Anyone miss descriptive notation?

I know how to read described notation but I never used it since I only started playing last November. To me algebraic notation seems alot easier and quicker since every square has it's own description. 📌

It all depends on when you were born. Age has everything to do with it. Even Fischer in the 60's used DN. Most of us old timers can use both so it's not a problem for us. 

I learned with descriptive notation back in the 1960s, and, with hindsight, I realize now it was horrible.  I made the transition to algebraic in 1974 when ECO first came out.

Algebraic is so much better at describing positional aspects.  You can't say, for instance, "White must retain control of the d5 square," in descriptive, because d5 has two different descriptions.  Try saying in descriptive, "And White takes control of the b1-h7 diagonal."  Or try explaining a maneuring plan, where white moves his Nc3-e2-g3-f5.  And when I now look back on my pre-algebraic game scores I find numerous mistakes in square designation.  KN-QN5??? Ndb5 is shorter, simpler and, ironically, more descriptive.

I'm 32, and personally I prefer descriptive. I learned how to play in 2001, and at that point algebraic was the norm, but the old books I cut my teeth on were in descriptive. I was much better than I am now, and visualization was easier to me with descriptive. algebraic may be easier to record and go over with otb games with, but I see things better visually with descriptive

I learned chess via descriptive notation in the early 70s, out of a beautiful book called "Chess for Children". I still remember the excitement and poetry of that experience.

Algebraic notation seems dull and soulless to me in comparison, but I accept that it has greater utility.

I learned Descriptive first as a kid in the 70s (US). Algebraic was kind of foreign but I have caught on to it mostly from using this site.  I play Vote Chess on here and it's fun, and we talk about the board, and I use descriptive.  The main thing that bothers me is when I try to ask about a move.  "Why did we move f5?" and then it looks like the question mark is an annotation.  One solution is to make the move bold (why did we move f5?) and one is to type "should we move f5 question ?"

I do have trouble visualizing the notation. you have to remember which side is white and it involves scrolling up to the diagram and back down to the composition window.  The exercise in Learn - Visualization is great for anyone trying to learn Algebraic.

Also our team is multilingual and I wish chess.com would have automatic translation so I could see the diagram in the symbols from another country.  (Best notation is when it shows a little picture of the piece, but then I do not know how people would type it.)

I'll go against the grain.  I learned descriptive notation first ... and hated it.  I found it immensely frustrating.  When playing through games, I frequently made mistakes, often because I thought Black was moving but using White's coordinates.  I would frequently switch the board around, looking at it from Black's side when it was Black to move, just to make sure those mistakes stopped happening.  It was a slow and laborious process.

In particular, captures were a pain.  You would a long string of captures: 1.BxN PxB 2.NxP QxN 3.QxQ KxQ, and as a chess beginner, it was never obvious which Bishop was moving, which pawn was taking, etc etc.  I had to think backwards, first looking for the piece that was being captured and then finding a piece that could capture that piece.  Sure, now it's no problem, but when I was first starting out and could barely 'see' the whole board, just saying BxP wasn't enough.

I would have stopped studying chess if I didn't discover algebraic notation.  It was so much simpler, as captures indicated which square the capture was on and there was only one name per square.  It also took less physical space to write the notation down, and the mix of upper and lower case characters made it easier on the eyes (for instance, compare 1.P-QB4 N-KB3 to 1.c4 Nf6).

I chuckle when I hear some of you saying the descriptive notation is romantic or poetic in a way, how you can 'feel' the moves better.  To me, it only felt awkward and cumbersome, like trackballs on old computers before mice became standard.  I don't miss neither in the slightest.

study the beginners game by pafu.

Something about Notation, it's variations and development: https://www.chess.com/article/view/notation-1

A friend still writes in desriptive notation.  

 TY Batgirl excellent article and most interesting.

Grew up with descriptive and hated it.  The only thing I like is captures...sometimes it's more satisfying to see QxQ rather than Qxc7.

 It is MUCH easier to visualize the chess board and moves with algebraic notation. 

Despite being "fluent" in both Descriptive and Algebraic, I struggle somewhat when I'm reading the score in algebraic long-form (e.g. "Nf3-e5"), which was the form used by most of the Russian writers in the Botvinnik era.  

YW

Weird...I'm 12 years old and had never known anything except algebraic. Most mathematically logical would be a mutant of ICCF and algebraic, like for Ruy:

1.5254    5755 (not 5754, because we look at it only from white side)

2.N7163  N2836 (I include N to avoid confusion)

3. B6125 1716

Then there's this stuff

Algebraic is easier to grasp, simpler notation, easier to type.

Great work, batgirl! I like Jaenisch's efforts to distinguish a rook from a castle, a bishop from a prelate, a knight from a mare, and to give each pawn a separate name. But, only as a curiosity. I'm glad that it never took hold.

I have written entire games from memory using descriptive for White and algebraic for Black.

1.P-K4 e5 2.N-KB3 Nc6 3.B-N5 ...