Anyone miss descriptive notation?

Interesting point you bring up, but it supports algebraic notation. With descriptive notation, each square actually has two descriptions (one from each side) and each description can describe two squares unless the colour is specified. Ranks also need colour to describe the location, e.g. White's 7th is Black's 2nd. The drawback for algebraic is that everything is from White's perspective and thinking about Black requires an upside down and backward perspective.

You should at least address some of the points he made.  Assume you are a novice who is just learning the game, and you read somwhere that you should put your rooks on the 7th rank.  But you're Black so you end up putting them on the wrong rank.  The problem is that traditional terms developed when Descriptive notation was the vogue in the US and UK was not adapted when the West converted to Algebraic.

When I learned first learned chess with Descriptive, I noticed that when there was some ambiguity, they would specify QNxP or KNxP if either Knight could make the capture.  Same with the Bishops.  But when I first tried to record my own games I was very puzzled as to how you could keep track of which Knight was the Queen's Knight and which was the King's Knight, once the game was in the later stages and everything got scrambled.  So, I always set up the starting position with the Knights facing inward, and the Bishop's, as well (with the "smile" facing the center.)  And since the rooks are perfectly symmetrical, I actually put a little pencil mark on the bases of each!

Sounds stupid?  Of course, but I was 9 years old and very conscientious. 

Funny thing is, more than 50 years later, I still set up my pieces with the Knights and Bishops facing inwards.  Although I no longer put pencil marks on my rooks.   

"The drawback for algebraic is that everything is from White's perspective and thinking about Black requires an upside down and backward perspective."

That's actually why I like Descriptive Notation better.  I remember reading maxims like "Getting your rooks on the 7th rank is powerful."  That maxim only makes sense from a Descriptive Notation paradigm.

Is this the reason for the crowns which appear on one Rook and one Knight of each colour on some sets? Whenever I've used descriptive I always thought the "QN" would be whichever Knight is further to the Queenside, not necessarily the Knight which started life on QN1.

The answer is "No" to your first question.  And I have no idea concerning your second point.

Descriptive Notation is and was totally confusing.  I have no problem following games in Descriptive notation from books, because, presumably, the writers/editiors knew what they were doing.  But I always screwed up my game score in descriptive and going over another young player's scoresheet (kept in descriptive) was always difficult and ultimately impossible.  At least in algebraic, to avoid ambiguity, you designate either the rank or the file from whence the piece came from.  (and yes you have to be careful that there are not two pieces on the same rank or file.)

 I used to do the same in descriptive - e.g. "N(Q5) - K3" back-in-the-day to avoid ambiguity. Maybe that wasn't "proper" descriptive though

Are you sure UncleBent? The answer appears to be "yes", according to wikipedia: "There were also practical innovations: for the first time a crown emblem was stamped onto a rook and knight of each side, to identify their positioning on to the king's side of the board. The reason for this is that in descriptive chess notation, the rooks and knights were often designated by being the "queen's knight", the "king's rook", etc."

 On the other hand, if you want to say something like "beginners often play P-R4 early", you have to say "beginners often play a5 or h5 or a4 or h4 early"

I've used both notations, don't have a problem with either.

Obviously if you collect very old chess books as a hobby DN is a given when printed in English.  Of course the younger generations do not collect much except for video games and collecting chess books seem to be a declining hobby. Notice I did not say dying hobby.  

 Descriptive is inherently no more or less ambiguous than algebraic. In practice, however, it's more cumbersome and prone to mistakes in both transcription and clarity.  

The fact that descriptive is subjective seems to have no direct bearing on why it was phased out.  Had that been the case, it would have disappeared in 1740 rather than in the 1970s.  Coordinate notation has been around nearly a 1000 years.

Curious, I tried to find with some precision when algebraic supplanted descriptive in the English-speaking countries. I found Reuben Fine's 1976 book, "World's Great Chess Games," used descriptive notation. One might say, he was old school and just used that notation, but 1975 "Chess Life and Review" was all descriptive.  Also in 1976 Chernev released "Twelve Great Players and Their Best Games," also in descriptive notation.  But in 1978 Chernev came out with "Capablaca's Best Chess Endings" using long algebraic.

Interesting enough, in the intervening year, 1977, Tim Harding, known today mostly for his history books, wrote in "Better Chess for Average Players, "The great majority of the countries of the world use algebraic notation for their chess publications, and this has been an important factor in international chess communications. English- and Spanish-speaking countries have hitherto clung to the descriptive system, but even in these countries there is an increasing tendency for the leading players to prefer algebraic notation, because it it more concise, and because it assists clear, logical thought about the game."

So, Harding's take, as the time the change was occurring, was that algebraic offered conciseness, a possible standardization of notation,  better visualization and support from the most visible practitioners. 

But algebraic had offered most of these things since Stamma in 1737, so Harding's evaluation doesn't explain why, suddenly in 1977 should algebraic be taking over.  Of course, algebraic has many advantages over descriptive, just as metric system has many advantages over the imperial system, but only until the 1970s was there the catalyst for change  - computers.   While usable computer chess programs had been around for  a decade since the first computer played in a tournament,  and a half dozen years since the first all-computer tournament, in 1977 the computer's place in the world of chess (and the insistence upon a coordinate notation) was firmly, and in a way officially, established by the foundation of International Computer Chess Association.  At any rate, unless one believes powefull coincidences,  computer's seemed to have been needed catalyst to make algebraic almost universal and eventually the standard notation.

In looking at Harding's book, I saw a chart he used to show his readers how their time-honored descriptive notation looked against the new-fangled algebraic notation:

Another item I found, in Dec. 1977, is this short article from "Popular Mechanics"  on a portable chess computer:

What makes it noteworthy is that the computer uses coordinate notation, but the files are numerical while the ranks are alphabetical.

Fascinating stuff batgirl. It's a bit like printing having a standardising effect on language - the technology influences what it is transmitting.

I'm an old man who learned on descriptive, and whose battered copy of My 60 Memorable Games is in descriptive  - but I don't miss it and I'd hate to have to go back to it.

Any Grandmasters, either in the past or currently, play blindfold chess and they requested that moves be relayed to him in Descriptive Notation?

@batgirl  The catalyst for the conversion to Algebraic was the publication if the first ECO (Encyclopedia of Chess Openings) in the fall of 1974.  Chess Informants had been published since 1967, but they had only been purchased by the very elite players.  Up until ECO, many tournament players depended upon their one-volume MCO (Modern Chess Openings), but ECO quickly made that obsolete for the aspiring player.  Back in the 1970s, the largest publisher of English language books was the UK'S Batsford Co,  They had started their "Contemporty Chess Openings" series in 1969, and with the coming of the Fischer boom, they were cranking out a new opening book every 2 months.  Most of these books were so extensive, that non English-speaking players began purchasing them, and, sometime around 1975-1976, Batsford switched to Algebraic.

It was not so easy a switch in the US for newspaper columns and magazines, whose readeres included many lower-skilled players who did not have any of the newer chess books.  But, short-form Algebraic does take up 20% less space than Descriptive, so there was a great desire by editors to switch, in order to put more games int their columns/magazines.  Chess Life began a three year conversion process, where, originally, most US games were in Descriptive while most international games were in Algebraic.  With state organization's publications, the resistance was stronger, and the conversion was much more difficult.  In Massachusetts, there was almost a Civil War, as descriptive die-hards tried to prevent Algebraic from being used in "Chess Horizons."  The problem was that many games submitted to the magazine were in Algebraic, as were columns by contributors -- Most of the top players had switched to Algebraic, even if the majority of the readership used Descriptive.  So, the editor of Chess Horizons had to spend extra work on switching submitted games back to Descriptive.  Finally, in 1979, Chess Horizons' editor, NM Joel Johnson, just refused to do it, and the journal went to algebraic.  This caused a large defection of readers/members, mostly in the Western part of Massachusetts, and, to this day, there is a "Western Mass Chess Associaton" apart from the Mass Chess Association.

Interesting history. I wonder when FIDE officially adopted algebraic notation. When was the first World Championship recorded in algebraic.

Thanks!

What I miss is deceptive notation - as in, writing your move and making your opponent believe that you're totally going to play it, then play something else and watch the fun.

Ah, yes... FIDE banned that a while back, didn't they? What a shame. Now you have to make your move before writing it down - and where's the fun in that?

Ah, yes... FIDE banned that a while back, didn't they? What a shame. Now you have to make your move before writing it down - and where's the fun in that?

Oh really?  I didn't know that.  (1) Is it banned by the USCF too?  (2)  I remember instructional guides saying to "Write down your move first.  Look it over.  I.e., blunder check.  If good, then play it."  

Well that can be done in algebraic, as well.. but, this practice (writing down your move before you make it) is now illegal, according to FIDE rules.  And it is also a "suggested" rule variation in the USCF, although many clubs/tournamens allow a waiver (like Bill Goichberg's CCA.)

Back in the early 1970s, Alexander Kotov in his "Think Like a Grandmaster" suggested to playes that they write the move down first, then double check before making it.  Many in my generation adopted this practice.  It became second nature.  So, it became a very hard habit to break when my chess club adopted the rules change a few years ago.

(There is not much consensus for the penalty for writing the move down first... warning... warning... maybe give opponent 2 minutes added to his clock... and then maybe forfeit if a player continues to do it.  In the 2015 US Championship, Wesley So was forfeited vs Var Akopian for writing notes on his scoresheet.)

Edit: One of the reasons the practice was banned was becasue some players abused the privilege.  I have one friend who would write down a move, take a minute to check, then change his move, and repeat the process 2 or 3 or even 4 times.  FIDE (and the USCF) concluded that some players were using their scoresheet as a worksheet.