I wonder why algebraic notation?

A book in my school library, on the Fischer/Spassky 1972 match, uses descriptive. It really was a pain to read, but I suppose that is just because of my infamiliarity with it. I don't think either "Fischer played an uncharacteristic first move, P-QB4." or "Fischer played an uncharacteristic first move, c4". is easier to understand than "Fischer decided to play the English."

Sure there is...

The grid rotation always occurs when the board is rotated, turning upside-down (180-degrees) the vertical numbers and swapping from left to right the horizontal letters.  The grid is fixed on the board.  With description, no such thing.  That's characteristic of an "ambidextrous" board and notation.

But I'm not dogmatic about it.  I'm just asking why it is chosen.  That the algebraic has "higher IQ" as a reason doesn't cut it. 

Truth is, I've no serious problem with algebraic. 

Don't worry.  I am not angry.

simple reasons really but the main reason is that its cheaper and easier to print books in algebraic. less print needed. Its a small thing but adds up....

Also its less confusing and easier to teach

ALthough I do have some older books that are rather amusing

the notation is something like this

Pawn to queen's fourth square          Knight to king's bishop three

Games quickly turned in to essays luckily most games were over in less than 40 moves

To my mind (I've been reading chess notation for a wopping two months so take this for what its worth) Algebraic notation assigns each square one name while descriptive notation uses two.  Its more elegant to have a single name for each, end of argument.  That said, I'm starting to practice reading descriptive notation because so many games are recorded that way.

Your two statements are contradictory.  The second is correct.  Just because you change sides does not mean the grid rotated.  By your logic, if you walk around to the other side of a car then the steering wheel changed sides.

Which means a Bishop moving to any one of 4 squares.  Yeah, that's helpful and unambiguous.

Anyone saying it's more "logical" or any nonsense like that isn't very logical themselves. 

Another 2nd grader doubting the 4th graders.  

I'm waiting for trigonometric annotations. As a 5th grader, I have such a difficult time.

Represent the files by values of the cosine function at 0,π/4, π/2, 3π/4, π, 5π/4, 3π/2, 7π/4 and the ranks by the values of the sine function at those same points.

Yes, there will be ambiguity, but who cares?

I am just getting back into chess after 20+ years.  When I first started( in the mid 80s) I used algibraic because it was easy to look at the grid or count it out, I did not need to think what piece starts on what square.  However, as I started to develop every one told me I needed to use descriptive.  That it was more eligant and it was used in books.  Now I am returning, and algibraic is what is needed.  although I still find that descriptive is needed if I shop at the used book store.

lol Bishop to 0 pi over 4 check ( and its discovered double)

I can read either descriptive or algebraic but descriptive becomes a pain in certain situations. It's also easier to get it wrong when analyzing a game.

I disagree :)  Moves may be disambiguated by giving the starting position or the location of a capture, delimited with parentheses or a slash, as BxN/QB6, or R(QR3)-Q3. Sometimes only the rank or file is indicated, as R(6)xN.  Sometimes the parentheses aren't used.

Turn the board around, and c4 is no longer where it was just a second ago from your perspective.  Therefore, you have two different grids, but you have to use one of them and change to a different one when you change colors.

No contradiction.  You stay in your chair and rotate the board to maintain proper relationship of white and black pieces with the grid, and suddenly your grid changes and c4 is somewhere else on the board relative to your viewpoint just a second ago, before you turned the board around. That's why you need the grid.  With descriptive, no such problem.

And White's pieces must always be at one end of the board with a1 at one corner, and black's with a8 at the opposite corner.  If you don't observe this, algebraic notation loses its orientation with the pieces.  With descriptive, no such caveat.

With descriptive [edited], no math is necessary.    LOL

But not clueless.  Another 4th grader doubting the college graduates.

I can, too, but have no problem with descriptive [edited].  If you understand the numbers relate to the [black or white] starting position, it's easy.

Descriptive, descriptive.

Thank you!

No, I'm not pitching any product.  I've nothing to sell.  We can end the debate anytime.  :)