Algebraic vs Descriptive Notation...

I disagree with pawnhacker here about descriptive being "was". I have a student I teach who is 8 years old and rated 900 USCF. He just learned the game a year ago. He has won 24 chess trophies this calander year.

I outlined how I learned English Descriptive notation in an earlier post. I am going to have him do exactly the same thing. His dad has ordered him some inexpensive books in English Descriptive Notation. These are the same books which helped me learn a lot back in the 60's. He will study these on his own, apart from our weekly lessons.  Now granted, I could have picked out some books in algebraic notation, but the ones I suggested are simple, and I know will help him a lot. The boy is counting the days until his books arrive, he's really ready to rock and roll with learning chess.

I think you may have read too much into the "was".

I, too, liked...and still like descriptive (in books only, though).

I've basically given my support to the cause of descriptive having "human oriented" advantages, in my postings above. I could picture game play in my head, without a board all setup. With algebraic, I can't (and I'm not saying others can't).

All I meant in that latter post (the "was" one) is that algebraic notation has long since (decades) become the universal norm (and for good reason...computers like it better).

The rest of what I wrote in the "was" post was (see how I got two was in one sentence?) an attempt, poor as it may be, at levity.

I learnt descrptive notation when I first learnt chess. One can use it on any chess board to move the pieces. However, it is prone to errors and playing over my own games found I wasn't being specific enough with pieces etc. Algebraic is more specific and less likely for errors as well as being specific with actualy squares. However, I have found I need numbered boards, otherwise its a chore. I still have chess books with descriptive notation but over time have come to appreciate algebraic notation. Playing correspondence chess I have even learnt international notation. I have learnt all six variations of notation but prefer short algebraic, which seems to be the most popular.

I learned descriptive notation as a child. Now I am so used to algebraic that I can't go back. Yet, I will revert to writing some weird mix at times. For example Nc3 for black's first knight move instead of Nc6 since it is his third rank. And I will still write BxN instead of Bxf6 for example. I have a hard time reading descriptive, but no issue reading algebraic. 

What Mr.Eric Fleet says is true. I grew up following DN in my youth. So I find AN hard while recording score sheet when playing black. Also,since I grew up on DN, it is hard to visualize moves from Black's perspective!

Like reading music, I've learned to actually memorise the name and location of all squares on the chessboard by both names.

I think that with practice, one can get used to both with equal ease. Once that happens, no need for prejudice...

I learned descriptive from Bobby Fish.

Then some blokes used the half-retarded algebraic stuff.

Then there was this book that used the piece logos instead of K, Q, N, B which was nice, so alge wasn't so bad then (algebraic was just kinda crappy compared to descriptive).

But alge is faster to write when playing, and like Eric Fleet I used a mix of the two to write my moves in games, but mainly to get guys to stare longer at my move sheet, so I could giggle at them.

I write Black's moves in algebraic and White's in descriptive. That's during the opening. During the middle game I switch--White in algebraic, Black in descriptive. I find descriptive too confusing when I reach the ending and write both sides's moves in algebraic.

Sounds like something Ivanchuk would do.

lol

I grew up with descriptive, but I had very little trouble with algebraic, and I now use it all the time. And algebraic is here to stay.

Wow, so I am not as weird as I thought. I am not sure whether I am relieived or disappointed.

It is allowed to write in descriptive during tournaments (for fun, I once wrote algebraic on one side of a scorsheet adn descriptive on the other

I try to use algebraic only because that is standard nowadays. But like any language, the best notation depends on what your goal is. If I want to describe a general situation, like either side's bishop pinning a newly emerged knight, I'll write B-N5 since that describes all four possible cases at once, instead of writing all four possibilities Bg5, Bb5, ...Bb4, ...Bg4. In my posts here people might notice that I mix the two notations in the same post, depending on what concept I'm trying to describe.

As others mentioned, I also commonly get my rank numbers swapped accidently when when I'm looking at the board from the Black side and writing down moves, though I figure I just need more experience doing that.

By the way, once I came up with yet another notation that was special purpose for bishop + knight mates. It used the target *corner* as a reference, and like descriptive notation (which is invariant to which side of the board) it was invariant to which side, relative to the corner. That was pretty unique and interesting, I thought. Recently I've been playing with yet other types of notation that describe the essence of positions in chess puzzles, though that became very complex and would require a computer to manage efficiently. Again, which is the "best" language/notation depends on the goal.

You said it, 30 years have passed. Notation has changed. Commentators are not going to use an antiquated notation for you.

Think of it positively: If you learn algebraic well... You'll be well versed in both and will easily read any chess book out there.

My suggestion to get better is read a chess book (in algebraic) on a board without coordinates. Practice coordinates @ http://en.lichess.org/training/coordinate and write down your OTB games in algebraic. You'll get the hang of it in no time.

I came up with a notation that incorporates direction of movement:

1. k^2 k^2

2. Nk\2 Nq\2

3. B\4

That is the Ruy Lopez opening.

Directions are indicated by arrows (^; v; <; >), or in the case of diagonal movement, by slashes of the appropriate angle (\; /;). Numbers are used to show the extent of the movement, measured in squares. Negative numbers show backward movement for diagonal moves and the directions are relative to the moving player, like descriptive notation. For specifying which of two or more of the same piece that can move in a certain direction and magnitude, letters corrosponding to sides of the board are used (k [kingside]; q [queenside]; w [whiteside]; b [blackside]). Pawns are named by their file relative to the centre files (q [the queen's pawn]; k [the king's pawn]; q2 [the pawn on the second queenside file from the centre i.e. the queen's bishop's pawn]; etc.).

I call it "Vector Notation". What do you think?

I like it!

I like it because it's concise. It's easy to come up with a notation that mixes algebraic and descriptive, but in doing so you have long descriptions. You cleverly managed to avoid that.

But I've found it really hard to convert Vector Notation to Algebraic because you basically have to stare at the board to know what to move.

About the vector notation, the knight movement doesn't make any sense to me, since it isn't moving on a 45 degree angle. In your example, 2. Nk\2 could be moving either to the f3 square or the e2 square. Also, the knight isn't really moving two squares, since it's moving in an "L" shape.