I wonder why algebraic notation?

Don't you wish?  >:[

One can have multiple queens, and possibly multiple bishops of the same color.  Just a quick example:

As a very beginner beginner, I find algebraic notation easier to follow. I bought a chess book online and can't follow the examples because they are all descriptive, lol. I guess I need to learn both, however... one thing at a time, lol. My world still gets turned upside down when I play black.

@ ClavierCavalier

I guess that would be Q(QR8)-Q5

Or would it be QQ-Q5?

Ehhh, to blazes with it! I'll offer a draw!

They seem to love shorthand in descriptive, such as P-K4 instead of KP-K4, so another possiblity could just be Q(8)-Q5 or Q(1)-Q5 since there is only one queen on each rank.  It's interesting that they use so much shorthand yet some people refuse to use the even more concise algebraic.  

I don't think most of these arguments are really based on reason, rather that they're based on personal tastes, which seem to be whatever they learnt when starting chess.  The book I learnt the basic rules from was an old book with DN.  A few weeks later and I still wasn't sure about the notation.  I then discovered algebraic and learnt it in less than an hour, so I dropped DN.  The difference is that I wasn't forced to use DN for several years like many of the older chess players.

I've come to feel that descriptive is too ambiguous.  Sure, Nf3 means a knight moves from somewhere to f3, but N-B3 means some knight from somewhere moved to the third rank, from that player's perspecive, to some bishop's file.  Descriptive relies a lot on context.  

I also found it a bit awkward having to switch from each side to figure out how to read/write a move.  Some people say that AN is backwards for black, but with AN one can easily write down something like Qa1 where as with DN one has to either write Q-R1 (or Q-QR1) or Q-R8 (Q-QR8), basically having to flip the board for each side.

i'm guessing there must have been some point to that. but for the life of me ....

Um, I meant to delete that last part.  Gone.

Tell that to Proust (I just wish somebody had).

It's funny... I find 'long algebraic', which specifies the starting square as well as the destination and is used by some book publishers such as Edition Olms, to make visualization a little bit easier for me - and yet I find it harder (less natural) to read.

I grew up on descriptive and i will always be more comfortable with it. Of course most of my chess books are very old but then again so am i.

AnyClifton is always right when he says that descriptive notation is for muppets. 

Algebraic is better just like Russian is better than Spanish.  Which is to say neither is better.

It is worth noting that Shakespeare's famous quote regarding brevity was spoken by a tiresome windbag.

In algebraic you are only referencing the piece and square. In descriptive you are referencing the piece, the king or queenside, the starting position piece, and finally the square. 

There is really no need for mentioning the king/queenside or the starting position piece as found in descriptive notation.

Nc3= "Knight to c3" in algebraic, but in descriptive it's N-QB3="Knight to Queen Bishop's 3rd square".

I was a little confused by the person who thought that they had to switch the board around in their head with algebraic. To me it's the exact opposite, I think descriptive makes you switch the board around by how the moves are declared/said. 1. e4 e5 would be 1. P-K4 P-K4 so obviously descriptive makes you switch perspectives. The only time I switch perspectives with algebraic is at the very start of the game. Obviously if you are playing the black pieces, the square/pawn move a6 is going to be on your right, not your left as white.

Chess is older than algebra by hundreds of years and as such the algabraic notation is a shortcut to (but never arriving at) a deeper world of richer ideas.  When you see a mirror image of the board in your mind, you see a depth in the ideas of your opponents that is missing in the algabraic form.  It's closer to the realm of magic, introversion, and creation, than the simplified approach which leads to simplified ideas.  Why do you think Fischer was so great?  Because in mother Russia, the descriptive is completely unknown and those Rooskie patzers were too busy staring at his scoresheet to compete on the board. 

Algebraic notation has nothing to do with algebra. 

It has somewhat. #bigpoison

Algebraic is more simple yes, of course, in that there is less writing and greater clarity; easier though does not mean better.  Descriptive notation invites a subjectivity into the mind of an oppoent in a way that algebraic does not; it lead to greater depths of ideas.  Intuition plays a role in chess as does playing a specific opponent rather than just the board.  Computers have turned this idea on its head; as currently objectivity reigns supreme; however it is axiomatic also that modern chessplayers have not mastered the very key that fueled earlier masters:  the art of the fight and leading opponents astray with perhaps somewhat dubious, although confusing and baffling lines that are painful for an opponent to play.  (Anand just this instant beat Carlsen in Game #3).

Chess.com ought to have both as an option.  Also a third way is jailcell chess, modeled on the postal style of all numbers.  Anyway, the idea of professionals playing on digitized boards with four arbiters and cameras everywhere and STILL be required to write moves is so ridiculously backward.  Let them play chess and have the second write the moves; let their caddies earn their dollars.  

That's precisely why we should return to the original descriptive:

1.King's pawn two squares

The same

2.King's knight to his bishop's third square

Knight to her bishop's third square

3. Bishop to the adversary's queen's knight's fourth square.

Since algebraic does a better job describing the location of pieces on the board, we ought to call that descriptive, and call the other one "archaic" or possibly "useless."