For me, I want the Descriptive one.
What notation you want the most the descriptive one or the algebraic one?
Sort:
Sep 23, 2011
0
#3
I definitely prefer algebraic. My preference may be partly attributed to bias, admittedly, because it's the first notation I learned and the only one I've ever known. But to me, it makes the most sense, because the d4-square is always the d4-square.
When someone says "d4," there's never any ambiguity, never any mistaking what he's talking about. But referring to the square "Q4" takes me longer to process, because I have to stop and consider the point of view of the player. I will realize that it refers to d4 from White's point of view, but d5 from Black's. Once I determine that, I may then have to scan the text to figure out which point of view the author is using, which may not always be clear.
Also, algebraic is generally more concise, which I like. "a4" is shorter than QRP-4.
That's why algebraic notation is very specific in squares (esp. when fianchettoing in b3,g3,b6,g6).
Descriptive is so cumbersome and long-winded it seems absurd it took so long to use algebraic. There's no room for confusion with algebraic, but plenty with descriptive.
So, you probably want the easier way?
Descriptive used to be used, until algebraic was invented, then notation was upgraded. For a reason. There are no obvious advantages of descriptive notation over algebraic.
At the first place, the descriptive one is the notation used to analyzed problem. But years later, algebraic notation invented and the board puts an # and a letter.
Sep 23, 2011
0
#9
pellik wrote:
I like the algebraic description where the pieces are notated using little drawings of the piece (as opposed to N for knight). I am determined to use this notation during OTB games and draw little pieces on my score-card someday.
Ah, you're referring to figurine algebraic notation. It's nice for its clarity, but for me, drawing those little pieces would be a pain! 
Sep 23, 2011
0
#10
nyLsel wrote:
In this two, what notation are you comfortable? or want the most?
Algebraic.
I dislike chess books that use descriptive. It's irksome to the eyes and not nearly as clear as algebraic.
And as for algebraic, I vastly prefer letters to pictures.
My first chess books, bought when I was playing at school, were in descriptive notation. That's the one I learned first. It has been an effort to readjust to algebraic, but now it seems much more natural to me and, although I can still understand descriptive well enough, I would not go back to using it routinely.
Sep 23, 2011
0
#12
Algebraic is to descriptive as metric is to fractions. The former is superior to the later both in simplicity and non-ambiguity. We initially learned descriptive but came to use algebraic exclusively when annotating our own games. However the ability to understand descriptive comes in handy when perusing the great classics in chess which one might comes across still written in descriptive. >:[
The books made descriptive notation so we can know the both notation algebraic one, and the descriptive (even it is not used today).
fburton wrote:
My first chess books, bought when I was playing at school, were in descriptive notation. That's the one I learned first. It has been an effort to readjust to algebraic, but now it seems much more natural to me and, although I can still understand descriptive well enough, I would not go back to using it routinely.
Some books were published before the algebraic notation have been created. So they used the descriptive one.
nyLsel wrote:
fburton wrote:
My first chess books, bought when I was playing at school, were in descriptive notation. That's the one I learned first. It has been an effort to readjust to algebraic, but now it seems much more natural to me and, although I can still understand descriptive well enough, I would not go back to using it routinely.
Some books were published before the algebraic notation have been created. So they used the descriptive one.
I dunno... What could they have been thinking of?! 
Sometimes, they used descriptive one, for the convenience of the players of the older generation as also of the new one.
In an electronic chess book (on the iPad, for example), one could switch between descriptive and algebraic - and any of the variants thereof - with the greatest of ease.
Everyone can use both of these notation.
Descriptive is better. I have to get a board out for algebraic.....
IMHO algebraic is fit only for computers
There are two notations depict in chess (Descriptive one, and the algebraic one) In Descriptive every move by the player has an piece name (viz.QRP-4,NP-3, etc.) while algebraic shows the exact and the specific move of a player.
In this two, what notation are you comfortable? or want the most?