Talk:Chess notation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Figurative Algebraic Notation

The Unicode representations of the symbols for pieces don't work in my browser. Whatever representations use should work in an "out of the box" browser. Philcha (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had that problem a couple of years ago and I think there are settings in browsers for that, but (1) I don't remember what they were, and (2) you are right - they should work for everyone "out of the box", and I don't know how to do that. Does someone know? Bubba73 (talk), 01:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The bold symbol/figures are very hard to distinguish, the rook and knight both look like a random puddles of black. Having them un-bold may make for an easier read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.238.27 (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed material

I removed the following from the See Also section because it seems like something accidentally pasted from

Algebraic chess notation
: Capture is written as "x" e.g. Rxg5

Check is written as '+' e.g. Bh2+

Double check is written as '++' e.g. Qxg4++

Checkmate is written as '#' e.g. cxb8Q# Note that this is also a promotion

If a move is ambiguous,you write the rank or file it came from.** e.g.Ndf6,R6e3,N4f6,Rfe8,Qgxh7#*

*Note that the last one checkmates the enemy king.

**Sometimes an ambiguous move is written with the square it came from in brackets i.e. N(g4)f6,R(e6)e3 or Q(g7)xh7# Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia v. World Book Encyclopedia

I thought it might be interesting to note that, according to World Book Encyclopedia's entry on Chess, "Most players in English-speaking nations use descriptive notation" to record their games. Obviously they're 30 to 40 years out of date. Wikipedia FTW! Ian McKinney (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That's hilarious. Looking at some old issues of Chess Life, I see that by June 1982 (at the latest) the magazine was all-algebraic - and I'm pretty sure that by then the use of algebraic to record one's games was mandatory. When was this edition of World Book published? Krakatoa (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that for a few years CL was mixed algebraic/descriptive. Then there was a period where they were AN except if you submitted a game or question in DN, they would use DN. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 03:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked at some CL issues from 1979 and 1980 and they were mixed descriptive and algebraic - Benko and Evans' columns were in descriptive, and articles were generally in algebraic. Krakatoa (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
USCF rules still allow DN for scoresheets. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 18:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that - strange, since I was actually a tournament director about 30 years ago. It must be only FIDE that insists on algebraic. Krakatoa (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FIDE requires AN. USCF supports AN but recognizes DN, computer algebraic, and some others. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

short algebraic notation

"short algebraic notation", is now the official standard notation of FIDE which must be used in all recognized international competition involving human players. Why doesn't this article say what short algebraic notation is?

talk) 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

It needs to. standard and short are the same, right? Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FIDE don't say anything about 'short algebraic notation', it seems like
talk) 23:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but don't they state "algebraic notation" and don't they give an example of what we are calling "short A.N."? But I doubt they would object to long A.N. So should we just say "A.N."? Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 04:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed occurances of 'Short algebraic notation' as this seems unsourced.
talk) 12:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The Oxford Companion under the "standard notation" entry gives A.N. It goes on to say that there is a "long version" and an "abbreviated version". The abbreviated version is what we are calling the short version. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with the terms used to describe the different variations in notation. I think some of them are non-standard, but this article reports them as if they are gospel. I think short algebraic is OK, but "minimal algebraic" seems made up by Milener. If we can't get a better source, that should be taken out. It's certainly a valid way to write algebraic, but I don't think the term is standardly recognized. Worse yet is "really descriptive notation". Really? I mean really? The purported source is a blog, and is not a reliable source. Worse yet, the blog never says that writing the moves in sentences is called "really descriptive notation". Quale (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about "really descriptive notation" and removed it.
talk) 00:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
ECO, Informat, etc does omit "x", as well as "+" and others, but I've never heard it called "minimal A.N.". Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not heard of 'Minimal algebraic notation' either. According to FIDE it is not mandatory to record the check, the checkmate and capturing on the scoresheet. Description of the Algebraic System C.13.
talk) 01:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Mistake in descriptive notation

N-B3 N-B3 (Nc3 Nf6)???? Nobody will understand this! Obscurely from what side Knight is moving... Must be N-QB3 N-KB6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuhister (talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true; the kingside knights have already moved at that point in the game. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In DN, you count from your own side of the board, so ...Nf6 is indeed N-B3 (or N-KB3 if disambiguation is really needed, which it isn't here.) Double sharp (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chess notation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chess notation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

If "chess notation" is not a term but "chess notation system" is, then the article title should be Chess notation system. Hyacinth (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A chess notation" is not a term. "Chess notation" (i.e. the general concept of recording chess moves in writing) is. Your attempts to improve the long standing wording have not been successful IMO. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See:
WP:ISAWORDFOR. Hyacinth (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
[1]  Done. --IHTS (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notation systems - confusion about terms

The below sentence confuses me: "Standard algebraic notation (SAN) is the notation standardized by FIDE. It can be either long, short or minimal:"

First, the following article Algebraic notation (chess) uses the term in a different way. It says "In standard (or short) algebraic notation (SAN), [...]", so "standard algebraic notation" and "short algebraic notation" stand for the same.

But here "standard algebraic notation" is conversely used as a more general term.

I also am not sure if it's ok to say "the notation standardized by FIDE". Did FIDE really standardize the notation? I rather assume that a common understanding of algebraic notation developed over time. And the FIDE laws of chess recommend using it in books etc. and require one to use it when writing the scoresheet. I rather assume that FIDE only recommends the algebraic notation, but it does not define it. A statement like "which was adopted by FIDE as a standard" is a big difference; for me, it seems more correct. I think one should consider to reword the sentence. Dlbbld (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your observations/concerns are well-taken. It seems to be the case that the form of AN used on Wikipedia (
WP:RS for that. (In fact neither do I for any of the acronyms LAN, FAN, or even AN itself. And do 'abbreviated algebraic notation' and 'minimal algebraic notation' even have acronyms?) Help from others? --IHTS (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I wonder if "SAN" is even really a thing? Who defines what's "standard"? I have no idea whether or not it's "standard" to include the = sign when recording promotions, I've always used it because that's what I'm used to. Some publications use it, some don't. I don't think it's the intention of FIDE's Appendix C to define a prescriptive standardized version of algebraic notation. It's not as if they can regulate how publishers use it (though they do "recommend" some things). If someone writes "O-O" instead of "0-0" on their scoresheet that's fine. If they write "Nb1-c3" or even "N-c3" instead of "Nc3" that's fine too - the description doesn't say dashes are banned, only that they're "not required". There are minor differences in the way different countries, different publishers etc use algebraic notation and as long as the intention is clear there's no need for FIDE to get heavy handed about it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never contended anything different. "SAN" may only represent "short algebraic notation" not "standard algebraic notation". I don't read any implication in FIDE Appendix C that defines or prescribes or standardizes any version either, they simply example same form as used on WP and in USCF Chess Life (w/ single exception "=" for promotions). Again, they example "0-0", but again no edict is there. (Since Appendix C says "0-0" is abbrev for castles, and they give same in the three game scores examples, methinks that's enough to follow suit for WP articles and consistency re current WP:CHESS convention; Chess Life also uses "0-0".) Think we all have agreed Appendix C accepts any form of algebraic for recording games, that it hasn't been in dispute. Perhaps our article has only casually & a bit thoughtlessly been written; thus Dlbbld's complaint obervations are valid. --IHTS (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are references to "FIDE standard" in several of our articles that seem to imply it has some kind of force of law, which it doesn't. I don't think algebraic notation has ever been "standardized", every publication makes its own editorial decision. I think wikipedia has more or less adopted the Chess Life standard for our own articles. Anyway we should probably avoid talking about "standard algebraic notation" or any implication that FIDE is the final authority on algebraic notation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Again, SAN may mean only "short" (as opposed to "abbreviated" or "minimal"), but who has a ref. Again the only diff between Chess Life and WP from Appendix C is "=" for promotions, but ditto re ref. Methinks the Chess Life conventions were a good choice for English WP. p.s. We s/ add "=" for promotions to
WP:CHESSNOTATION. --IHTS (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)  Done --IHTS (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not know any reliable reference that defines the terms as well.
But almost all today's chess software writes the moves in the same way. Which is described precisely in the section "8.2.3: Movetext SAN (Standard Algebraic Notation)" of the PGN specification.
There is a rationale for it. Most software allows PGN creation, and the PGN specification requires writing the moves in the PGN per 8.2.3. It would now produce a bad user experience when writing the moves differently on the screen than in the PGN. Therefore, for chess software, it is more or less a practical requirement to write moves on the screen as per 8.2.3.
But though 8.2.3 precisely defines how to print the moves, most chess software uses copycat in development and not this document. So section 8.2.3 cannot be used as a reference. So there is no official reference.
Personal analysis, so must not make its way into Wikipedia but should help to draw the general picture. Dlbbld (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chess_notation&oldid=1198962920"