Algebraic vs Descriptive Notation...

ChessBase can display descriptive. PGN files, of course, must be in algebraic because the system is simpler, more logical, and less prone to error.

I, too, learned descriptive first and used it for many years. I have loads of books that use it. Old dogs can learn new tricks. Take the time to learn algebraic. You’ll thank me.

I have some Descriptive Notation chess books for sale.  Check out the bottom half of the page at this link: http://cs1904.com/books/Book_Sale.html   I would be glad to make a package deal if you're interested in several.

Hm . . . I learned chess in 1951 it was descriptive notation . I was 13 later in 1959 i learned to play blindfold chess in descriptive notation. Later whaen algebraic notation i continued using DN and avoided the AG. 

But you can't fight changes and win. I'm going to be 85 on December 14 and nobody i know plays blindfold in DN.

I've taught chess to four of my grandchildren and four of my sons why would i teach them an archaic method.  

They are teaching me cell phone use not old dial up home phones . . .

Work on it and learn it slowly . . .

If I at 85 can do it so can you . . .

LOL, that's not the reason why PGN files have to be in algebraic. The computer makes no value judgments about which one is better, algebraic is just the only one the software knows.

I'm marveling at your belief that there are some people playing online who don't know algebraic, and need you to turn them onto it. Everyone reading this knows algebraic, none of them owe you thanks. A hard truth, perhaps, but truth.

Computers didn’t invent PGN. Programmers did. They made the correct choice—simpler and less error free. I stand by my statement.

Nonetheless, a lot of chess games that were circulating on the web twenty years ago could not be read by PGN readers because many humans did not know the difference between 0-0 and O-O. Only the latter was readable to most chess software.

I see people writing strange and often undecipherable efforts at chess notation almost every day. Your claim that everyone knows something is contrary to evidence.

When your facts are wrong, you should probably refrain from speculating about someone else’s motivation. Chances are good that you have that wrong, too.

Fun fact: "descriptive notation" was already considered outdated and backwards in the 1840s (yes, 180 years ago!), when Paul Morphy was just a kid. The whole world got rid of it in the next few decades, except (to no one's surprise) Britain and the US.

1.e45 e55

2.G36 B63

3.F52 a61

4.F41 G66

From la Regence 1848

My first chess books (by Reinfeld and Horowitz) were in descriptive notation. I believe the old copy of "My System" that I had was descriptive, as well.

I always found it a bit of a slog, and I remember feeling astonished when I first encountered algebraic notes. So simple - so clear!

Also, calling it "Algebraic notation" is typical US nonsense. There is nothing algebraic about it, so I believe that someone misunderstood something and the whole name is just a dumb misnomer.

In all the other part of the world it's just chess notation, the one and only. Only chess historians know about the "descriptive" one.

Staunton called it the German system.

I was comfortable with descriptive in the 1970s and became familiar with algebraic later. In the mid-1990s, I switched entirely to coordinate notation (aka algebraic) and now find descriptive cumbersome. Even so, as I read nineteenth century texts, and older, regularly, I must maintain some ability with awkward forms. “The king’s bishop moves to the adverse queen’s knight’s fourth house.”

This explains why some chess players were so formidable back then - they evolved from all the mental exertion required just to follow descriptive notation.

I think both are ok ! Just like in politics.

The original description and solution of what became misnamed as the Lucena Position. It should be called the Salvio Position, as this is from Salvio’s Arte Liberale del Gioco Degli Scacchi (1604).

Very cool! Chess history is fascinating ...

Here's a page from la Regence, which I referenced in a post above. I learned to read this notation last week in order to get to an ending from the published game score that is referenced in a book that I'm reading. It is the first game in the first issue.

I don't know if you've ever actually taken algebra, but the x/y graph system is absolutely a part of algebra, hence the name.

Fun Fact: "Outdated" is a meaningless word. An attempt to BS people into thinking that their opinions and preferences are somehow objective facts. There's no inherent virtue in trendiness, it just is.

The real fact is that you can't be a serious player in the English-speaking world without knowing Descriptive. Too many books and magazines are available no other way, and are unlikely to be re-issued. You don't have to know it if you're a beginner, but eventually you will. If you find it too difficult, you're probably going to find chess itself to be too difficult.