Anyone miss descriptive notation?

I think Nero was a fiddler.

The main problem with the descriptive notation is the possible confusion about  the positions of the pieces. For example, if there is a rook at queen's bishop 5 and one at king's bishop 5 . It is very easy to move the wrong rook when you go through a game. In the days when you had to use an actual chessborad to go through a game, this was a real headache. I still have one or two books with the descriptive notation. Luckily the records of most of the games there can be found on the internet, and I don't have to struggle with the descriptive any more.

I hated descriptive notation and was happy when algebraic was introduced and officially adopted by the USCF. The opposite perspective rank numbering (one man's 2nd rank is another man's 7th) wreaks havoc with my minor dyslexia problem. I was always putting pieces on wrong squares.

Oh, how true and well said. PQ4 is a move I FEEL.  I see it clearly in my mind's eye as well.  I do study more modern books now. But like 1st languages, yes, it feels normal.  What a very eloquent way to  put it.

Caffè Nero had the best coffee that I could find in London. I knew to look for it because I read William Gibson, Zero History on the plane.





I think it means black. 

Try studying the endgame in descriptive notation.You are certain to acknowledge algebraic is much much better.

Here's chess notation for you:

WHAT??
I like algebraic, I can never understand discriptive.

Never heard of ICCF, it sounds quite confusing. Now that I think of it it is easier to use algebraic, but name the starting square too, it makes it easier to play moves backwards (like while ANALYZING a variation.)

1. e2-e4  e7-e5

2.Ng1-f3 Ng8-f6

I agree that the absolute best is algebraic long form(Bc1-f4 etc.).

You know, the funny thing is that AN is consided to be a more accurate system of notation, but I find that most players using AN omit move pairs often during tournament games.  With DN, I make a move, punch the clock, and then I'm forced to take a second to look around the board in order to see that PxP is the move to write down and not BPxP or QPxP.  Doing this, my score sheets are normally more accurate than my opponents using the more accurate AN.  So, to me, it's the player writing the moves, not the system, that's more accurate.

For playing over games, AN has the advantage of one name for each square, eliminating ambiguity, but for general concepts (e.g., Ns belong on B3, Ps at K4 and Q4, etc.) DN is the best.  And, with all due respect, long algebraic annoys me, probably as much as DN does to you.

I absolutely hate when my opponent screws up their score sheet and then they ask to look at my score sheet so they can sort out their own messed up notation.  Any system that prevents this I would gladly embrace.

That looks like some kind of Dada poem.

And you`ve never had problems with the arbiters?

FIDE-Rules say:

"8.1 a. In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition."

"Appendix C. Algebraic notation FIDE recognises for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System, and recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals. Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement."

and maybe some hard liners apply

"11.7 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game. The arbiter shall decide the score of the opponent"

Most tournaments in the US follow USCF rules which permit English descriptive in order to accommodate the curmudgeons who make up a substantial portion of the rank and file.

Shh! The internet is forever AND ever.  I am actually filling in Ziryab's blank with "plebians".  But I don't know if that's really a mod or Z being creative.  I have no room to talk I lost a game to a royal fork last night. One of those romantic, "Chess at Midnight vs the 1500 rated guy in Serbia" moments. I had my iced tea, my plan of attack, ideas.... And then i had to remind myself I'm not Kasparov and that sacrifice I think yields a mate is a lie.  And in pursuing that mate, I missed a 3 or 4 move ahead royal fork and LOST. I'm still cussing.  I want to win one of these slow romantic games like that and go screaming into the living room afterwards.

So I'm the plebian in this case. 8)

Does USCF and FIDE require notation to be handed in?  And i hav eheard now from several sources that USCF allows DN but FIDE does not.

Descriptive notation forever and ever!!!

I still say miles and inches and first down is 10 yards, so I live by the English system.   

Algebraic is metric.  Sterile.  Not virile.  

Descriptive is poetic.  Romantic.   Dashing. 

IDK

I really miss it. Algebraic notation is quite tough to adapt to.

Well, I'm only 13 years old, so descriptive was before my time, however, I have couple old books written in desriptive sof I had to learn it, and I find it a lot harder than algebric.