Talk:Algebraic notation (chess)

Chess B‑class Top‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other notation elements

Somewhere we should treat the other notation elements someone is likely to encounter when reading about chess:

E.g. from http://misc.traveller.com/chess/beginner/notation/notation.html

= both sides are considered equal here
+/= white is slightly better
=/+ black is slightly better
+/- white has a clear advantage
-/+ black has a clear advantage
1-0 white won
0-1 black won
.5-.5 draw
1/2-1/2 draw
! an excellent move
? a blunder
!? an interesting move that may not be best
?! a dubious move, but not easily refuted

It isn't clear that the algebraic notation page is the right place. Jeff 18:56 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

Is castling written with the letter O or the number 0?--Sonjaaa 11:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

It's the number. At least, that's what I've always assumed, and it's what the FIDE Handbook uses in its description of algebraic notation. --Zundark 12:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While many people might "think" of it as the number, the PGN standard uses the letter Capital-O in order not to confuse parsers which are forced to distinguish the numerical zero, which is used for other purposes. Please note that, while the FIDE handbook's font uses the number, I doubt if anyone at FIDE would insist that it is the number and not the letter; likely it would be described as what it really is, a "circle." I simply tell students to write two or three circles to note the move. --Doug 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some PGN readers (Chess Informant Expert, for example) fail when they encounter castling written as numbers. Using the capital letters avoids this problem.--JStripes 01:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should there also be mention of the notation Informator uses, which is algebraic, but with piece symbols instead of letter?--Gangster Octopus 23:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can't see chess pieces in browsers

In my browsers (IE and Mozilla), I can't see the chess piece after "rather than by initials: for example". Is there a setting that allows me to see them? Bubba73

Algebraic notation in other languages?

Shouldn't this be left for the articles on algebraic notation written in the international wiki's? I don't see the point in telling someone the Russian algebraic notation in the English article, since that should be in the article on ru.wikipedia.org or wherever. --Malathion 05:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes English speakers read chess books or articles in other languages, and it helps to know what the abbreviations are. I think it should be restored. I got that list from the US Chess Federation rule book, so they saw fit to include it.

--Bubba73 05:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a rare occurance that an English speaker has or reads chess books or magazines that are written in a language he doesn't understand. (I have some.) But if he knows the abbreviations of the pieces he can follow the moves of the game or analysis, even if he can't read the text. Readers of other languages probably know what their abbreviations of the pieces are, but an English speaker who doesn't read the other language (and therefore doesn't know the words for the pieces in that language) can read the moves - if he knows their abbreviations in that language. --Bubba73 14:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and support reinstating the table. It takes up little room, anyhow. Revolver 12:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing symbols

some of the symbols are not displayable on my web browser. Also, i dont know what they are supposed to be. either the symbol names (or a description of the symbol) should accompany those that cannot be displayed, or we should include a) pictures of the symbols, or b) see if the LaTeX engine can faithfully produce them. --Whiteknight 6 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

On compensation

Next to the entry on compensation ("∞/= or =/∞ compensation for material deficit") somebody added the html comment "Which way round does this work?". I'm not sure I understand the question; the symbol means that the side with less material has compensation for it (it tends to imply adequate compensation). You can see which side is the one with more material and which is the one with compensation for it by looking at the position. Could somebody elaborate on what the problem is? Maybe the poster assumes one of the given signs means "White has compensation" and the other "Black has compensation" (not the case as far as I know; it's just that some publications use one, some the other)? --Camembert 13:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct--New In Chess puts the = on bottom, Informant on top. --silverpie 17:00, 22 March 2006 (USA-EST)

Replacing DN

The article says "Beginning in the 1970s, the abbreviated algebraic notation eventually came to replace descriptive chess notation, " That is in English language publications, right? Didn't other languages already use AN? Bubba73 (talk), 18:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped being interested in chess after the descriptive notation went out and cold,calculating machine-friendly algebraic notation came in. 10010100 10001001 00100100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.15.86 (talk • contribs)

Yes, of course it is true that algebraic was the standard notation in many other languages long before the 1970s. Edward Lasker used algebraic notation when he first published his book Chess and Checkers: The Way to Mastership in 1918; he was criticized for this, although according to Lasker algebraic was already the standard in "most other countries" (source: Edward Lasker, Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters).

OK, I'm going to make a small edit to the article based on that. Bubba73 (talk), 04:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

++ for double check?

Check (board game) says that sometimes "++" is used for double check (instead of for checkmate). Is that correct? Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website says

the double plus symbol ( ++ ) sometimes is used to note checkmate [more rare and archaic in older historical books it was used for double check, more commonly now seen sometimes shown as dbl. ch.], added to the end of the notation, so it was used for double check at one time. 69.164.225.215 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N suffix

Occasionally I have seen an N suffix used after certain moves (e.g. axb5N), but I have been unable to find any information as to what this suffix means. Does anyone have any ideas? TCrossland 13:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it means that the move is a "Novelty", a move in the opening that hasn't been tried before in master games. Bubba73 (talk), 16:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maltese

does anyone know how in maltese both queen and king have the same symbol? --Lucinos 09:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exact format?

I'm wondering about the exact format of AN. Is there a space after the period and before the move: 1. e4 versus 1.e4? I prefer a space. What about a black move? I've seen 1...c5, 1. ...c5, 1. ... c5, and 1 ... c5. Is there a preference or standard? Bubba73 (talk), 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new template has been created

I created a new template, Template:chess notation, to alleviate the need for sentences such as the following: "The French Defense begins with the following moves (see algebraic chess notation): 1.e4 e6 etc." The parenthetical comment interrupts the flow of the sentence, and also does not help readers who happen to skim the article and skip that sentence. Some articles that contain chess notation do not attempt to explain what it is. This new template will solve all that.

When you type {{chess notation}} at the top of an article (or anywhere else), the following message appears:

This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.

Of course, feel free to edit the template, as long as you maintain the link to this article. Correspondingly, it is critically important to maintain the high quality of this article because so many other articles link to it. YechielMan 21:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endgame classification

I don't think the new Endgame classification section belongs in this article, as it is not algebraic notation. 66.188.102.79 07:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is more along the lines of GBR code for FEN. I think it needs its own article instead. Or moved to endgame. I'll think about it some more. Bubba73 (talk), 05:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move that section to Endgame. If it had a name, I'd make it an article by itself, but I don't know of any name. Bubba73 (talk), 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

table of piece names

Just to let y'all know, at VIcipaedia's page on this, we have a really nice, much more complete table for piece names in various languages, if someone wants to copy it.--Ioshus^(talk) 19:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, I went ahead. Say something if you disapprove...--Ioshus^(talk) 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I approve. One thing, since this table appears in at least two places, is there a way to make it "universal", so a change in one place is reflected everywhere it is used? Bubba73 (talk), 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The way to do it would be to create a template in the Commons but last time I checked it did not work. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we can't just make a template for it...--Ioshus^(talk) 15:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Template:Chess names.--Ioshus^(talk) 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]