AN, I'm just interested if there are a vew people, like me, who still prefer DN. :)

I guess it comes back to the fact I haven't played that many games in recent years, and when I have, I've not generally used AN - if I played more and recorded more, I would soon pick it up. 

I didn't really start playing chess until I was in the military over in Germany in the early 1970's and had never seen an algebraic chess book until after I got out of the Marine Corps in 1979.  Fred Reinfield and I.A. Horowitz were the main authors I followed. 

Around 1980 or 1981 I went to a public library and checked out a book of games by Smyslov without actually looking through it.  When I got home and discovered it was in algebraic notation I had no idea how to follow it and immediately took it back to the library.  The new chess books coming out were increasingly going to the new algebraic notation and I fought it tooth and nail refusing to even look at one.  Eventually there was no other option than to buy a chess book in algebraic and to my surprise I actually started liking it better.

Change is hard for many people but overall I believe most people find that algebraic notation is much easier to follow, especially when studying endgames since there is no confusion as to where the pieces move.

My greatest hope is that some day a young chessmaster will convert I.A. Horowitz's book "Chess Opening Theory and Practice" to algebraic while updating some of the archaic lines.

USCF rules allow AN, DN or computer notation. And I would wager, no TD is going to care which notation type is used as long as it can be easily understood.

I'd take that wager.

FIDE Laws of Chess:

8.1a: In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponentin the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. [...]

Appendix C: FIDE recognises for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System, and recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals. Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement.

So yes, there is a difference what notation you use.

I still like using descriptive to be deliberately old-fashioned at times, though.

I said USCF. The rule is as I stated for that

Ashley : I don't understand why you can be confused about the metric system, since 1965 a law in England and in 1975 (officially) to be used in England, so you learned metric in schools etc.

We have relatives in England and my "working life" had to do a lot with England, customers and suppliers, so I know a bit about it.

Or do you have a background in the USA ? That's different !

Martin

Thanks for the post.  I'm not up on my rules as much as I used to be, but someone said something about my using DN (I'd been out of USCF tourneys for more than 2 decades) and the TD said it was OK with him.  BTW, my score sheets are usually more accurate than those using AN, because when I write my move down, I always take a second or two to look the board over, to make sure it's, say, PxP, and not KPxP or RPxP.  The biggest problem with AN is missing move pairs, since you don't have to look the board over to be accurate, and people sometimes forget.  But there is no debate in my mind--AN is far easier to work with; I just cut my teeth on DN, is all.

Remillion

Thanks for the post, but I doubt if I will be playing in any FIDE rated events anytime soon.  And I agree, the look on younger players (below 50) when they come to my board and try to read the scoresheet--I just love it.  You know, here in the US back in the seventies there were some young players who wrote their games in AN, just to get a rise out of people who didn't use AN--seems like I'm doing the same thing now!

You should all try reading XiangQi notation. There is no Chinese national standard, and they vary by province and region. Only 3 have been known to be acknowledged outside China. 

Whereas chess notation goes like this:

1. e4 e5

Xiangqi notation resembles this (computer notation):

1. C2.5 H8+7

or the kind used in HongKong newspapers:

1. Cannon on second file left to fifth file | Horse on eighth file advance to seventh file (they're way shorter in Chinese).

In most XiangQi notations though, they bear more similarities to descriptive notation, since no information about ranks are ever used. Also, the moves are written from the perspective of the respective side.

I grew up with Descriptive Notation. I taught it to myself at age 11 by putting masking tape over every square and writing the names for the squares on each piece. e1 is K1 and K8. After playing over games in the Sunday newspaper for 3 weeks, I figured I had it down, peeled off the tape, and never looked back. I switched to algebraic in 1976, and I prefer it, but don't condemn Descriptive. 

Descriptive is actually superior to algebraic when naming squares. You could say both sides have an outpost on Q5 in descriptive, but have to say White's outpost is on d5, Black's is on d4. This is especially true when explaining ideas of a color's reversed opening.

Descriptive can be confusing if you play a move like BxP. You have to see if either of your Bishops could take a pawn. If both can capture a Knight pawn, you have to be more specific and say BxQNP instwead of BxNP. Actually, this might not be a bad thing, maybe BxKNP is a better move! 

Some of the older books use Kt for Knight. N is most common.

Some of my best books are in Descriptive notation, primarily the Averbakh endgame series, 8 volumes.

If you're bright enough to play and enjoy chess, you are bright enough to know two notation systems. It's true many old chess classics have been rewritten in algebraic, but not enough of them.

Maybe I need to  write my moves in Descriptive at my next event, lol.

aww-rats

If you like playing with their heads, definitely use DN!  When you see "the look", you'll love it.

I'd wagger that algebraic is quite descriptive.

Although I agree that everyone prefers what they are used to there is a single reason why I do not like DN - every square is identified with two different names. If someone says "a1" I know exactly what square he means but QR1 (or QR8) is a name of two squares. If someone wants to study a game I think it is easier to follow ideas when AN is used for you can always have coordinates written on the board which seems impossible with DN. I have played in an unofficial tourney where DN was a rule and it was very chaotic (likely because noone was used to the notation). I still have some scoresheets and here is an example:

Black`s scoresheet

1. P-K5 P-K4

2. N-KB3 N-QB6

White`s

1. P-K4 P-K4

2.N-KB3 N-QB6

It should have been

1. e4 e5

2. Nf3 Nc6 

I wonder if a bunch of older players familiar with DN would have made something similar if they had used AN.