I wonder why algebraic notation?

Firebrand must be so much smarter than all of us.

4 months later...

With algebraic each square does have a discrete symbol, code, and number.  i.e. a1 is a code using a letter and a number that uses both Roman and Arabic symbols.

algebraic notation is for pussies!

having said that ... so is descriptive!

my own resolution is to write my moves using "blonde" notation.

Here one of my games in this notation.

1.p-K4  p-g5

2.Q-N4  p-f6

3.Q-R5  deathblow!

When I first began learning chess, descriptive notation was still in vogue. I was one of those newcomers trying to learn chess in an era dominated by descriptive notation and I hated it, even without any knowledge of an alternative. When algebraic came along and replaced descriptive I was thrilled. I have since then made an effort to replace any book I used to have in descriptive with its algebraic version. Descriptive notation is unpleasant for all the reasons cogently stated by others here. For anyone who was introduced to chess at a time when they had an equal choice between the two and still prefers descriptive, I think you need your head examined. The relative-move notation common in Xianqi is perhaps the worst example of notations in which the destination square/location can not be determined without also knowing the piece being moved (and, by extension, its starting location). At least with algebraic notation I know precisely what square Xf6 the piece X is moving to without even knowin what X is.

I like notation that describes a farmer moving to the fourth house of a king.

[COMMENT DELETED]

Acually, Symythescript is superior to both algebraic and descriptive.

http://userpages.monmouth.com/~colonel/chess/smythe.html

 +1  LOL

Here is how we did it when I was younger:

This system is the new streamlined version that lacks the poetics of what has served for hundreds of years. I fear for the consequences.

I don't see why in this day and age they might not consider a sort of combination

like name the piece   position of piece at start position of piece at end

and instead of using egyptian hyrio stuffy - - - just print the action

like 

white bishop at e7 - TAKES black bishop at F 6

course nerds could use the Egyptian hirothingys

white bishop at e 7 - ?:!+_)(*&(&((&^(^(%()_) -  black bishop at F 6

- the Egyptian hiro thingys are quite simple - - the symbols describe a stork going over to the pyramids and eating a beetle/ while there the stork pauses to play some chess - - - - the stork considers moving white bishop at E 7 to F 6 and capturing a pieces / after serious deilberation - the stork does move his bishop at E 7 onto F 6 and capture a piece - the last few symbols SAY THE PHAROAH WAS PLEASED -  - 

- the good thing about Egyptian notation is that if you are going to be descriptive WELL BE DESCRIPTIVE

Yes, a more complex system is always better.  This one combines descriptive with a complex, unclear algebraic.  Oh, I love this:   "4. 7XXU S- So the knight closest to the kingside and/or closest to the their 8th rank moves to somewhere on the Queen's Bishop's file while black moves their king bishop's pawn one square...  GREAT!!!!  That was so, so much easier and faster than 4. Nb? g6.

By the way, 4. 7XXU is an illegal move.  The game given is up to the 4th turn is:  1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. a4 a5 4. Ng1-b3 g6

It's so complex that the people promoting the system don't know it well enough to see that Ng1-b3 is one of the largest cheats ever.  No knight can ever make it to the b-file on their first move, especially the king's knight!

Yes, I assume your suggestion was a joke, but the flaws with this system or not.  Or are they?

You do realize that with algebraic you need to know only a-h and 1-8 to understand, but with your system one needs to know 64 different symbols.  So, what is easier, 8 ranks and 8 files, or 64 squares?

You'd also need to know some sort of vocalisation of the symbols to talk about the game.

I suppose the vocalizations would be things like "eefore", "eefive", "eneffthree", "enseesix", and so on. ;)

"eefore?"  You mean algebraic?

I got it!  We can use phonetic symbols!  Each square will be a consonant then each piece a vowel, meaning we utter a meaningless (sometimes meaningful) sound.  The problem is that there are not 64 single consonances or vowels...

Oh, am I using consonants right or is my head just filled with too much musical jargon?

If we can combine the recent ideas I think we've got it. Use easily distinguishable consonants for the files, say "b" "f" "g" "j" "k" "l" "m" "p", then we use vowels for the ranks, "short a", "long a", "ee", "I", "Oh", "oo", "you", "yah". Then we use pitch for the pieces and we can sing our games. Famous games will be ballads.

do - The Fat Man

re - The Royal Dame

mi - Pig

fa - Pedophile

sol - Pony

la - WalMart employee

This will have a secondary benefit: we can interpret Buddhist chants as chess games.

I'm going to need some oxygen with Firebrand huffing and puffing in here.

Efficiency runs counter to the needs of poetry.