Superfluous notation clarification

[Tristan Clayton]

Apologies in advance for what must be one of the most trivial questions ever.

Take the moves 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 e6 3.e3 Bb4 4.Nge2

The 'g' in white's fourth move is, of course, unnecessary as the Knight on c3 is pinned. So why does every computer program I've come across put the square clarification in the notation when there is only one legal Knight move to e2?

I don't know if most human players do this? Maybe out of habit when recording a move, we see two of the same piece controlling a square, and instinctively assume the clarification is necessary?

I really must get out more.

[Sean Hewitt]

I really must get out more.

I think you've answered your own question

[Roger de Coverly]

The 'g' in white's fourth move is, of course, unnecessary as the Knight on c3 is pinned. So why does every computer program I've come across put the square clarification in the notation when there is only one legal Knight move to e2?

It might have been simpler to program it that way.

The pgn standard at http://www.tim-mann.org/Standard says of this issue

Note that the above disambiguation is needed only to distinguish among moves of the same piece type to the same square; it is not used to distinguish among attacks of the same piece type to the same square. An example of this would be a position with two white knights, one on square c3 and one on square g1 and a vacant square e2 with White to move. Both knights attack square e2, and if both could legally move there, then a file disambiguation is needed; the (nonchecking) knight moves would be "Nce2" and "Nge2". However, if the white king were at square e1 and a black bishop were at square b4 with a vacant square d2 (thus an absolute pin of the white knight at square c3), then only one white knight (the one at square g1) could move to square e2: "Ne2".

So the standard supports Ne2.

If you are reading the text, it might be easier to follow with Nge2, because you don't then have to invoke your legal move filter.

Older, pre computer books, use N-K2 or Ne2.

[Tristan Clayton]

Thanks, Roger - that's helpful and makes a lot of sense.

Thanks, Sean, for confirming my suspicions.

[AustinElliott]

Older, pre computer books, use N-K2 or Ne2.

Or "Kt-K2"... or even "KKt-K2"

As an aside, Bobby Fischer was famous for always writing his moves in the long-form descriptive notation, and never switching to algebraic.

[PeterTurland]

Older, pre computer books, use N-K2 or Ne2.

Or "Kt-K2"... or even "KKt-K2"

As an aside, Bobby Fischer was famous for always writing his moves in the long-form descriptive notation, and never switching to algebraic.

That's interesting Austin, although I use algebraic, I have never felt comfortable with it. I've long thought that algebraic was a conspiracy foisted on chess players, by publishing companies trying to save money on printing ink.

Like it says on the tin, P - k4 is a darn sight more descriptive than just e4.

Electrons are much cheaper than printers ink, so perhaps we could start a movement to bring descriptive notation back, after all English as a second language is more popular over the world than any other language, so perhaps we could reintroduce our notation as well.

[Roger de Coverly]

. I've long thought that algebraic was a conspiracy foisted on chess players, by publishing companies trying to save money on printing ink.

On Continental Europe outside of Spain, the notation has always been algebraic. It encourages cleaner thought, an important square in the Nimzo Indian is always e4, not K4 from white's viewpoint and K5 from Blacks.

The notation wars didn't last as long as the unfinished adjudication/adjournment wars, but it was in part a player lead revolt against traditional thinking.

[Matt Chapman]

Players of the new generation (myself included) often find Descriptive notation confusing. A move is written differently depending on whether it was white or black who made the move. (For example, 'e4' would be known as P-K4 for white, but P-K5 for black.) A single reference system for all squares, regardless of perspective (ala Algebraic), is very easy to get the hang of quickly.
That being said, this is probably a product of having learnt Algebraic first. I have often noticed that my opponents can get a little confused, especially when playing the black side, as to what has been played. (That is, 'g6' is accidentally written as 'g3' or similar while in the heat of battle. Of course, no such confusion in Descriptive- it would be P-KN3 in both cases. Curiously, they have maintained the correct file but lost the rank.)

[PeterTurland]

On Continental Europe outside of Spain, the notation has always been algebraic. It encourages cleaner thought, an important square in the Nimzo Indian is always e4, not K4 from white's viewpoint and K5 from Blacks.

The notation wars didn't last as long as the unfinished adjudication/adjournment wars, but it was in part a player lead revolt against traditional thinking.

By this are you suggesting that Bobby would have been even stronger had he used Algebraic?

[Alex Holowczak]

That is, 'g6' is accidentally written as 'g3' or similar while in the heat of battle. Of course, no such confusion in Descriptive- it would be P-KN3 in both cases. Curiously, they have maintained the correct file but lost the rank.

Not necessarily so. If you've played P-QN3 already, then g6 becomes P-N3, because there's no need to disambiguate. So you have issues with superfluous notation in descriptive, too.

[Matt Chapman]

Not necessarily so. If you've played P-QN3 already, then g6 becomes P-N3, because there's no need to disambiguate. So you have issues with superfluous notation in descriptive, too.

Well, in that case Descriptive probably has MORE cases where situations on other parts of the board have to be checked in order to notate correctly than Algebraic does! The only time this happens in Algebraic is when two pieces of the same type can move to the same square, which is usually immediately obvious.

[Ian Kingston]

One other problem with Descriptive notation comes in the endgame, when you've completely forgotten which rook started life as the QR and which as the KR. Then you have to switch to the Algebraic style and write something like R(8)-Kt3 if both rooks are on the same file. If they're both on the same rank you need something like R(Kt)-KB4, or even R(QKt)-KB4 if one is on QKt4 and the other on KKt4. Imagine the precious seconds that would be lost when playing with a 30 second increment! Similar problems occur with knights, queens (occasionally) and bishops (very, very rarely).

Of course publishers were happy to switch to algebraic. First, it made it easier to sell books outside the English-speaking world, and second, it gave them the opportunity to do nice new algebraic editions of existing successful books. It probably didn't save a lot of money, because finding typesetters willing to do figurine algebraic at a decent price was quite awkward.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Some old wooden chess sets had a little "king" symbol on the top of the rooks and knights, so you could identify them throughout the game (assuming you put them on the correct square at the start). But if you look at the scoresheet many years later, KKt-K5 might confuse you if your current set doesn't have such labelling. It did become more common to say KT(B3)-K5, to distinguish from a possible Kt(B4)-K5, even if the KKt were on QB4. It did become clear after a while that Nfe5 and Nce5 were clearer. I have some score sheets of a former President of Redhill Chess Club and he used to put KR-Ksq instead of KR-K1. The big advantages of algebraic are that it is easier talking about the game when you don't have a set handy, as you are not constantly asking, "Whose K5?" and you can understand the game whatever language it is in. Spanish Descriptive is confusing, unless you are a Spanish speaker!

[John Clarke]

Some old wooden chess sets had a little "king" symbol on the top of the rooks and knights, so you could identify them throughout the game (assuming you put them on the correct square at the start).

Well my old wooden set has those little crowns on all four rooks and both black knights, but not on either of the white knights!! Calls itself a genuine Staunton, too (complete with facsimile of old Howard's signature on the box lid - first known example of sport-related endorsement?). Someone at Jaques's factory should have taken more water with it, I reckon.