Descriptive Notation vs. Algebraic Notation

With the advent of the computer almost all games are recorded in algebraic notation.  I personally find descriptive notation to come more naturally in understanding a game.  Would it not be a service if more chess programs used descriptive notation in recording and playing a game?  Shouldn't it be a fairly simple algorithym to translate algebraic to descriptive notation?  It is my opinion that the quality of many 1400 to 1500 rated players would dramatically improve.

1. P-K4, P-K4 2. N-KB3 N-QB3 is Descriptive Notation

Having grown up with DN I much prefer algebraic due to the uniqueness each square has.

I don't like Descriptive as white and black have different perspectives, e.g.

1. e4 e5

1. P-K4 P-K4

The second one is much more confusing, and harder to visualise, IMO.

The only reason I learned Descriptive Notation was to read older books. Algebraic is easier to visualize, but after reading and playing some games in DN, to me they are about the same.

In my opinion, descriptive notation is far inferior to algebraic notation. I grew up on descriptive notation and it certainly worked ok.Yet, It was often confusing and I have erred many times  with descriptive notation. For instance,take the move  PQ4. You can become confused because PQ4 could be in Descriptive D4 OR  D5 depending on whether you're talking about black or white whereas in Algebraic there is no confusion: The move is written as D4.

I'm extremely confortable with both notations.  Furthermore, I really don't understand why some people get "confused" with descriptive and that fact that each square has two names.  It's not rocket science.

Then again, I "grew up" with descriptive, and I used to record all of my games, even offhand games, in descriptive notation, so maybe that helps.

I have 433 chess books and it wouldn't surprise me at all if 30 - 40% of them were written in descriptive.

Note that algebraic notation became popular long before computers did.  My Chess Life magazines from the mid to late 70s were already talking about making the switch to algebraic.  (Computers weren't used in most homes until the mid to late 1980s.)

Note:  I do use and prefer algebraic now.  But every once in awhile, just for fun, I'll record a tournament game in descriptive.  I like to look at my opponent's face, especially if it's a kid, when they ask to borrow my scoresheet!  Most kids DON'T know descriptive at all!

Im a kid and i know descriptive

Algebraic is easier to learn, easier to teach, and easier to use without error. However, there are exceptional chess books that are available only in English Descriptive. It behooves ambitious players to learn both.

The past few days I've been enjoying reading an early version of English descriptive in Philidor's Analysis of the Game of Chess (1790 [1749]).

Being much older than most members, I prefer descriptive notation as those were the chess books that I read in my younger days.  I realize that algebraic is much simpler and certainly understand why the majority prefer it.  My main reason for choosing descriptive is that for some odd reason it made me concentrate more during a game.  I have no explanation for this other than my concentration level seemed to be greater than using the algebraic system.

Algebraic is so much easier to read IMO.

I grew up with descriptive so I find it easier. It's less clinical than algebraic and, well, more descriptive. It flails a little in the later game when you may have, say, two rooks on the same rank and you have to constantly specify which one you mean, but the other objections I have seen are no worse than can be levelled at algebraic. Whether it feels more natural to me because I learnt it while young or because it harmonises with our natural language skills I don't know. Of course, it is language specific and I think that is why algebraic is a better world-wide system as it is language-independent. Algebraic is sort of the Esperanto of chess - prosaic but useful.

I learned chess from the books of Fred Reinfeld, all in DN, so naturally that is my native language. 

I much prefer algebraic. Easier for me to read and visualize than descriptive.

Well, in algebraic notation you also have to specify which rook, so this isn't a drawback for decriptive.  In algebraic, if you have two rooks on the d-file, you would need to write R1d3 to specify that you want the rook on the 1st rank to move to d3.   In descriptive, you'd write R1-Q3.

I'm one who grew up with descriptive but I now prefer algebraic.  But I'm confortable reading both, and I won't hesitate purchasing a good used book, just because it's written in descriptive.

I find that speaking DN is easier and more easily understood when verbally describing a specific piece at the square of origin (i.e. the King's Bishop pawn). But when it comes to playing and notating position, algebraic is definately the way to go.

White: ... and then you played your pawn to e5

Black: ... oh no, to e4!

White: .. exactly, that is what I said: e5.

Black: ... are you kidding me? How could I do that, you had your pawn on e5.

White: ... if I had my pawn on e5 you could have captured it with your knight at c6. No way I would play that.

Black: ... If I had a knight on c6, then could I capture your pawn on e5, not on e4, but I would have captured your queen obviously.

How is that called easy talking?

I mean only when verbally describing a piece while it sits on its originating square, not during play.

For example, when telling someone new to chess that he has his f Bishop and g Knight reversed (which does happen), it is easier to tell him to switch his King's Bishop and Knight.

Yeah, I was just kidding. It is actually an example on my own problems with descriptive notation. My little dialogue describes what happens in my brains when reading DN. I am switching all the time from DN to algebraic and have to remember that K4 can have two meanings.

That would be a very funny conversation to hear.