Descriptive Notation vs. Algebraic Notation

I grew up with DN too, they are both equal to me.

But when speaking, I think descriptive has a slight edge. For example, if you are talking about creating "luft" for the castled king, in algebraic you have to say "move your pawn to h3 or h6 (or even a3 or a6), in descriptive you can just say P-R3 and all the bases are covered.

Also, in descriptive you can talk about "rook on the 7th rank", for both sides, which doesnt work with algebraic from blacks perspective.

Having 1. P-K4 P-K4 (where it is counting from both side) really shouldnt be any more confusing than algebraic where you have the files and ranks going backward on you. I will still on occasion make a mistake on the black side writing down my moves and record a piece on c as f instead.

It shouldnt be too surprising most of you have issues with descriptive since it isnt used any more. I still have lots of books in descriptive, for example collections from Fischer and Alekhine, so it is easy for me since I get weekly practice with it.

I think algebraic really started to make it easier for computers, not humans. If computers werent around I dont think we would have bothered to make the switch.

Good examples.

a1-h8 is for black and white the same, but QR1 - KR8 is not equal to KR1 - QR8, yet can they both describe that same diagonal a1-h8. QR1 - KR8 for instance describes two different diagonals for black and white. The description for white has black squares where the description for black has white squares.

Since the globalization more people have learned to write and speak in English. When I was in my teens there was a choice if you prefered to focus on English or German. Nowadays you don't need to make a choice, because all Germans speak English too.

Prayerman46 wrote:

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

I also learned DN through Fred Reinfeld. It would be interesting to know how much influence Fred Reineld had on a generation of baby boomer chess players. When I think of DN, I'm some what nostalgic as I can go back & replay the historic games from the great Grandmasters of the 19th & 20th Centuries in the language they used.

We should all thank our stars that Jaenisch's system never took hold. He distinguished the king's knight (nag) from the queen's (mare), the bishop (king's) from the prelate (queen's) and the rook (king's) from the castle (queen's). Each pawn had a separate name as well, which it retained until promotion.

The variation below begin's with Black's nag moving to the third square of its bishop. BM5+ is the bishop moving to the mare's fifth square; p x q is the capture of the queen's pawn by the prelate's pawn.

 

Good grief!

Was Jaenisch a frequent MP3 player?

That's similar to the metric/US-units problem.

Objectively speaking, algebraic (metric) is easier to use, but if you learnt with descriptive (US units), it remains more natural for you.

Of what I've heard of the dvorak vs qwerty keyboard, it's the same. Dvorak is significantly better ergonomically-speaking, but it needs time to put yourself to it if you did not start with it in the first place.

It would seem so from a quick glance at his games. Way ahead of his time. His games are music.

Both notations have their place. It is understandable that Algebraic has taken hold since the advent of computers. Databases and games, using computers, is easier for the program to handle.

Descriptive notation is just that. Instead of pointing to coordinates, it describes the game from each players perspective. It's the difference between reading a math book or literature; it depends on your taste.

I greatly prefer Descriptive Notation. It is elegant and can be beautiful. It's been very hard, but after 30 years I've adaped to Algebraic but I still cannot follow game moves alone, in my head.

That is : for both sides, the colour of diagonal squares is opposite to the colour of the pieces, isn't it a beautiful symmetry ?  ;-)  

"Both notations have their place. It is understandable that Algebraic has taken hold since the advent of computers. Databases and games, using computers, is easier for the program to handle."

1 Algebraic notation was already dominant dozens of years before computers were able to play at a decent level

2 It's as easy for a computer to count from 9 to 1 (or h to a) than the opposite "normal" way.

BTW, when a program must do something n times, it first loads n somewhere, then substracts 1 each time before doing the job, and stops when it finds 0. That is, exactly the opposite method one might have thought (which would have been begining with 0 and checking to 9)

I was pointing out why, in the US, Algebraic changed rapidly, it also coincided with the growth of computers. I personally cannot see the benefits of Algebraic over Descriptive. It has just removed something without replacing it with something else valuable. That is just the way things have been progressing for many, many decades. Keep only that which has a utilitarian value and discard the reste. Oh well, if the world wants to use Algebraic, I will too.

How many of my pieces were captured by my opponent's Queen?  Easy to determine using descriptive notation.  Not so easy using algebraic

Descriptive notation is a more visual notation, and as a teacher we understand that every student has a specific learning style (there are many). I'm visual and I find that descriptive is much easier to play out the game in my head. e4?? what moved there. but p-k4 I understand that the pawn moved there. pxe4? what piece was removed from e4?? bxN.. its obvious that the bishop captured the knight.

I find the algebaic is simpler, it's easier to use.  

Algebraic is more visual notation because it it rooted in a clear point of view. Descriptive is more like American cinema, where the illusion of universality is created through constantly shifting camera angles. Joined to this illusion is facile analysis because you never see things as they really are. Algebraic, on the other hand, promotes objectivity. One might speculate that stubbornly clinging to English descriptive after the rest of the English speaking world adopted algebraic substantially hindered skill development in the United States. Happily, we are beginning to catch up again, largely due to immigration.

I think even GM Williams has a naming system for pawns. Don't know about the rest but it's eddie for e pawn then freddy pawn then garry and finally harry.

Here is how descriptive is more visual.. if I post a random move from a game.. say on move 13 white responds with  Bxe4.... what piece did I capture? if you can guess the correct answer algebraic is more visual, otherwise descriptive is more visual. In the descriptive game If you move 22 QxQ... you can just look at that sheet and immediately know that at least one the queens were gone from the board at this juncture of the game. Algebraic notation does not show the piece that was captured therefor something that is visual shows the actual piece that was captured not a square label.

After Bxe4, I know there is a bishop in the middle of the board. QxQ tells me nothing more than the endurance of one queen somewhere.

If you are more interested in visualizing the pieces that are sitting beside the board, then your argument has merit. Be sure to look behind the clock if you are playing me. I usually hide a pawn or knight there.

I'm more interested in the pieces that are on the board and their locations.

I've played blindfold chess in descriptive notation, and I've played it in algebraic. I am truly impressed with those who did blindfold simuls in descriptive, because I find it much harder to visualize the board that way.