Descriptive Notation or Algebraic Notation/The Last Dinosaur...

Although no one has ever said anything to me about it, I realized something the other day that maybe I should address here; therefore now seems a good time to do it. Whether to use Descriptive Notation or Algebraic Notation, or more specifically, why do I use Descriptive Notation in recording a game, yet use Algebraic on my blog sites?

It's obvious I know both, for I rarely make errors in Descriptive when recording my games and I also seldom make errors in transferring my games to the blog site or sites.

So, as the younger generation might say, "What up with dat?" As a History and English Literature Major, I cringe at the idea of using 'dat' for 'that', but in the interest of getting my point across, I will 'momentarily' humor the younger generation.

The answer is rather simple. I find that the best writers to explain some of the finer points of the game are the older writers, and those older writers invariably used Descriptive Notation.

A second reason is that I used Descriptive FIRST when I was beginning tournament chess, but I knew the notation long before that, when I was Six years old. I didn't start playing Tournament Chess until I was 22 years old.

That explains my use of Descriptive Notation when recording a Chess Game.

Algebraic Notation came to me more slowly. First of all, I realized when I saw it that it was much easier on the printed page, therefore I understood why Publishers would prefer it. It's also cheaper.

Secondly, although Descriptive has its own unique logic, so does Algebraic.

And Thirdly, when it came to blogging myself, I found that much time could be saved by using Algebraic Notation over my eccentric use of Descriptive Notation. Besides, on the printed page, the latter can be unwieldy at times!

Nevertheless, I use both styles and sometimes this has helped me unexpectedly, like when a rival wants to view my scoresheet to either determine my Opening Repertoire at the moment or when that same rival is looking at my move-order to maybe determine something else.

If they are not familiar with Descriptive Notation, they take longer to figure it out and I am more apt to catch a glimpse of them before they disappear. I almost always notice anyway because my peripheral vision is very good. I am seldom at a loss as to who is at my side or who is behind me.

And so, there you have it, the answer as to why I use both styles of Chess Notation.

There's one other reason why it is good to understand both styles very well:

There's no such Chess Book written in the English Language that I cannot understand, for they are either in the Descriptive Notation or they are in the Algebraic Notation, short or long form.

Lastly, there are many forms of Algebraic Notation, I use a Hybrid System of the usual form, somewhere between Short and Long. Many chess players also do this for I seldom see a strict adherence to the Short Form or a strict adherence to the Long Form. By nature, chess players are rather eccentric.

As far as I know, I am the only member at the Reno Chess Club that uses Descriptive Notation, I am therefore quite possibly the last Dinosaur, although whenever I am at a Major Chess event, I am always approached by a group that only uses Descriptive Notation, so I am not alone, but we are a dying breed!