Algebraic vs Descriptive Notation...

In this case, the "2" means it moves to the square 2 ranks away that it can move to in that indicated direction.

For example, a knight on g1 moving to f3 would be written as "Nk\2", because the "[+]2" indicates the destination square as being 2 ranks away. The "\" indicates the direction - flankwise - that it moves in. So Nk\2 could be interpreted as, "The knight on the kingside flanks to the left 2 squares forward."

If the knight moved to e2, then it would be written as "Nk\1" because the "1" indicates that the destination square now is 1 rank away. The "\" indicates flanking to the left. Knowing how the knight moves, you'd know what square that would be. "The knight on the kingside flanks to the left 1 square forward."

Also, L-shape is still essentially diagonal movement. Only it's 22.5 degree angle instead of 45.

In uscf tourneys using descriptive is allowed , in fide events it is not . 

i first learned descriptive for 10 years and hated it. When I discovered alg, I could mot believe how much better it was. I  HATE descriptive!

I have no problem with descriptive nor algebraic , does that make me bi-lingual ?  

I think the "human oriented" point is a good one, and is in fact applicable to metric vs imperial discussion as well: I find metric make more sense to me as a system and overall, but isn't as good as imperial at helping me under understand thigns on a human scale: for example, a 1 inch difference is relevant in terms of someone's height, whereas I find a 1 cm difference much less so. 5 foot is short, while 6 foot is tall; 152 cm and 182 cm are both big numbers.

That sort of thing is useless when you scale it up to, say, travel distances, where I much, much prefer kilometres over miles.

At your level, Reb, you probably visualize the board well enough that it might not matter as much. I would imagine this is more of an issue for players down the ranks a bit.

In my case I learned descriptive first and all my older books are in descriptive . It took me a year or more to admit that algebraic is better ( less ambiguous ) and convert to it in scorekeeping .  However , I still have a lot of books in descriptive so I try to stay fluent in it as well .  I even try to keep my score in descrpitive at least one tourney a year but its getting harder and harder to do .... while living in Europe I didnt use descriptive because  fide doesnt allow you to keep score in anything but algebraic . 

I didn't want to change from descriptive because I was used to playing blindfold chess the old fashion way. I tried to hold off. I gave up when I joined Chess.com.. . .

About a year ago I gave away about 104 chess books written in descriptive notation to an

old GEEZER group member. . .

I kept only one book which was Adventure of A Chess Master. By George Koltanowski. . .

I read the games both ways but not too good at blindfold chess using Algebraic.

Soon all the old farts will be gone and Algebraic will be the only way.

Algebraic notation is by far the quickest and easiest

It seems like we sterilize everything these days, sacrificing deep connotation for the sake of efficiency. In doing so we are sucking the meaning out of life itself, and we will soon find a pump where our heart used to be.

I'll tell you what though, although I am mostly neutral about the descriptive and algebraic (each had a valid place in chess history), I still would rather say things black's QBp rather than c7. Not in game notation, mind you...just in referencing pieces.

Why? "Old habits die hard?" Sure. Maybe. Or...perhaps just to annoy the opponent. Why else do we play chess? lol

While I'm used to descriptive notation, before I learned it, it seemed to me that algebraic notation was simpler and more straightforward to learn and remember. So I think that algebraic probably is easier for beginners - although, especially for describing openings, I like the fact that in descriptive the ranks are numbered from the current players' point of view, and do not find that to be a flaw in descriptive at all.

Incidentally, I remember reading that the USCF had switched to algebraic, and FIDE changed its rules to no longer permit players to record moves in descriptive in FIDE events. However, in searching on the web for when this happened, I've only found claims that descriptive is still allowed. Is my memory playing tricks on me?

I'm an older player who grew up on descriptive notation and I'm still at home in it. But I prefer algebraic.

Ditto. My conversion to algebraic came in 1971, when I got to know a fellow (a USCF master) who was able to get chess materials from the old Soviet Union. I bought several books from him in Russian and found algebraic notation to be totally sensible, so I started using it in tournaments and haven't looked back. At the same time, older books in descriptive do not pose any particular problem.

I learned English Descriptive Notation as a lad. But now I only use Algebraic. This is despite me having a kind of visual "blockage" at envisaging files after f for some reason...

In the same vein, I learned both metric and imperial measurements and weights. I can use both to a great extent, but much prefer the more rational metric.

I like this discussion. Usually the posts on the forums aren't as interesting. I tried learning descriptive along about 20 years ago. I like algebraic better, but I want to get my hands on some of the older books to improve my game. Look, to be honest, I suck at chess and I really need to improve. I've gotten to the point now that I don't lose my queen so often and now I have to work at winning or drawing the game. I would like to learn descriptive to learn some of the older ideas of chess along with some of the newer ideas.

There are some fine books which are still only in DN, e.g. 500 Master Games of Chess and The Art of the Middle Game.

Who can come up with more?

I greatly preserve Descriptive Notation.  If I am required to use algebraic guess I will not go to tourneys that prohibit it.  The main reason for me in writing down moves is for my own future use.  In all the years when I used to play have never had a situation other than an improper pairing that required a director. I just like to play if I can find a tourney that is affordable,  I see it similar to languages. If you are in a class in college  taking notes u are going to use the language that you know best. I see it no different than when I used to work at a train station and some passengers could not speak  English thus use my limited Spanish to converse with them.  I wish the USCF would also print chess life in a descriptive notation edition. I am sure there must be a program that can convert form one to the other. I do know math fairly well up thru very beginning calculus. It was my main subject in H S where in 4 years I took 5 years worth of math classes.  I want to play chess to enjoy myself and have fun.  That is why I love Siamese chess.  Does anyone know of a computer program that can translate one to the other?  Thanks