Chess notation

Ok, here goes.  Does anyone but me think the 1 2 3 a b c method of chess notation is childish?  Am I the only one who misses the nobility and grace of the old notation?  P-K4 anybody?

i don't know the old chess notation... maybe if you could expound?

Short Algebraic   Long Algebraic       Descriptive          Coordinate              ICCF     
1. e4   e5             1. e2-e4  e7-e5      1. P-K4  P-K4       1. E2-E4 E7-E5    1. 5254 5755
2. Nf3  Nc6          2. Ng1-f3 Nb8-c6   2. N-KB3 N-QB3   2. G1-F3 B8-C6   2. 7163 2836
3. Bb5  a6           3. Bf1-b5 a7-a6      3. B-N5  P-QR3    3. F1-B5 A7-A6    3. 6125 1716
4. Bxc6 dxc6       4. Bb5xc6 d7xc6    4. BxN   QPxB      4. B5-C6 D7-C6   4. 2536 4736
5. d3   Bb4+        5. d2-d3  Bf8-b4+   5. P-Q3  B-N5ch  5. D2-D3 F8-B4    5. 4243 6824
6. Nc3  Nf6          6. Nb1-c3 Ng8-f6    6. N-B3  N-B3      6. B1-C3 G8-F6    6. 2133 7866
7. O-O  Bxc3       7. O-O    Bb4xc3     7. O-O   BxN         7. E1-G1 B4-C3   7. 5171 2433

Above is an example (quoted from wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_notation )

All of these describe the same set of moves.

I think that this thread should be turned into a poll where people vote for their favorite kind of notation and say why they like it.

People too often mistake simplicity with ignorance.

No, I don't believe it is too childish. I believe it's the most efficient way to record a chess game..

Others were tried and apparently, people didn't like them all that much.

hmmm... to be honest i think the other notations make it more complicated or maybe not complicated but confusing

short algebraic is by far the most elegant and I prefer it

I guess I ruffled a few feathers with this one.  Sorry folks, I was just missing the idea of sitting in a room with an olf friend playing a friendly game of chess.  The game was less about winning, or analyzing how it was lost, but rather more about passing time in a gentle and elegant manner.  I guess my age is showing.

Oh yes, it was good enought for Bobby Fischer...

I don't know about childish but it sure makes my older chess books more confusing.  But I have a natural aversion to anything that interupts the thought process in a game. I'm for video recording.  :)

 P-K4  P-QB4    the sicilian defense !!  Yes, I too started off with the descriptive notation and I still would like to use it to record my games from time to time but FIDE allows ONLY algebraic !  Fischer always kept his score in the "old" descriptive notation and I wonder if he would have ever agreed to use the algebraic had he continued playing? I seriously doubt it.

I grew up with Descriptive Notation.  Had no problem with it.  Am so used to Short Algebraic now that its is difficult to follow Descriptive from old books:((  Short Algebraic is so much easier and clearer.

The case can be made for ICCF when appropriate.  Very exacting.  I have had no call to use it, but wouldn't have a problem with doing so.

Descriptive shows my age, and it is demise is for the best.

short algebraic rules

short algebraic

I had a 35 year hiatus from chess.  I returned to find I can still play the game, but I cannot follow the new books.  I can understand algebraic, but I cannot picture the moves in my mind; I have to translate.  I would like to study some of the new ideas, but don't have a board to set up on, so I have to do it in my head.

I think the dogged adherence to descriptive by certain Americans (and perhaps a few Brits, too) may not be quite childish, but is at least counterproductive. I, too, learned descriptive first and still have many books in it. It's a system worth knowing, and I think many younger players that started with algebraic could benefit from learning it. Nevertheless, after switching to algebraic in my 30s (I sort of knew it before then, but did not record my own games with it), I've found it easier to use, and easier to teach.

I've played blindfold games in both systems, and get deeper into the game with a clearer recollection of the board in algebraic than I was able to accomplich in descriptive.

I also continue to be amazed that so many players call descriptive the "old" system. It is certainly a far shorter road to short algebraic from the long algebraic described as the Continental system in the appendix to Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) than from his English notation to the system many of us learned as descriptive. Put another way: the descriptive system you are calling "old" emerged late in the nineteenth century, while algebraic was alreadt well established in the mid-nineteenth century. Algebraic is the old and international system. Descriptive is a provincial alternative that was employed in English speaking countries in the twentieth century.

Thanks for the history lesson.  I truly am impressed as I did not know the full story of these forms of notation.  However, I am a child of the twentieth century.  Sigh.  I guess it is time to learn the new/older method.  perhaps if I get a board the visual will help.

Once you've got more than a few books you have to get used to various systems. Luckily its no problem. I prefer short algebraic myself of its economy and clarity.

Actually, discussion of a game is (to me) far more enjoyable in descriptive.

There are some more colourful alternative notations ... http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/eco-abandoned

When I played with the ICCF they used a simple numeric notation system. Each square had a 2 digit number so every move was simply a 4 digit number. 5254 5755 = e4 e5   etc  I dont know if that notation is still used but I never did like it .