Algebraic vs Descriptive Notation...

Ah, deflection. Poor baby.

I have question. If I write down my moves in descriptive notation will I be disqualified?

I learned chess with descriptive notation in 1952.

I also learned to play blindfold chess that way. All friends that I used to play with are now DEAD. I have taught all my grandchildren Algebraic notation because that is the standard. . . .

Those of you that can follow descriptive notation there is great book called "adventures of a master." By George Koltonowki. He was a blindfold champion. Very descriptive of blindfold chess and humorous.

Of course it's out of print. 

Maybe you might, depending on the requirements. But anyone who would do that doesn't deserve to run a tournament.

https://rcc.fide.com/article8/

https://new.uschess.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/us-chess-rule-book-online-only-edition-chapters-1-2-10-11-9-1-20.pdf

https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

FIDE: If I read things correctly, you won't be disqualified but your scoresheet can't be used as evidence in any dispute resolution (Draw claims, illegal moves, etc).

USCF: Descriptive notation is permitted even though Algebraic Notation is suggested.

Just some historical context: the so-called "descriptive notation" went extinct 40 year ago in the US, 100 years ago in the UK, 150 years ago everywhere else. This seems enough time to get used to the "novelty". Unless someone spent the last 50 years in a coma, but I'm sure that most arbiters would be willing to make an exception in that particular case.

Your historical interest is a bit askew. In the late 1980s, almost all club players in the UK were still insisting on using descriptive. You might be getting mixed up with the long form of descriptive.

Round about 1989 I changed to the very fast form of algebraic (as in 1. e4 2. d5 3.de) and I was the second or third in our club of nearly 30 people to do so.

If it was merely 35 years ago and not 40, that's almost the same. I believe that the US magazine Chess World was the last of the Mohicans and they gave up on "descriptive" in the 1980s, after FIDE decided to no longer accept it.

Sure, players were slow to adjust, but even the slowest of the slow should have done so in more than 3 decades.

If someone can't find 10-15 minutes in 30 years to learn notation, they are not trying.

The BCF wasn't aligned to FIDE, which many, including me, consider to be corrupt. Given a change of politics in the UK .. that is, the "weak" BCF gave way to the "corrupt" ECF which is aligned to FIDE, there's much more inappropriate authoritarianism.

I even know some people in club matches still using descriptive! If FIDE found out, they would possibly be forfeited. But they are sticking to the rule which allowed "any normally accepted means of recording moves, the meaning of which is accessible to all". I think they're right to, since FIDE might at any time decide that the accelerated form of algebraic which I use cannot be allowed, for some invented reason. Inappropriate use of authority should always be resisted on principle, because, if not, giving way to authority may become a habit.

Long algebraic is longer. Bf1-c4 is longer than B-B4. Even short algebraic has gotten longer. The move we write as "exd5" today would just have been written "ed" years back.

But we don't use algebraic because it's shorter, the main reason we use it is because we thought people wouldn't be able to grasp the idea of each square having two names, depending on which side was looking at the board.

Another reason is that it's supposedly less error prone (I say "supposedly" because I looked at a kid's scoresheet recently, and it had so many notation errors that I couldn't reconstruct the game.)

But with Descriptive, imagine a situation where Bc4 is a reasonable move, worth considering, but Bf4 is a totally ridiculous move that nobody would even consider. The correct way to write Bc4 in Descriptive would be B-QB4. But if B-KB4 is so absurd that nobody would consider it, people often tend not to notice that it's even possible, and so miswrite the move as B-B4 instead.

I always write ed and wouldn't dream of using exd5. Why don't people use the shorthand algebraic?

Well, short algebraic is shorter, and so easier and quicker to write. It's easier to write "e4" than "e2-e4" (or e2e4). But some books, like the algebraic version of Tal's book on the 1960 championship use long algebraic. (Topalov's book on the 2006 championship doesn't).

Another way that algebraic has changed is that when the USCF first started pushing it, they didn't use x for capture. They used a colon instead, so Nxe5 would be written as N:e5. That looks really odd to me, but someone told me that's the way they do it in German.

So I would like to learn DN, as I'm already pretty familiar with AN. BUt the other reason I want to learn how to convert it easily, is that I was gifted Fred Reinfeld's The Complete Chess Course and it's in DN. Please help with aneasy solution to be able to enjoy this gift!

Lol, you mean you were re-gifted his course, apparently...

Granted I was born in this century, I learned algebraic without too much trouble. I did learn descriptive to read some of the older books (my chess club would give out decades-old texts for free), so I do know how to use both types. I would definitely prefer to use algebraic since it's somewhat more intuitive in my opinion. Nothing wrong with using descriptive for those used to it.

I have a lovely copy of Réti's Masters of the Chessboard. It's a beautiful book, both didactic and gently informative, tracing the history of chess from the very early coffee-house days through to Réti's own time, talking about each master, and highlighting a few of their best games, and what they gave to chess. It's the work of someone who loved what he was writing. It's all in descriptive notation, and has a lovely fireside picture on the cover, it makes me feel cosy and comfortable, and it embodies all that I love in chess, eschewing a lot that I dislike. So Descriptive notation will for ever be linked, for me, with that book, and with Réti's era. So I will always have a soft-spot for it.

Incidentally, I wonder how many people are fluent in reading but not writing a notation? I have never really competed, so although I read both notations to play through others' games, I don't have cause to write either.