I wonder why algebraic notation?

Yes/

I know that whenever I try to "prove" a scientific fact, I always call on an imaginary character to reinforce my point!

Holmes would approve.

Efficiency alone does not mean "scientifically" better. If you are buying hideously expensive ink by the nanogram, perhaps. Otherwise, all you can say is that it requires a few less characters. The fact remains, that properly notated games in either system are equally accurate. There are some instances where algebraic  has an advantage. However, the same is true of descriptive, specifically where one opening is esentially equivalent to another with colors reversed. One does not have to convert c4 to c5 or vice-versa -- it's simply QB4.

Fortunately, some hint of a "descriptive" origin remains. It's still the Queen's Gambit, not the d4c4 Gambit. The latter is more "efficient." The former is still easier to grasp.

Queen's Gambit is probably used because you're opening on the queen's side and then offering a queenside pawn, but in the King's Gambit one offers a king side pawn.  It's not the Queen's Bishops' Gambit.  I suppose one could say that it's because one opens with the Queen's pawn...

Another example is how people talk about promoting on the 8th rank, or something I saw once saying "hogs on the 7th," refering to rooks on the enemy's 2nd rank.  Most of the chess books I've seen seem to use White as their main character, using examples with black mostly from real games, so perhaps this is where this comes from.

My objection to algebraic is that when you play black you have to count backwards. I cannot walk backwards, count backwards or do a woman on the backside. Just call me old fashion.

You just know instinctively where the squares are when you play enough.

I don't go: 'I'll play my knight to abcdef123456'. I just know where f6 is on the board.

Algebraic does not preclude discussion of the board as two halves. The names we know for openings today are less closely related to descriptive notation than they were a century or more ago.

The King's Gambit was called the King's Bishop's Gambit in the nineteenth century. Chess Informant's System of Signs (they use figurine algebraic in their publications) has symbols for Queen's side << and King's side >>. The Queen's Gambit offers a pawn on the queenside.

You made an error. The King's Gambit has two major variations, the Kng's Knight's Gambit and the King's Bishop's Gambit. Gotta cross those "t's" and dot those "i's."

- Demonstrably false.  Consider Haiku, symbolism, metaphor, etc.; most conceptual poetic devices are exercises in brevity.  I would submit that it is more factual to state that efficiency runs counter to the needs of prose.

...Like descriptive notation.

As the saying goes, "Brevity is the soul of wit." Both prose and poetry benefit from efficiency. 

Self-defeating corollary: If wit had eyes, they would be the window to brevity.

Your clarification reinforces my point. See the books of Howard Staunton for further clarification.

Modern books do treat the old names as variations of the King's Gambit. But, in the nineteenth century, names of openings and notation were more prosaic. 

Irony, on the other hand, has no place in poetry.

Nor discussions of functionality.

My point all along was that both systems have value, and fluency in both is superior to knowing  only one. Neither is "scientifically" better, since science doesn't enter into it. The most adamant proponents of algebraic would seek to completely eliminate descriptive. I still think knowledge trumps partial ignorance.

 I taught myself descriptive in a few minutes at the age of about ten. Okay, now there is another system which doesn't switch sides, and that will be a little confusing for the first fifteen minutes. If you have three active brain cells to link together, open a beer (or a soft drink if you're under age), invest a few minutes and kwitchyerbitchin'. You'll eventually be glad you did. I'm NOT saying convert to descriptive only -- just learn it. It can't hurt.

I never thought about this before, but I suppose PK4 is much faster than e2-e4 or e7-e6.

Sometimes I find it hard to name a square in algebraic when the board is very open.  I guess I always use pawns as reference points.  When there is a lack of pawns, I look at the files in relation to the starting position of pieces.  It's like instantly converting the descriptive file name to the algebraic.  I never think in terms of the descriptive numbering system, though.  Perhaps having to manually write the moves down helps with knowing what square is which.

If you use what was once called "Chess Challenger Algebraic" where the departing and arriving square must be specified, it is longer.  Usually, nothing is written when moving a pawn to a square, e.g., 1. e4 e6.  The moving piece must be specified in both AN and DN like Nf3 or N-KB3.

When learning AN, I memorized the location of one of the k-side files and used it as a reference.  Someone I once knew would point to the a-b-c-etc files in order until he reached the file where the last piece moved.

The main reason I guess for learning DN is before reading any old book or scroll is one must first understand the language it was written in.

Descriptive Notation Sucks

If I move a Knight to a certain square, and my opponent moves a Knight to that same square, Algebraic it's the same, like 24.Nf5 or 24...Nf5.

In descriptive, it's N-KB5 for White, but N-KB4 for Black.

Secondly, Descriptive has too many clarification requirements.  In Algebraic, except in the rare case where a promotion occurs, it's only Knights and Rooks.  Rad1 vs Rfd1 or Nbd7 vs Nfd7, for example.

With Descriptive, using the stupid PxP (no square indicated), you have PxP if only 1 pawn capture is legal, then you have PxBP if multiple pawns can be taken, one of which on a Bishop file, one not on a Bishop file, then you have PxKBP if the 2 pawns that can be taken are on the 2 Bishop Files.  And now, what about if Black has doubled pawns on KB2 and KB3, White has pawns on KN5 and K6.  Now White can take either pawn, both pawns are on the same file.  How do you notate that?

Also, for clarification requirements in Algebraic, both must be able to reach the same square.  In descriptive, you need clarifications on move 1, like P-B4 and N-B3 aren't enough, you need P-QB4 or N-KB3.

Also, with Algebraic, if you've played 20 tournament games, and still need the letters and numbers on the side of the board to notate, then clearly you need to spend way too much time thinking about notation, can't focus on the game, and never will be any good anyway!

You ought to know the algebraic board by heart after 20 games of notating moves in Algebraic.  I'm not looking at a board right now, and I can tell you off the top of my head, d4 is a dark square, g6 is a light square, b5 is a light square, c7 is a dark square, etc.

Algebraic is so much easier and far better than Descriptive

Algebraic is better because that is what is printed on my chessboard.