English notation

when looking to  a chess book, I see algebric notation in 90%.

does  anyone shares the opinion that old english descriptive notation could be a better way to study?

my point is that writing N-KB3 gives a sense of connection between pieces.

doesn't authors like Silman and Seirawan defend all the time that pieces must work all together as a team?

isn't it a better way to get used and to understand how to coordinate pieces advancing?

it may be a bit strange at the first time but another benefit is when looking for a book. old ones are less expensive.

True, there are some nice bargains in old but excellent descriptive notation books. Apart from that, algebraic is clearly superior, and learning basic (or advanced for that matter) chess ideas doesn't depend on the notation, so long as it doesn't get in the way. Algebraic is best for being transparent.

Has anybody a gripe against writers who don't put the "x" when taking a piece?  That really annoys me because the "takes" sign enables me to keep my bearings in the game.  I guess there's lots of players who don't care, but i'd like to know if it's only me who's annoyed.

Omitting the "x" is usually done to save space or to make the reader feel stupid. Else they went with a cheaper publisher who doesn't stock a whole lot of "x" blocks.

As to the original post: I think descriptive is easier to comprehend except that one has to be sure which KB3, for example, is being referred to. I like to use descriptive when, well, describing a game (but not in notating it). I'm not sure what GD meant by "transparent" but I think it was supposed to make me feel stupid.

When I say algebraic is transparent, I mean that it designates with least frills the moves, while still being intelligible. One doesn't have to think much to get everything out of it. Descriptive, which I used for years before I took up algebraic as a "first language," is much less intuitive and, as you said, involves more "steps"(which KB3 for example) to work.

Have played long enough to have started when descriptive was still the standard, I must say that I find algebraic much easier to understand. YMMV.

I'm bilingual, having first learned descriptive.  About one third of my books are in descriptive.  that gives you an idea how long i've been reading the game.  i've heard kids say they don't get descriptive, so when they pick up an old book, they're lost, so from that point of view, i have an advantage educationally.

Re my previous comment on "x" for takes, i don't think it has anything to do with the blocks of type since all publishers today use computers.  they don't set type as in the old days.  The only book that avoids the "x" I can immediately think of is the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit by Tim Sawyer.  He lives over in Pennsylvania.  Maybe i should call him up and berate him for the omission.

I have said before, I actually prefer descriptive.

I find it easier to visualize, and it is better for global concepts, which are not colour bound, eg Rooks on the Seventh, or KB2 is a vulnarable point.

But I can use both.

I learned descriptive first and used it for decades. I learned algebraic in my thirties, and am now closing in on two decades using it, too. I've taught algebraic notation to classrooms full of very young children who are just beginning to learn how the pieces move. They cannot learn descriptive as easily.

Algebraic is simpler, less prone to error, and translates more readily from one language to another.

The x is superfluous. There is no ambiguity that 2.ed represents a capture. Even so, it is my habit to write the x on my scoresheets. As Chess Informants are superior to all other print chess publications in the known world, disparaging words concerning publishers that omit the x reveal only the ignorance of the writer.

I hate english notation :)

I prefer exd5 to ed, myself. Certainly, ed is more concise with no information lost. But I don't think the goal of chess notation is to be as concise as possible, and I don't see the cost involved in adding the x and the 5. I just find exd5 clearer and more consistent with the notation of other moves.

Of course, given how little chess literature I read, I doubt there are many publishers who care about my opinion. : )

The descriptive (english) notation is much more in tune with the romantic, war aspect of chess. Imagine 'Knight to king's Bishop three' [N - KB3]   or  'Nf3'  - which sounds better? Certainly the descriptive!

I cannot imagine a battlefield commander saying either. But the notion of a stable geographical grid is essential to the artillery officers, so algebraic fits well with your war metaphors.

Likewise on the romantic front, I am trying to imagine the response from a woman if I leaned over and said, "Hey, how about some Queen to King's Four?"

As rooperi wrote,to me it also seems easier to visualize.

the fact is I found some old books  from authors like Horowitz and others, that instead of waisting lots of time with opening, spent time showing chess as a battle field.

only negative point about old way is when searching for a middlegame position in notation. sometimes we are forced to start from scratch.

but some authors wrote their books saying they already know algebric as a better way, but recommend english notation for a beginner, to improve his/her analysis. paying 1 dolar for an old book is also better to me than $20 or even $50.

try to find a Kotov new edition and you understand that.

about that "X", why not to put it. sometimes it helps.

the : sometimes substitutes for x ---is your english really old nkb3 or the one that leaves out a lot of stuff like + or ck, or # or mate,lose, or draws

The notation that is the subject of this thread used to be called the "descriptive" notation. When did it change to " English" ? 

I can understand any type of chess notation but as everyone else says algebraic is much more simple and I tend to prefer it over traditional notation. About the ''X''... as long as it can be understood there is no problem but for the sake of clarity authors should use the "x''.

I think the algebraic is certainly superior for streamling the recording of games. It's also great for for those with a photographic memory who can keep track of which pieces made what moves. Otherwise, one easily loses the connection between the notation and the pieces involved.

I am really not sure.

in some books I found "descriptive", and in others even " old English notation".

I have books from 1972 and before that, using last one.

are they both correct, or someone is trying to rename it?

does anyone knows any Portuguese or Spanish notation?

descriptive seems more logical. who did really invented the definition?