What do you want to use? International postal notation, where the ranks and files both have numbers 1-8 and the Ruy Lopez looks like:
1. 5254 5755
2. 7163 2836
3. 6125 1716
There has to be some kind of universally accepted system.
Beautiful.
Beautiful.
I'd fully expect that the oldest folk might not cope well with the algebraic notaton, since they had the most years working only with the inferior notations. But it's embarrassing how many people around my age (50) are resistant to algebraic, considering we were still growing up when when the U.S. started the switchover.
It's sort of a hoot, though, when people who can't follow lines in their heads in algebraic make statements that no one else (or not many others) can either. It's like a 2nd grader saying all those 4th graders are lying when they say they can read cursive handwriting.
Let's turn this around on you, except in reverse. 
First, you assume I can't read algebraic. Second, the descriptive isn't inferior, it's just superceded.
Maybe a new notation will appear where the moving of pieces will be recorded with letters, arrows, and numbers. LOL
Descriptive sucks. Algebraic makes it easier to hold a position in your head
Algebraic has a higher IQ but it depends on the position, so Fischer.
Being in the over 50 crowd i have accepted the algebraic system as the next logical progression in that process. But i really miss the old descript ive system because i know it so well, This "new" system is not automatic for me because i have to "focus" on the correct algebraic notation for certain moves: en-passant , captures, etc. i am just not that good at it!
the floppy from doodidlee smashy whoopsy after 5pm is a better notation?
Do grow up.
Maybe a new notation will appear where the moving of pieces will be recorded with letters, arrows, and numbers. LOL
Already done with figurine algebraic.
Algebraic has a higher IQ but it depends on the position, so Fischer.
algebraic has nothing to do with IQ, nor vice versa. :)
edited: except as it relates to mathematics, but you knew that, right?
Algebraic has a higher IQ but it depends on the position, so Fischer.
But will it ever be solved?
Algebraic has a higher IQ but it depends on the position, so Fischer.
algebraic has nothing to do with IQ, nor vice versa. :)
edited: except as it relates to mathematics, but you knew that, right?
This is just the sort of answer I would expect from a skwooey wabbit. 
Algebraic has a higher IQ but it depends on the position, so Fischer.
But will it ever be solved?
Doesn't matter. It's still better than poker.
Good God here We go again. Anyone with a triple digit IQ should be able to master both systems without much trouble, after all We did and We have certain intellectual disabilities which bedevil Us. That would explain the numerous blunders which litter Our games. But aside from that, algebraic is more logical in function and economical in form than descriptive. Here is a caparison of the first three moves in the Pirc.
1. P-K4 P-Q3
2. P-Q4 N-KB3
3. N-QB3 P-KN3
1. e4 d6
2. d4 Nf6
3. Nc3 g6
27 characters to 14, almost twice as many characters in just the first three moves; hardly economical or efficient. We must admit though that descriptive notation has a certain quaint pedantic charm to it, much like Our speech. >:[
Queen Victoria has spoken.
Queen Victoria has spoken.
We take that as a compliment, and We must admit We are amused by almost anything AndyClifton posts. >:[
I thank you all, although I cannot help but be amused myself by something amusing in y'all's first paragraph:
I've earlier analyzed the pros and cons of descriptive vs. algebraic, and I settled on description. Not just because I grew up with it (my father taught me), but because Be5 needs a grid layout (yes, of course you've got its location memorized, all you algebraic adherents) to get its location, whereas with descriptive, no such memorization is required _and_ no confusion, either, when the board is rotated. With algebriac, you must rotate the grid with the board (when you play black instead of white, or vice versa), whereas with descriptive, no rotation is required and therefore no confusion about grid orientation over the board. ('Fact, no grid is required).
This is just plain nonsense. There's no rotation involved at all with algebraic notation. A specific square has the same designation regardless of which side you view from. You can't get the confusing ambiguity that can arise from descriptive where two different moves, with different starting and ending squares, have exactly the same notation.
I am old enough to remember the arguments--often quite heated and irrational--about the changeover to algebraic notation in the late 70s/early 80s. It came right around the same time as the ill-fated drive to adopt the metric system in the US and was pretty much treated as the same kind of alien system that was an affront to either our traditions, our national heritage or our sacred patrimony...or some such. Some foreigners were trying to shove something unwholesome up or down some part of our bodies to make us just like the rest of the world. Imagine the horror!
Anyhow, I just recall writing B-B4 when I meant B-KB5 and also screwing up 3rd & 6th ranks and so on. Descriptive notation is just a holdover from days of yore. At least they stopped writing books with "King's pawn to King's the fourth". Though, I think the uproar of changing from that to P-K4 was likely to have been the same.
All of which inevitably has reminded me of the following:
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75rdecabet.phtml
I've earlier analyzed the pros and cons of descriptive vs. algebraic, and I settled on description. Not just because I grew up with it (my father taught me), but because Be5 needs a grid layout (yes, of course you've got its location memorized, all you algebraic adherents) to get its location, whereas with descriptive, no such memorization is required _and_ no confusion, either, when the board is rotated. With algebriac, you must rotate the grid with the board (when you play black instead of white, or vice versa), whereas with descriptive, no rotation is required and therefore no confusion about grid orientation over the board. ('Fact, no grid is required).