Descriptive Notation vs. Algebraic Notation


bxe4 has zero information to the outsider..I played blindfolded for years with descriptive bc it tells you exactly what is going on with the board and the location of the pieces and the name of every piece that is captured. Algebraic does not.  I don't want to be concerned with the ambiguity of what was captured. It cannot be visual if it don't give information of whats behind door #3.  QxQ is known and requires only that you remember where you queen was conversely it would be similar in that bxe4 ?we still don't even know what piece was taken on that location other than similarly remembering what was occupying that location on the board (which requires even more memorization than descriptive). I can look at my notation, play it out in my head and if I want to see a specific portion. I know exactly what just happened. Oh here is when I hung my queen. Its literally impossible to see that with algebraic, especially if its a game you played 10 years ago. Aside from noting capturing of the pieces I would digress that algebraic is far more simpler. 


My point. You are confusing your comfort and familiarity with an objective view. There is no way that English descriptive is objectively more visual. Every GM reads chess books in algebraic and sees the board while doing so. Earlier generations could do so in descriptive.

Algebraic is easier to learn, easier to teach. Even though I used descriptive from the 1970s to the mid-1990s, and struggled with a lot of involuntary code switching for several years after making the switch, I now find a chess board far more necessary to understand a game written in descriptive than in algebraic.

My argument, too, is based more on my experience than an objective view.

What is happening on the board is happening on a defined space. Algebraic defines that space simply and with greater precision than possible in descriptive. If you can see the board in your memory, you have no confusion about what is standing on e4.