I wonder why algebraic notation?

I guess you could argue that that particular half a league was eternal.

It did have a Xeno's arrow sort of quality.

Try the Udemann-Gringmuth code, once used for telegraph and radio matches. 

1. e4 e5 = gegoseso

Really?  There are certain notations that can't be used in certain countries?

Does that mean they expect you to use their language too?  I've seen Algebraic use different sets of letters.  I use what is traditionally used in the US (K=King, Q=Queen, B=Bishop, N=Knight, R=Rook, file letter=Pawn), but I've seen others, like S for Knight, L for Bishop, D for Queen, T for Rook, for example.  Would they yell at me for using KQBNR?

Count the syllables:

g5: jee - five

Black's KB4: black's - king - bi-shop - four

The FIDE rules are clear and consistent. Use algebraic in any language that you can handle, or draw the little figurines if you are so inclined.

US law generally, and chess is no different, reflects our residual medievalism. 

A lot of failure too.

...algebraic because it is the most intelligent.

The "most"? I'd go with a purely numeric system because it avoids the problem of mixed alphabets. Even better, a system that uses a purely visual nomenclature. 100 years from now, when the PRC is running the chess world, we'll be quite pleased with ourselves for having done so right now.

Disclaimer: I use full algebraic notation. I would not be averse to using numeric notation. I have no desire to return to descriptive.

There may be a notation out there that is superior to algegraic, but descriptive ain't it. Neither is numeric. Any expert in the field of semiotics would tell you that.

I do not think any expert would tell me so. The portability of numeric notation is inarguably superior to algebraic.

Algebraic differs from nation to nation, but numeric does not. Anyone can use it, regardless of spoken or written language, even in regions that do not have Hindu-Arabic linguistic bases. You do not have to know what the numbers mean, only that they are symbols that identify locations on the board. The ICCF uses numeric for its simplicity and portability.

"e2-e4" is simply "5254". And that's all.

I guess descriptive notation made much more sense before the rule that white plays first was established.The French defense for example,would be 1 e4, e6 if white played first but 1e5, e3 if black played first.Rather confusing compared to 1P-K4, P-K3, which would be valid irrespective of who played first.However,with modern rules,only the very stubborn can fail to see that algebraic is way more practical and economical.

I think both notations are fine; I can easily use both.

I think the reason for this debate is that the younger players today were never exposed to descriptive, so they aren't comfortable with it and therefore think it's inferior simply because they can't read it easily. Descriptive notation was used for over a century with no problem, so there's nothing insufficient about it at all.

They are both perfectly useable, but of course it makes sense for everyone to agree on a single notation just for easier translation. 

Just be grateful that the way Philidor writes the moves down in

"Analyse Du Jeu des Echecs" didn't become the standard...

B: Le Pion du roi, deux pas.

N: Du meme.

Mercifully he thereafter abbreviates Pion to P.

I prefer figurine algebraic notation, but you need a long time control to draw all those teeny pieces on your scoresheet.

Endgames and descriptive notation don't quite get along,but-hypothetically speaking-having to use Philidor's descriptive in a 100- move endgame, now that's what I call severe punishment!I always regarded Philidor as one of the very greatest,but I must confess that my admiration of him has gone up a notch after seeing what he had to go through to describe his games!

Oh, no!!! Another chess variant waiting to happen:  Chess played on a board that's not actually a board, but a globe.  Would this lead to more, or fewer, back-rank mates?  And what about the draws from not being able to promote a-pawns or h-pawns?

I learned the game and endgame technique back in the days of DN and, for example, learned a BP or RP on the 7^th rank can draw against a queen because of the stalemate threat if supported by the king and the superior side's king is too far away--I didn't have to learn it four <g> times.  Same with rook on the 7^th (or 2^nd) rank. On the 2^nd rank, a rook was either playing defense or was there in preparation to being doubled on the file.  There was no need to give any extra study to it.

descriptive trumps algebraic by ten fold.

Well to say vacuum tubes may sound better than transistors,perhaps I can agree.Or mechanical watches better than quartz.But descriptive better than algebraic..?I am not so sure