I am not really qualified to answer your question, since I made the switch in the other direction, but my guess is that it will not be much trouble. Some people report having a lot of trouble, but I always suspect that a feeling of resentment is a factor in such experiences. So many books have been converted, I find myself wondering what still-descriptive good books you are considering. Maybe something by Pachman? Edward Lasker?
GOOD BOOKS - Descriptive Notation
Sort:
The discussion of which notation is best always strikes me as stupid. I have a bookshelf full of chess books using all different types of notation, and freely go between them. If the effort of learning a new notation (an hour? more like 5 minutes) is too much for someone, they might want to pick up a less intellectually demanding hobby than chess!
Comparing decriptive and algebraic, each has its strong points. Algebraic is cleaner and more efficient most of the time, but descriptive has 2 advantages that make me actually prefer it: 1) it's usually written in double columns, which makes it easy to cover up when you're playing along, guessing the next moves, and 2) it's easier to say something like "an attack on KB2" rather than "an attack on f2 or in the case of black f7."
It is not difficult to learn. When I go through games in some of the older books I have with d.n. I find its actually easier to visualize in my mind than a.n.
Jan 30, 2016
0
#5
I think this is a generational thing. I grew up with both kinds of books. But the kids at the chess club can't read DN and can't set an analog clock. (I'm not kidding!)
krudave wrote:
The discussion of which notation is best always strikes me as stupid. I have a bookshelf full of chess books using all different types of notation, and freely go between them. If the effort of learning a new notation (an hour? more like 5 minutes) is too much for someone, they might want to pick up a less intellectually demanding hobby than chess!
Comparing decriptive and algebraic, each has its strong points. Algebraic is cleaner and more efficient most of the time, but descriptive has 2 advantages that make me actually prefer it: 1) it's usually written in double columns, which makes it easy to cover up when you're playing along, guessing the next moves, and 2) it's easier to say something like "an attack on KB2" rather than "an attack on f2 or in the case of black f7."
haha I see.
I guess I will give it a go and see
ylblai2 wrote:
I am not really qualified to answer your question, since I made the switch in the other direction, but my guess is that it will not be much trouble. Some people report having a lot of trouble, but I always suspect that a feeling of resentment is a factor in such experiences. So many books have been converted, I find myself wondering what still-descriptive good books you are considering. Maybe something by Pachman? Edward Lasker?
Tal's Art of combination
Mcfmover wrote:
It is not difficult to learn. When I go through games in some of the older books I have with d.n. I find its actually easier to visualize in my mind than a.n.
Oh okay. Thanks for your imput! 
Here is a famous game in descriptive notation: 1 P-K4 P-K4 2 N-KB3 P-Q3 3 P-Q4 B-N5 4 PxP BxN 5 QxB PxP 6 B-QB4 N-KB3 7 Q-QN3 Q-K2 8 N-B3 P-B3 9 B-KN5 P-N4 10 NxP PxN 11 BxP+ QN-K2 12 0-0-0 R-Q1 13 RxN RxR 14 R-Q1 Q-K3 15 BxR+ NxR 16 Q-N8+ NxQ 17 R-K8 mate.
ogchesss wrote:
ylblai2 wrote:
... I find myself wondering what still-descriptive good books you are considering. ...
Tal's Art of combination
Maybe try The Magic Tactics of Mikhail Tal by Karsten Müller & Raymund Stolze,
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095614/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review882.pdf
The Magic of Mikhail Tal by Joe Gallagher,
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105908/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review279.pdf
Study Chess with Tal by Mikhail Tal & Alexander Koblencs,
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095643/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review903.pdf
Attack with Mikhail Tal by Mikhail Tal & Iakov Damsky, or
Tal: Move by Move by Cyrus Lakdawala.
Judgement and Planning in Chess by Max Euwe.
Or an Alekhine games collection book. I know theyre in Algibraic too, but I got one from the library and its from 1945, so thats pretty cool.
Rehcsif_Ybbob wrote:
"Judgement and Planning in Chess by Max Euwe. ..."
Maybe try Understanding Chess Middlegames by GM John Nunn.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627012322/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen154.pdf
Jan 31, 2016
0
#15
ylblai2 wrote:
Rehcsif_Ybbob wrote:
"Judgement and Planning in Chess by Max Euwe. ..."
Maybe try Understanding Chess Middlegames by GM John Nunn.
Or maybe spend five minutes learning to read the classic book by the former world champion.
You can always find the same type of material in a different book, but there is no substitute for classic literature.
FrenchDefender wrote:
I'm 22 and learned descriptive notation in about 15 minutes. It's not too difficult.
nice!
ogchesss wrote:
Not sure if I should invest the time into learning d.n because it seems complicated.
If you are afraid of complicated things why are you playing chess!?
Nitorin wrote:
ogchesss wrote:
Not sure if I should invest the time into learning d.n because it seems complicated.
If you are afraid of complicated things why are you playing chess!?
.. its not that. its the time consuming factor. wanna make sure whatever I invest my time if its worth it or not
It's far, far, far, more time consuming to deal with having to enter moves/variations into a computer (or play it out on a board) than to deal with descriptive notation, which is a trivial roadblock in comparison of time/effort spent.
hhnngg1 wrote:
It's far, far, far, more time consuming to deal with having to enter moves/variations into a computer (or play it out on a board) than to deal with descriptive notation, which is a trivial roadblock in comparison of time/effort spent.
huh? sorry I dont understand. Are you saying DN is easier?
Is it hard to learn descriptive notation? It sucks that many good books are in d.n. Not sure if I should invest the time into learning d.n because it seems complicated. Some told me it takes only an hour to learn, but will I have to keep looking back and forth while reading or will it be quite easy?