Does Descriptive Notation Have More Character?

Imagine that the pieces swap places like Nb8-d7-Nf6, then which is the QN and which is the KN? Promoted pieces?

It‘s BS. Much more drawbacks and crucial: ambiguous

Algebraic is not always shorter: e.g. descriptive BxN is shorter than Bxf6.
Fischer was an avid fan of the descriptive notation and fought against algebraic editions of his books.
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/14r30w/bobby_fischers_score_sheet/
Also Capablanca and Lasker wrote in descriptive
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/563935184568116039/

Algerbraic notation is short and to the point. End of discussion

#13
Yes, it usually is shorter, it is the only FIDE allowed notation, it is not tied to the English language.
However, many strong players feel the descriptive notation is more intuitive.
Like when they look at a position and talk in English about a variation, they will more likely describe the moves in descriptive notation.

#14 I've never seen a strong GM ever use descriptive notation for analysing his game. I really feel it is out of fashion nowadays.

Descriptive notation is so Queen's Gambit, the US sixties.

As mentioned before, it is often ambiguous. That's a killer for every documentation. AMBIGUOUS!

I decided to wait to reply to the responses until I’d seen a few. Also, I’m not used to figuring out a one-move checkmate as a CAPTCHA. Anyway, I appreciate all the responses, and many made good points. I particularly liked the pro-descriptive remarks, of course. At least two replies mentioned the intuitive nature of descriptive, and I agree about that. I can picture, at the outset of a game, N-KB3 a bit more quickly than N-f3. The term “f3” is more abstract than “KB3.” My mind catches more quickly where the “KB” file is, as opposed to the “f” file. Granted, this may be because I learned descriptive first. But then somebody mentioned that Fischer and some others preferred descriptive as well. As to ambiguity, I think both systems require some fine-tuning for complex situations. But I remember learning this fine-tuning when I learned descriptive, along with the principle of avoiding redundancy, using as few symbols as possible to get the message across without ambiguity. Anyhow, I don’t recall ambiguity being a big problem with descriptive. On another subject, I think some of you mistook my meaning of “character.” I didn’t mean to refer to the number of symbols, numbers, or letters used. I meant it in the sense of a 19th C wooden mansion, complete with balconies and French windows, on a stately avenue, being replaced by a modern building that has more efficient air, heating, and plumbing, but looks sort of like a brick. The latter has more utility, but the former had more character and was a better fit for its surroundings. Finally, I want to give a shout out to another fan of the The Fireside Book of Chess. I was just reading it last night, next to a roaring fire on my iPad. (I don’t need the real thing, as I still live near New Orleans.) I hope to spend a good bit of the holidays in that position. Speaking of holidays, I’d like to wish Happy Holidays to everyone. And should I deem myself worthy, maybe I’ll meet some of you out there on the virtual chess boards.

#16
It is not ambiguous, they denote R/6-R6 if QR-R6 would be unclear.

In airplanes all over the world they still denote speed in knots and height in feet.

#14 - To this day, while "pawndering" a move, I still think in descriptive notation, when I describe a move sequence in my head. :]

wow, in my head i just say "here, here, here, ok good" or "here, here, here, no that sucks."