I wonder why algebraic notation?

the old notation was better fer mental chess. i can not do mental chess w/ modern algebra notation.

I ask , which looks more like a chess move ?  1 P-K4   ,  1  e4  , or  1 5254 

?? 

For those who knock descriptive simply because algebraic is better/less ambiguous/easier perhaps you should use  1 5254 and the numeric notation used in some postal organizations ?  why ?  for the same reason you use algebraic over descriptive .... 

Dumb question:  Why not?  It really has nothing to do with algebra.  Using a grid is more cartesian (see Decarte) than anything.  I learned on discriptive and resisted algebraic but adapted.  I found using a grid system to focus on SQUARES was not only more efficient, but much easier for blindfold chess.  Descriptive is an anacracism and obsolete.  Does anyone dare to propose a third method as an improvement?

WOW!  In four decades of playing chess, I have never heard of 1. 5254 instead of 1. e4.  What on Earth is that system called?  Thank you.

P.S. 1 e4 takes less symbols and is more efficient.

I also have been playing tournament chess 4 decades .  The numeric notation used to be used by ICCF , I guess it still is but am not sure . 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICCF_numeric_notation

Objectively speaking the numeric notation is superior to the algebraic imo , especially internationally for the reasons given in the link . 

I was first exposed to it in the early 70s by way of Harkness' Handbook.

I think he called it Forsyth Notation.

A perfectly logical expression of chess moves, and it allowed me the basis of programming (in BASIC) my one and only chess program.

Before that I couldn't figure out how to express moves mathematically.

I actually had to use it for a few years in my ICCF games , back when we sent moves by postcards ....   remember postcards and snail mail for postal games ?  

In international events, numeric may be best only because we don't all speak the same language.  Q is not the first letter of the strongest piece on the board in all languages, for example.

However, if you are talking two players that speak the same language, algebraic notation is the best for many reasons:

• After you've used it in about 10 tournament games (long time control over the board, not this internet blitz sh*t that isn't even real chess), you don't need the numbers and letters on the side.  White moves the King pawn two squares, that's 1.e4.  Easy, simple system.
• Unlike Numeric, you know what piece is being moved before you even look at a board.  If you try to do a game in your head with numeric notation, you'll have an aneurysm.  1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5 is a lot easier to do in the head without a board than 1 4244 7866 2 3175 3735 is.
• Descriptive sucks because "K4" is not the same square for both players.  1.e4 and 9...e4 both involve the pawn going to the same square on the board.  P-K4 by White is NOT the same as P-K4 by Black.  P-K4 by White involves going to a light square.  P-K4 by Black involves going to a dark square.
• Clarifying is easier in algebraic.  It's simple, if you take with a pawn, you designate the original file.  For example, after 1.e4 c6 2.c4 d5, you simply list the 3rd move as 3.exd5, listing the original file and the destination square.  Descriptive?  3.KPxP.  Ugly!  On top of that, let's say you get 20 moves into the game, and there is one legal pawn capture by White, and White makes it.  In algebraic, you know exactly where to go.  21.hxg4, for example, with a White pawn on h3 and a Black pawn on g4.  Descriptive?  21.PxP.  Now you have to search the entire blasted board just to find where "PxP" occurs.  Also, with algebraic, there is no scenario where a pawn capture needs clarity.  Descriptive, there's a ton!  In Descriptive, if there are multiple legal pawn takes pawn captures, you need to clarify.  Take a White pawn on f3 and another on f2.  Black pawns on e3, e4, g3, and g4.  Algebraic, fxe3 or fxe4 or fxg3 or fxg4.  Descriptive?  What a mess.  Not even sure how to do that one.  P(2)xKP and P(3)xKP and P(2)xNP and P(3)xNP?  Paleez!
• Most descriptive notation books I've seen list as such:
  1.P-Q4 N-KB6 2.P-QB4 P-KN3 3.N-QB3 B-N2 4.P-K4 P-Q3 5.N-KB3 Castles
  Well, what about if you can castle either direction?

Only thing that's worse that I see is when people mix the notation, like using O-O or O-O-O when otherwise the rest of it is descriptive, or more common that I see is the following garbage:

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bb5 a6
4.BxN PxB
5.O-O

etc etc

Many people who use algebraic these days no longer use "x" for capturing moves .  so  in the exchange Ruy for example it would be simply 4 Bc6  

I have many books in descriptive and most of them use 0-0  and  0-0-0  for castling , very few use  " castles " . Do you have a book in mind that says " castles "  when both long and short castling are possible ?  

Castles right and castles left. Read more books written in the early nineteenth century and you will see such. Google Books has digitized quite a few books from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

I remember the time, although I wasn't active in ICCF.

My start in CC came via the "Chess-L" list on BitNet; we played by email. After a while we collectively wanted a rating system, so I programmed one (a clone of the CFC system with some changes to how performance ratings were calculated) and ran it. And speaking of antiquity, I programmed it in REXX on an IBM mainframe running VM/CMS.

Reb, 500 Master Games of Chess uses "castles".  When you say "Castles Left" and "Castles Right", is that from White's viewpoint, or the player's viewpoint, like "Castles Right" being Kingside for White, Queenside for Black?

It's from the player's viewpoint.

Descriptive moves are always from the viewpoint of the side that is moving .  I agree with you that descriptive is more ambiguous/confusing than algebraic , but I still have a fondness for descriptive because it is what I first learned and many of my books are in descriptive . In my OTB games I use algebraic but will use descriptive one tourney a year to stay " fluent " in descriptive . 

Do you ever get hassled for recording your games in descriptive?

Not in the US but FIDE doesnt allow it and I had an arbiter in Portugal hassel me  about it and I had to switch to algebraic ... USCF allows you to use descriptive if you wish . 

How far is half a league?

Oh yeah. Quite right, Forsyth was the string of characters we used to record positions (handy when everything was otb) when a game had to be suspended or the like.