I wonder why algebraic notation?

descriptive notation is a confusing every square has 2 names abomination. that's why

I miss the days of R(R1)-QB1. Rac1 is so European looking.

Not really. That notation wrecks my brain. Dyslexia makes English Descriptive a kind of torture in hell.

Dyslexics have more nuf!

Sho nuf!

We tried pinning it on the count but nothing added up!

And the bird wouldn't talk.

I’ve played blindfold with both. Algebraic is far easier.

this is an unusually debated topic

can someone explain to me why this matters so much to so many people

It seems like the rebirth of the Waffles v. Pancakes threads of the past. They were epic!

Of course, waffles.

Aside from changing the outward appearance of the building to match the McDonald's brand recognition, there is also the important drive-through, the layout of the kitchen and service counter which would require that everything be torn up and reorganized and replaced anyhow.

Plus you need to take into account the age of the existing building. Most commercial real estate stand-alone buildings are probably meant for a 20-30 year lifespan anyhow.

Kingside or queenside is easy.

If both can occur, like on move 1, you say N-KB3 or N-QB3. It is like how in algebraic, Rfd1 vs Rad1, Descriptive would be KR-Q1 and QR-Q1.

Now what might be confusing is, Let's say you are in an endgame, and the Rook that started on h1, or KR1, has gone R-QB1 (Rc1 - assume N is still on b1 so no clarifier needed) and now the other rook goes R-R3 and R-KB3, and now you want to go "Rcc3", because that rook is further to White's left ot Black's right, it eould be QR-B3, even though it was the rook that started on the kingside.

The thing I like better about algebraic is Nd5 for White or ...Nd5 for Black result in the Knight going to the same square.

N-Q4 and ...N-Q4 are NOT the same square. Q4 for a White piece is d4. Q4 for a Black piece is d5.

Also, the clarifiers can get a little clunky at times. For example, take the following:

So now the choices of rook captures are:

cxd5 - BPxR

exd5 - KPxQR

exf5 - KPxKR

gxf5 - NPxKR

Or even worse:

So what clarifiers do we need here if a Black knight pawn is captured?

You would think something like QBPxQNP, but no. Once you clarify QBP, or the c-pawn in algebraic, only 2 pawns can be taken, and only one of those two is a knight pawn, the other a queen pawn, so cxb5 is QBPxNP. If White did not have his f-pawn, or if it was say on, f2, then it would just be BPxNP.

Algebraic is just easier. Can do it easily without coordinates on the board. Like the Alekhine 4 pawns (using an opening I don't play to illustrate so you don't claim move memory like in the French) would be 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4. Descriptive I have to think about each move.

The most amazing thing about long_quach is that he writes nonsense like this in every post. And he writes 100 posts in every topic. No one will even notice what he wrote, because 30 minutes later he had 10 more posts, about McDonalds, about Chinese writing and about Go. And none of that has even the slightest connection to reality. Let alone to chess notation.

The posts do tend to come across as the musings of a nutcase.

The Metric system is based on water.
I too am based on water and full of iron.
Planet Earth covered with water and has an iron core.
Like the Earth, I am a water balloon running from children with pins!
Still I can't figure how many grams to a kilometer!!!

Everything you write is complete nonsense. Again.

Celsius is not the official part of the metric system. (Kelvin is). Liter has nothing to do with water (never did). Kilogram has nothing to do with water since 1799. Meter is not defined in relation to Earth's circumference since 1799.

The Earth is an oblate spheroid and over the years, I too am starting to look like that as well!
No matter how you measure it, it's terrible.

Fairly sure the original base meter was just a stick. The folks in charge of such things made it a fraction of the circumference of the earth about the pole to generalize it, but that wasn't the starting point (and changed it again since then too).

0 C was originally defined in terms of the freezing point of water at sea level, as far as I know.
And grams were defined in terms of the weight of 1cm^3 of water. But not all the metric standards are this clean.

Alright, there was a stick, in Paris, as far back as 1799, but apparently it was already based on some calculation of the distance 'round the poles (one ten millionth, it appears). I didn't think the very first one was.

@long_quach has his own style. Sometimes he offers error, but mostly his posts contribute original ideas and interesting research. It took me awhile to appreciate his contribution, but I do.