Do you grasp algebraic notation intuitively? How much experience did it require?

As to knowing the colors of the board....

I tried a few different systems for that such as dividing the board into quadrants or reciting the squares and colors as I walked to the bus stop.

But what really made the difference was memorizing the first twenty moves of chess games so I could play them over in my head.

Hi ipcress12.

I started a discussion on why books don't have black at thebottom of the page when giving directions for black...and I thought then that with descriptive notation its nver a problem...my comments below,

These are all good comments...thinking about it, it wouldn't be a probelem if descriptive notation was used instead of algerbraic...I actually prefer it and hey! if it was good enough for Bobby Fischer it should be ok for us mere mortals!

Bobby Fischer was not mortal!    He was half machine.

Telling you Descriptive Notation is a monster.

Its so tough it just waits for you to mess up.

Hi Lenny.

At this point I've written a fair amount of homebrew chess software, some of which prints out pdfs of games for my own use. I include a "flip" argument. When I'm studying a game from Black's POV, I want to see diagrams like that.

Thanks for the link baddogno!

I got 29 as White and 20 as Black.

After awhile symbolism gets more intuitive. For practice, start combining different systems. It makes your brain more alert.

1. e4 ♬

2. e5 ☿

I didn't realize there was a such thing as long algebraic.  I was wondering why "Chess Opening Essentials" does that.  Just wasn't aware that it was a thing.  It's incredibly annoying, distracting, and a complete waste of ink.

I don't really know if it is objectively more difficult to learn than algebraic, but more mistakes arise because it seems extremely difficult to become fluent in.  I imagine blindfold games are much harder.  I finished Keres' "Practical Endings" recently --there's only a descriptive notation edition, so far as I know--, and the number of mistakes in that book was horrendous.  If Keres couldn't perfect his descriptive notation, that may be saying something.

One idea that helps me is "E" is Edward the King, and "D" is for Dame.  Of course, "A" and "H" should be simple to remember.

"4" and"5" are the two middle squares for each row.

Asking whether descriptive is harder than algebraic is like asking if Russian is a harder language than English. All depends what you learned first.

Learning the notation was easy and I learned the piecemovement simultaneously. I didn't spend too many days on that. 

What I find hard to memorise are the different opening systems. And those traps always seem to show up in new disguises.

X_PLAYER_J_X wrote

Can you imagine a chess game.

1.P-K4   P-K4   2.N-KB3   N-QB3  3.B-QN5  P-KB3

P-B3 is the proper way to record this move, as QB3 is occupied.  Yeah, it's a technicality, I know, but as someone who still records his games in DN, I just thought I'd point that out.

1.P-K4   P-K4   2.N-KB3   N-QB3  3.B-QN5  P-KB3

Similarly 3. B-QN5 would be written B-N5 because B-KN5 is impossible since White's QB is blocked.

Descriptive is messier than algebraic. Writing a parser for it would be horrible.

Yeah you blocked me on your other forum lol. I wasn't trolling just making a joke lol. I thought you would find it funny lol. Instead you took it serious and blocked me lol.

As for your comment yeah. Long Algebraic notiation is used alot for sure. There is also another Notation I didn't mention

Its called "Figurine notation"

They substitue the pieces with figures.

Such as:

Nc6  = ♞c6

Some chess websites and books have this type of notiation as well.

Yeah I never understood that. Like when they name the square its like Kings Bishop 3.

However than they ommit the K or Q in some cases were things are occupying other square. However, It seems inconsistant. Well that is what I always thought.

However, Yeah you are right. I haven't done Descriptive notation in so long. I frankly am not that good at it. Its a good thing they allow algebraic notation otherwise I would be done for.

I have a question. What exactly would happen if you messed up your score sheet and wrote wrong notations on them?

Would you get disqualifed or something?

Well, the debate is very interesting...but comparing the two is like comparing apples with oranges.

Personally i can "see" in my mind at least the first half dozen moves and replies in my head...and hey! if we agree that chess is an art then I reckon descriptive to be more artistic...to my mind it has a beauty

I don't think I took it personally, since I don't recognize your moniker, let alone recall what you said.  I wrote a piece of software that works with chess.com so that I can make a single click to block members, and I use it at whim and liberally.  

I learned descriptive notation first, but it was a cumbersome system. I learned algebraic in high school (I didn't have any trainers, so I taught myself). It took a couple days at most to learn, so no, it wasn't hard at all. 

Algebraic notation is almost always best. If you're into retrograde analysis, it's sometimes useful to know which N came from the K-side, as in descriptive notation, but those are extremely rare. It's usually pretty pointless to use up little grey cells to work out whether the R on c6 on move 50 was originally on a1 or h1.

I can already tell you right now that I would much prefer descriptive notation. It seems complicated at first but it's really not. The fact that the black side causes everything to be turned around is what is hampering my chess growth as it pertains to algrebraic. I can learn the white side and then when I'm playing black it messes me up. Or vice versa.

Of course it really wouldn't be that different. I would still have to take persective into account when using descriptive. So I don't know. Maybe I can just only play black from now on. No one would object. And when I have the notation memorized then I can start playing white again.