Walter Montego: Because Descriptive Notation is the TRADITIONAL ONE in English, French, Italian, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese, and other languages. I can easily read 'modern' publications that use Algebraic Notation, but if I send any comment, it will be invariably, always, in Descriptive Notation. Whether others understand it, or not. Most of our historical Masters used Descriptive Notation, and it would be a disconsideration to them (if not a disrespect) to use another notation strange to our History.

Nothingness: You are not the only Chess player or annotator using Descriptive Notation, Sir. There are other enthusiasts of Descriptive Notation, including myself. My personal Web page on Chess is entirely written in Descriptive Notation: https://cssdixieland.neocities.org/cssdixieland_chess

I can read various game notation systems that have existed throughout History, as a completely unified system has NEVER existed, but my own writing is ALWAYS, INVARIABLY, in Descriptive Notation.

I normally score all my games over the board. I ONLY play slow, Classic Chess. Rapid Chess is not for me and I refuse to play that. In tournaments and championships some players or observers comment on my Descriptive Notation (they of course recognise it as Descriptive), and some referee has mentioned that a version of Algebraic Notation is the 'official standard', usually the short version of Algebraic.

But it is NOT mandatory, and even if it were, I am not a man ready to surrender his deeply cherished beliefs. Descriptive Notation is a long-honoured TRADITION and I shall NEVER surrender it. Period.

I accept that a referee may be unable, or rather unwilling, to understand Descriptive Notation. Then I waive my claim to a tied game by three-fold repetition, or by fifty moves each without capture, without moving pawn and without check mate, or by any other rule, but I shall NEVER surrender my beliefs.