How important is actually speaking fluent "chess notation language"?

I recently realized I'm struggling to speak to myself clearly in simple sentences that contain chess notation...

I do the little "vision" thingy once in a while, and I feel I do already know some squares by name especially typical moves... But when I try to calculate absolutely concrete variations in my head, I started to attempt to really play them out or even speak them out clearly. I noticed many high level players just explain very clearly in sentences that combine move names, square numbers, concepts, and some story like: 

"Black overlooked the rook on g3 can sacrifice, using the concept of attraction, to undefend the queen on c1, after ..Rxg8+!, the king on h8 has no squares and must accept the sac with ..Rxg8, after which White wins the hanging queen on c1, so Qxc1, as c8 rook was it's only defender. Losing the queen for a rook is of course better than Kxg8?? because after Qg5+, forcing the king to f8, ..Qg7+, Ke8, Qg8# is mate because white controls e7 with the pawn on f6 and the black rook on d7 blocks the king's escape route"

Of course this is a pretty simple sentence, and when people talk to themselves during games it can be more abstract and less definite... but I realized actually talking to yourself or thinking in this language is not as easy as it seems. I can only do it slowly, the square names evade me and it makes me feel dumb... so is this important at all, or is it fine thinking in sentences like "this, this, if this, I have knight there and if this I get this square and we attack with this, this, that, this...and that! or something"

Again, I can speak in this language, but if I had to explain to a beginner friend what's going on say like a streamer/teacher would, I really struggle actually creating clear sentences that fuse notation and language... I can sortof do it, but embarrassingly slow and with mistakes and brain farts, mixing up numbers and letters constantly... Also just saying a complicated variation that branches out like "If cxd4, exd4, Nxd5, bxh6!!, and if cxd4, cxd4 simply Rxc1, d5, f4, bb7..." etc (with not much language) is really hard, maybe even harder for me... Of course there are mad men like Hikaru who can combine sentences with variation branches that never ever end and their always right too... So... 

Please share opinions on this subject , is it important? does it have to do with actual calculation skill or chess understanding?

I have heard 2000s speak in "this, this, that" language tbh

You probably don't realize what many strong players have done. Get a chess book with lots of variations in it, and set up a board. Spend a few hours every day playing over the analysis on the board. Since it's inconvenient to reset the position every time to look at a new variation, you'll start visualizing short variations instead of moving pieces.

Also take notes. For example "page 123 diagram 2 the move 14...Bf6 is interesting because . . . [etc]

After studying like that it's very easy to talk like streamers do.

Is it important to be able to name squares quickly and easily? No. But it's an easy way to tell who has spent a long time studying and who hasn't. Based on analysis I've done with players OTB I think it's normal for your rating to have difficulty doing this.

good point. it's indeed hard for me to read chess books for the same exact reason... I can't just visualize the moves I read... I can somehow do it but it's an effort and I can only get through like 2-3 pages a day without getting exhausted... idk why... it doesn't feel normal 

OTB there are even more levels to it (of course).

For example after a tournament game (even many blitz games) if I start from the beginning I can reproduce all the moves to the end, but I can't go from move 20 directly to move 30. Some of my opponents might say after the game "I was thinking you'd try Rb4 instead of what you played" and if I ask them in which position, they might be able to set it up on the board without starting from the beginning.

And sure, super GMs are even more crazy. There's a youtube video of So solving endgame studies. He's not even shown a position though, they verbally tell him where the pieces are then he solves it... which is super impressive to me (these are not easy positions).

2. Qg5+ Qxg5 0-1 

2.Qg3+ is still mate though.

I don't know... when I first began playing chess I struggled to calculate 1-2 moves ahead... seriously. If a pawn was attacked twice and defended once I'd have to recalculate a few times to make sure.

Like anything, you get better the more you practice.

I've seen this video... It's pure genius. I love Wesley So alot as a player...

That's why I said also my example was relatively simple... Yes, the whole way GM's analyze positions in their head in interviews is comprehensible and complete gibberish to my ears  

But I was thinking there might be some way to technically improve the "language" aspect of it... Or is this the language of chess itself, like the language of music, the language of true understanding...

I'll try the board thing you suggested definitely! 

Ahaha you see I got it absolutely wrong... how embaressing... but atleast I didn't use an engine  

I will leave my first analysis unedited for all to witness my stupidity and to keep the relevance of your comment 

One thing that helped my "language" as you put it  and also my playing ability was to solve puzzles without moving any pieces until I thought I had calculated the full solution.

When I thought I'd solved it, I'd write the moves down.

Then I went over the moves I'd written down, one at a time, and looked for improvements for the opponent (to make my solution fail). Every time I found a pretty good try, I'd solve that variation and write down that solution too.

The goal is to not only solve the puzzle, but also find the best defense for the other side before making the first move.

But I feel that translating the explanation to words can be difficult. It's even more difficult to describe it verbally.

I could probably describe my position in broken sentences, but not adjoined as a single, good paragraph depicting the scenario.

Most of us probably recognise certain patterns such as the above, but all these happen in our minds almost instantaneously. After all, pictures are worth thousands of words, so our brains can recognise diagrams more easily than English words.