Concerning the Notation:
In chess, algebraic notation is wide-spread, but other have been extensively used.
Liam gave an example of descriptive notation, and in the leading magazine, Informant, they use figurine notation.
In correspondence chess when I played it we still used snail mail and the numeric notation, sometimes also callled "Code Udeman".
But as I found out, in checkers there is also no common standard notation!! : Oldbury used his own diagonal notation, and in the older days red was on squares 1 to 12 , but sometimes also white, depeding on which site the annotator was "sitting" (at that time it was not common that red was the first player, sometimes both playes played on 1 to 12, so 1. 11-15 22-18 read : 1. 11-15 11-15) , also today there is no clear standard (note: pdn is standard among programmers !) in the books.
Some have the number of the moves, some count each ply as move, some use ":" to mark a capture, others "x", others even use the "-" also for captures.... Kear's even used a "-" only for red, but just a " " (empty space) for white moves and captures!
Some write the moves in columns with one red and white move in one column, others white below red moves, some give the annnotations above , others as Basis Checkers, right in the main line.
I don't see any need to switch to algebraic notation.
I would use numbers on the board for three reasons:
1. It looks more like a professional item if it has "the alphabeth of the expert players" on it,
2. It encourages some players to solve the "riddle" of these numbers, and in this way they get acquainted with checker literature and may even try to master those numbers and read checker books!
3. It is the standard used so far in checkers. It will cause confusion and disappointment once a player tries to read a checker book or a pdn game and the board does not assist this attept, but fails to provide the numbers of the squares!
As a chess player I found it hard to read algebraic notation, as the pieces "moved like crazy" around the board, as in chess a move like
1. c3-d4 looks very silly...
How can a pawn move diagonally ?
This was also the problem when I showed some postions to chess players, and they tried to give their solutions in algebraic notation.
In chess, you get use to think of the moves as they r made by the pieces, so 1.Nb1-c3 or 1. e2-e4 look sensible, but 1. c3-d4 looks like a misprint to a chessplayer.
Once I tried it with numbered board (last two weeks), they found it easier to name the right move, so I guess numbered boards r to be preferred, even or maybe rather for chess players...
Greetinx from rainy Dortmund, Germany
You can rent this space for advertising, if you like!