Descriptive Notation Books

Discovering chess once again in life, played when I was in my teens, 60s, 70s, still have my old descriptive notation books, Ruben Finds, End games and others, great books, algebric notation takes away something from the game, in notation, you know what is moving and where it is moving to, as in algebric, you have to look at the board to see what is moving. Just my humble opinion, still enjoy the game either way! ~

I started playing chess in the military in the early 70's even though I already knew how the pieces moved and had seen only descriptive notation.  In the early 80's I went to the library and checked out a book of games by Smyslov without checking out the contents.  When I got home and started playing over the games I realized that it was using some new form of notation I had never seen before.  I got frustrated and almost immediately took it back.

For several years I would not even look at a chess book with algebraic notation.  I vowed I would never buy a book with such nonsense.  However, it came to the point that it was impossible to buy any current chess books with descriptive and so grudgingly I learned algebraic. 

It's hard to admit I was wrong but after learning algebraic I would never in a hundred years go back to descriptive.  Try studying endgame positions with descriptive.  If it is so important to know your rook captured a knight at f7 (Rxf7) then simply modify your notation with something like RxNf7. 

Premio53, Understand what you are saying, for me, its about reading the old books with descriptive notation that brings back the passion I felt for chess in my youth, was lucky enough to be at the public libray last summer when they were about to get rid of some old chess books, all in descriptive notation, have some great books from the 18th century anotation from tournments in Britian with the chess masters of the time. It's Ok, I get a kick out of the new kids wondering what I am writing now when I do take descriptive notation during a game, sometimes they actually ask me what I am writing, tell them its a secret weapon! lol

I have acces to about 400 descriptive notation books. I also have about 60 books in RUSSIAN and nobody bothers to read those.

Now that you posted this I will go check those books out again and make sure they don't chuck them.

I used to play blindfold chess and spoke my move in descriptive notation. Like a Testa Duro I was going to refuse to learn algebraic. But that was a dumb Idea. I have started playing blindfold chess using algbraic and I like it. It helps you to read books better and view the moves in your head. Not to metion that at 77 years old I get mental exercise for my brain. Beside I had to learn because I teach chess and I was forced to do it.

I have a book by Geo Koltownaski that I want to tranlate to elgebraic so the rest of the new players get to read all the game in his book.  One day I will start that.

Seems to be there should be a algebraic to descriptive notation software program.

Descriptive is more fun. It's also easier to learn if you haven't learned a notation yet. If I go up to someone and say "move the knight to e4" they seem less likely to understand it then "move the knight to the king's fourth".

Here is a converter:

http://www.abdelnauer.de/js/notation.htm

Fuzzbug, or anyone is there a algebraic to descriptive notation converter?

http://www.abdelnauer.de/js/notation.htm

Nonsense.Algebraic is much easier to learn and use.As regards "fun",try studying endgame books in descriptive.Guaranteed to kill your fun for good.

I grew up on DN and while I've grown accustomed to Algebraic of course, it is precisely for endgame books that I *prefer* DN.

ChessBase can display moves in descriptive notation.

First of all, your King's fourth is your opponent Kings's five, is that really simple ? ;-)

Plus : what means King's fourth after you have castled ?

aln67 in DN the files are always the same, does not matter if you castle! Its just a beautiful notation if you ask me!