I think you can get a heck of a deal on a lot of old used chessbooks if you truly prefer descriptive to today's algebraic. Might even have a few myself...Oh darn you're across the pond; too much for shipping. 
Notation, now or then?
Sort:
Jan 3, 2016
0
#3
I think it's harder to visualize with descriptive notation!
QN-B4 or queen's knight to bishop 4.
But there are (of course) two squares which are bishop 4. c4 and f4. And you need to remember which is the queen's knight.
Of course only one of the squares will be available, but at first it's not clear what side of the board bishop 4 is on.
But, e.g., Nc4 is much easier to visualize.
My two cents.
Jan 3, 2016
0
#4
Oh, also, let's say knight 6. Well there are 4 of them. For white, knight 6 is either b6 or g6. But if it's black to move knight 6 is b3 or g3.
Sure sure, it's not so difficult I know. But blindfold it's not as crisp as when each square has a unique and permanent name.
baddogno wrote:
I think you can get a heck of a deal on a lot of old used chessbooks if you truly prefer descriptive to today's algebraic. Might even have a few myself...Oh darn you're across the pond; too much for shipping.
lol I an actually Canadian, I just put Britain as the television persona I named the user name after is British and the description is written as him.
So I was watching Pawn Sacrifice lately and I love hearing the old style of notation they were using, and it got me thinking of what we use now. Sure, it is not hard to get a handle on, but personally I like the older notation more. It may be less comprehensive and user friendly but I liked how it helped visualize the game without having to see a board. What do you think?