Descriptive Notation vs. Algebraic Notation

bxe4 has zero information to the outsider..I played blindfolded for years with descriptive bc it tells you exactly what is going on with the board and the location of the pieces and the name of every piece that is captured. Algebraic does not.  I don't want to be concerned with the ambiguity of what was captured. It cannot be visual if it don't give information of whats behind door #3.  QxQ is known and requires only that you remember where you queen was conversely it would be similar in that bxe4 ?we still don't even know what piece was taken on that location other than similarly remembering what was occupying that location on the board (which requires even more memorization than descriptive). I can look at my notation, play it out in my head and if I want to see a specific portion. I know exactly what just happened. Oh here is when I hung my queen. Its literally impossible to see that with algebraic, especially if its a game you played 10 years ago. Aside from noting capturing of the pieces I would digress that algebraic is far more simpler. 

My point. You are confusing your comfort and familiarity with an objective view. There is no way that English descriptive is objectively more visual. Every GM reads chess books in algebraic and sees the board while doing so. Earlier generations could do so in descriptive.

Algebraic is easier to learn, easier to teach. Even though I used descriptive from the 1970s to the mid-1990s, and struggled with a lot of involuntary code switching for several years after making the switch, I now find a chess board far more necessary to understand a game written in descriptive than in algebraic.

My argument, too, is based more on my experience than an objective view.

What is happening on the board is happening on a defined space. Algebraic defines that space simply and with greater precision than possible in descriptive. If you can see the board in your memory, you have no confusion about what is standing on e4.

I'm new to chess.com but go back a bit, and not a brilliant player. I think everyone is likely to find whatever they learnt first more natural. E.g. about squares having different names in descriptive - I find it the opposite! I am mentally sitting behind the board, and the

Sorry accidentally hit send. The pawns are on rank 2, whether I'm white or black. KB2 is my weak square, KB7 is my opponent's. And so on. But I can quite understand how a unique square name could be clearer. The bit of algebraic I find hardest to visualize is the captures e.g. Rxd5. Great but what was on d5 I think. RxN seems easier to me. But I'm sure all this is because descriptive is my "first language "

Oh sorry, hit send again, my fingers aren't perfect. Anyway I think it's worth learning the old notation so you can read old books. I don't know how easy it is to get algebraic versions of Nimzowitch in English, say (ironic I know the original would be algebraic!) and there's still something to be learnt from them.

FIDE Laws of Chess, appendix C:
"FIDE recognizes for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System, and recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals. Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player about of this requirement."

https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf 

If I need to think about a position without a chess set DN is much more clear in my mind's eye. There is a poetry to describing the moves and is not to be found algebraically. Pawn to King's fourth rank. Pawn to Queen Bishop's fourth. I love the sound of that. 

I was raised on descriptive I'm 57 algebraic is backwards when I'm black

I was raised on descriptive. I'm 62. Algebraic is simpler and less prone to error. I've played blindfold with both descriptive and algebraic. 

If I would invent a chess notation, I would divide the whole board into four quadrant with the origin in the center. I would call the first quadrant where the white king resides 1, the white queen resides 2, the black king resides 3, and the black queen resides 4. The center most file up to the outermost file would be called a, b, c, and d. The center most rank up to the outermost rank would be 1, 2, 3, 4. The e4  move would be called 1a1. In this notation, you can easily visualize where the piece is based on the the coordinates of the notation, as for the example: a is the most centermost file, 1 is the most centermost rank, and 1 means it can be found in White King's quadrant. The d4 move would be called 2a1

Similar to the choice between metric vs imperial for measuring distance, weight and volume. Why did U.S. stay with imperial? Both systems work so, it's whatever you're comfortable with. However, most players on chess.com are more comfortable with algebraic notation. So, if you want a better response to your games, best to post the algebraic notation.