Wouldn't that be cool, Thibault?
Gross.
It's used in old books. I wonder how hard it would be to implement...or to make a conversion script or something.
Hey Funder...I have a ton of chess books and chess literature all in descriptive notatation. I still think in descriptive. But I think algebraic is here to stay. Tonyro...If you had grown up with descriptive , you would have a better appreciation for it. It works just fine. I have a post I made some time ago asking the same thing...you must be a older player like me Funder. :]
I did grow up with descriptive. The vast majority of my first chess books had that abomination. New books don't use it because it's strictly worse in almost every way to algebraic. The work/reward ratio on such a feature has to be extremely low. The overwhelming majority of players would prefer the usual algebraic.
It would probably be "cool", but all of the cost-benefit / cost-effectiveness/ cost-utility analysis scream not to implement it really
I wanted to learn both because not all books are updated to the new notation. I don't think descriptive is superior, but it is a nice historical novelty!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.