Answers.Body: <p>If there are studies, they'd show descriptive to be the lesser of the two because in descriptive, all the squares have two names; in algebraic, just one. So if you're having to keep a game in your head, it's easier to do so with 64 identifiers to remember than 128, right?</p>
  <p>If you practice playing blindfolded, you'll find that your only use for notation is transmitting the moves back and forth.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-02T11:05:07.313Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-02T11:05:07.313Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: friscodelrosario
Answers.Body: <p>descriptive is far easier for blindfold chess or blind players</p>
  <p>the symmetry makes it easier to 'see' the board where with algebraic it is all memory and computation to really know what is where</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-08T06:49:17.097Z
Answers.Text: For you, descriptive may be far easier. For others, who have grown up with algebraic, it's the other way round: Descriptive is all computation to really know what is where. What matters most, difficulty-wise, is routine.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-07T00:11:43.607Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-07T00:11:43.607Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Body: <p>What studies have compared effectiveness for thinking by chess players using descriptive vs algebraic notation?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-19T16:53:30.520Z
Comments.Text: I tend to doubt it, and even if there were such a study, it would probably find that algebraic would be the easier of the two to use. Other than the fact that each square is represented by only one name, another reason algebraic took over is that it is more logical.
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-19T16:56:05.447Z
Comments.Text: I tend to doubt it too, but you never know what some psych major might study.  Personally I played blindfold quite well with descriptive which was easy and intuitive, but struggle to use algebraic and have to count the rows/columns and then double check to make sure I am right.
Comments.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-19T16:57:52.510Z
Comments.Text: By the way, I took out the tag "studies" because the tag, in this case, does not mean "a published report", but rather, studies, as in chess compositions for solving.
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-19T16:59:35.243Z
Comments.Text: Thanks.   Maybe we need a new tag for published report or similar.
Comments.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-19T17:00:27.190Z
Comments.Text: OK, I created that. Done.
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-19T18:15:21.607Z
Comments.Text: what does "thinking by chessplayers using descriptive vs algebraic notation" mean?  Does it mean literally thinking:
  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 
  to yourself?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-19T18:52:51.580Z
Comments.Text: It means thinking PQ4  NKN3,   2 PQ4 PKN3,   3 NQB3 PQ4 to myself'  Remember there was a time before algebraic notation, and a longer time before it became common because of FIDE.
Comments.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-19T21:43:14.837Z
Comments.Text: I remember descriptive notation and the painful transition to algebraic.  I am surprised by this idea of thinking in notation at all, I have never done that. Maybe that is what has held me back all these years.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-19T23:04:04.917Z
Comments.Text: algebraic has only one advantage -  it works in every language.  before that you had to know the russian spanish english yada yada names for the pieces to do descriptive well.  I never found that to be a problem.  Fischer always used 64 magazine in russian to study from, I played through the 53 candidates tournament book in spanish with no problems.  the problem is that people also made many errors with descriptive and supposedly algebraic helped reduce that number although it is still easy to write down wrong moves.
Comments.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-19T23:21:57.067Z
Comments.Text: I have the "Karlsbad 1923" tournament book in german descriptive notation.  I don't know German but find it easy to read through the games.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-20T15:48:52.373Z
Comments.Text: Does this answer your question? [Do Grandmasters think using algebraic notation?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6061/do-grandmasters-think-using-algebraic-notation)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ellie
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-20T16:22:40.257Z
Comments.Text: not fully  although it relates to it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-20T18:43:40.327Z
Comments.Text: @edwinaoliver "algebraic has only one advantage - it works in every language. before that you had to know the russian spanish english yada yada names for the pieces to do descriptive well" - false. Algebraic specifies that a-h are used for the files but the piece abbreviations are those in your language. e.g. German - KDLST, English - KQBNR
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-20T19:07:59.363Z
Comments.Text: okay.  I never use algebraic.  If we can use our own piece names abbrevs why does FIDE not let us use descriptive notation which is so much easier and more intuitive and useful.
Comments.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-07T07:08:10.083Z
Comments.Text: "Easy to use" is a pretty subjective term, so if there's such a study, it'd probably be for a certain specific definition of it that may or may not correspond to what you're interested in.
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Tags: <psychology><notation><studies-published-report>
Title: Are there studies showing that descriptive notation is easier to use for blindfold than algebraic notation?
ThreadText: # Are there studies showing that descriptive notation is easier to use for blindfold than algebraic notation?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-02-19)
  
  What studies have compared effectiveness for thinking by chess players using descriptive vs algebraic notation?
  
  **Tags:** psychology, notation, studies-published-report
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I tend to doubt it, and even if there were such a study, it would probably find that algebraic would be the easier of the two to use. Other than the fact that each square is represented by only one name, another reason algebraic took over is that it is more logical.  
  > **username_0**: I tend to doubt it too, but you never know what some psych major might study.  Personally I played blindfold quite well with descriptive which was easy and intuitive, but struggle to use algebraic and have to count the rows/columns and then double check to make sure I am right.  
  > **username_1**: By the way, I took out the tag "studies" because the tag, in this case, does not mean "a published report", but rather, studies, as in chess compositions for solving.  
  > **username_0**: Thanks.   Maybe we need a new tag for published report or similar.  
  > **username_1**: OK, I created that. Done.  
  > **username_2**: what does "thinking by chessplayers using descriptive vs algebraic notation" mean?  Does it mean literally thinking: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5  to yourself?  
  > **username_0**: It means thinking PQ4  NKN3,   2 PQ4 PKN3,   3 NQB3 PQ4 to myself'  Remember there was a time before algebraic notation, and a longer time before it became common because of FIDE.  
  > **username_2**: I remember descriptive notation and the painful transition to algebraic.  I am surprised by this idea of thinking in notation at all, I have never done that. Maybe that is what has held me back all these years.  
  > **username_0**: algebraic has only one advantage -  it works in every language.  before that you had to know the russian spanish english yada yada names for the pieces to do descriptive well.  I never found that to be a problem.  Fischer always used 64 magazine in russian to study from, I played through the 53 candidates tournament book in spanish with no problems.  the problem is that people also made many errors with descriptive and supposedly algebraic helped reduce that number although it is still easy to write down wrong moves.  
  > **username_2**: I have the "Karlsbad 1923" tournament book in german descriptive notation.  I don't know German but find it easy to read through the games.  
  > **username_3**: Does this answer your question? [Do Grandmasters think using algebraic notation?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6061/do-grandmasters-think-using-algebraic-notation)  
  > **username_0**: not fully  although it relates to it.  
  > **username_4**: @edwinaoliver "algebraic has only one advantage - it works in every language. before that you had to know the russian spanish english yada yada names for the pieces to do descriptive well" - false. Algebraic specifies that a-h are used for the files but the piece abbreviations are those in your language. e.g. German - KDLST, English - KQBNR  
  > **username_0**: okay.  I never use algebraic.  If we can use our own piece names abbrevs why does FIDE not let us use descriptive notation which is so much easier and more intuitive and useful.  
  > **username_5**: "Easy to use" is a pretty subjective term, so if there's such a study, it'd probably be for a certain specific definition of it that may or may not correspond to what you're interested in.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2020-09-02. Score: 2
  
  If there are studies, they'd show descriptive to be the lesser of the two because in descriptive, all the squares have two names; in algebraic, just one. So if you're having to keep a game in your head, it's easier to do so with 64 identifiers to remember than 128, right?
  
  If you practice playing blindfolded, you'll find that your only use for notation is transmitting the moves back and forth.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2020-09-07. Score: -1
  
  descriptive is far easier for blindfold chess or blind players
  
  the symmetry makes it easier to 'see' the board where with algebraic it is all memory and computation to really know what is where
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: For you, descriptive may be far easier. For others, who have grown up with algebraic, it's the other way round: Descriptive is all computation to really know what is where. What matters most, difficulty-wise, is routine.  
  
  ---
  
  