grenv: In your example you noted that it's B-B5 and not B-QB5. This is one of those short cuts that were always done. Algebraic does it too. There's really no reason not to put the Q there, it's just that it is rarely done. I like leaving no doubt. It makes the game a lot easier to follow in one's head. That's why I use the long algebraic form. I wish they'd put the P for Pawn too. Everyone's always trying to take shortcuts and thinks they're so smart avoiding redundancies. What's an extra letter when it completely removes all doubt about it? The short algebraic is the worst for me. They just name the square in it. Like E4 for the Pawn. I have no problem seeing P E2-E4. I've learned that the P isn't there for some reason, so I get to see E2-E4. In Dark Chess, it can sometimes be more important which square a piece moved from than where it moved to.
As much as I like the Descriptive Notation, Dark Chess is one version of Chess that I'll keep the long algebraic notation in use. I think Janus or Gothic Chess would be interesting to see the descriptive notation used in, but it's way passed its time. Judging from the people here that had never even heard of it, I doubt it'll be nothing but faded memories and something one comes across in old Chess books before much longer if not already.