Anyone miss descriptive notation?

For those who don't know, the board wasn't always a-h and 1-8.  It used to be:

King's Rook, King's Knight, King's Bishop etc.  Instead of a8, a7, a6, a5 etc.  So the Scotch would be:

1. PK4 PK4

2. NB3 (Knight to Bishop 3) PQ4 !!  Scotch!

I absolutely HATE the new notation. I learned the old notation only because in 1992 when I read my 1st chess book, Chess in a Nutshell, it used the older descriptive notation.  I still absolutely love it with all of its nuances.  Its certainly not as precise as the modern algebraic notation.  Its easier to mess up, for instance, when there's a need for clarification. 

I think I'm getting old. 8)

I learned descriptive and still use it to record my games.  But I am forced to read algebraic to benefit from books.  Descriptive makes it easier to visualize a game.

I know both but prefer algebraic.  It makes more sense to me.  I would prefer ICCF notation was the standard though.

That's most unintuitive notation around other than the various telegraphic chess notations.

The "new" notation has been around since 1737 and standard in several countries such as Russia, Germany and Denmark since before the 19th century.

I have the habit of writing a mutant form of notation when I am taking notes for my games...

Quite often I will write "1. P-e4" for example...

Even though I grew up reading descriptive in books, I still much prefer the algebraic square naming method.

The only one I really can't stand is figurine notation... I have no idea why, but I just don't like it, lol. :)

Figurine notation is easy to read and circumvents the issues of piece names for people of different languages. But it's about impossible to write or type and you can't copy and paste the moves into a viewer. So it has its ups and its downs.

I think it's just as intuitive as algebraic but I don't play ICCF games.  It just seems like the one that makes the most sense to me.  This piece moves from here to there and no letters to muddle things up.

Most of my library is in English Descriptive Notation.  Lots of old match and tournament books.

Remember that is all there was here in the USA for decades. Every book was published in it. I got used to algebraic and either way doesn't bother me.

I don't find "5. 5171" anywhere nearly intuitive as "5. 0-0" or  "1. 5254" as intuitive as 1. e4," but to each his own.

I still record my games in DN, and still talk chess in DN.  Algebraic is a bit easier to be accurate, but I still love DN.  For instruction, I think DN is better, but then, that's just me and some other dinosaurs.

I learned chess around 1995. Everything was algebraic. It's only when I became interested in the history of the game did I find I had to learn descriptive in order to follow games from books and periodicals of the 19th and most of the 20th centuries. Transposing these games were at first very difficult, but it became easier after the first 100 games. At times it still gets confusing.

I'm another one who learned with DN, because for the longest time all that was in the house were my dad's old books from the sixties. It's my first language. I can read the other, but when dealing with Descriptive I feel the moves.  Just how it is with first languages.  I woudn't want it any other way.  

But I don't miss it, so to speak.  With some effort, it's still possible to customize your software and playsites for DN, although it's becoming much harder.  SchemingMind has an option to play your games in D. There is a version of the free Chessbase that still has D as an option, but it takes looking in order to find.  I think I had to get it from an archive.org link that I found on the chess.com forums! So, yes, I still live in Descriptive as much as I can.

I think whatever someone learns while they are learning chess they will probably consider the most intuitive.  I like ICCF notation the same way I like Esperanto.  It makes sense but I'm not going to learn it and use it because no one else I interact with does so it's totatly impractical.

Everyone knows Algebraic and Descriptive notations. ICCF notation has been mentioned as has telegraphic notations such as the Udemann Code.  But there have been many other attempts to create ways of describing chess moves.  Carl Jaenisch developed his own notation as did Lionel Kieseritsky and F.Startin Pilleau.  I know of several more.

I'm really very, very desirous to learn about any different notations of which anyone is aware.

Beat me to it.

Even so, it might be worth noting that descriptive goes back further. For example, Greco wrote:

Bianco: Pedone di Suo Le 2 Casa
Nero: Simile 

In any case, with over one hundred books in English descriptive notation that I regularly employ for reference, it is really hard to miss the system that I learned as a child.

Once I took the time in my 30s to master algebraic, however, it became second nature. English descriptive takes more effort. Early nineteenth century English descriptive takes even more effort (it resembles Greco's). 

Try 19th century French descriptive.

Bianco and Nero sound like pop music singers.

I always hated Descriptive, all the way back to the 50's when I taught myself chess from the World Book Encyclopedia article.  There was a brief bit of confusion in the 80's when I briefly tried to get back into chess, followed by immense relief as algebraic just made so much more sense.  Still didn't do much chess though until I discovered chess.com at 65.  I still have a few books in descriptive and of course I can still read it, but despise having to do so.  Sorry, just telling it like I see it...