Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 13 Oct '09 09:33
    Consider the Nimzo-Indian line:

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. Nge2



    My question is about the 5th move's notation. Without thinking, I would notate this as Nge2, computer's do it automatically (although that could be a programming thing; an engine I made once would do the same) and the only book I have to hand at this moment (Starting Out: The Nimzo-Indian) notates it this way too.

    But why is it written Nge2? My understanding of notation was that you only have to specify a starting file/rank (or both) when there would be an ambiguity without that information. In this position, however, it's quite clear that only one knight can move to e2. Can anyone help?
  2. 13 Oct '09 10:00
    Originally posted by Meadows
    Consider the Nimzo-Indian line:

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. Nge2

    [fen]rnbqk2r/pp1p1ppp/4pn2/2p5/1bPP4/2N1P3/PP2NPPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5[/fen]

    My question is about the 5th move's notation. Without thinking, I would notate this as Nge2, computer's do it automatically (although that could be a programming thing; an engine I made once w ...[text shortened]... is position, however, it's quite clear that only one knight can move to e2. Can anyone help?
    The only exception to your logic that I can think of would be if two beginners playing OTB were to play 5.Nce2 and not notice the illegal move. In that case, the distinction would be important. Otherwise, I guess you're right.
  3. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    13 Oct '09 10:04
    I just write notation like that out of habit. I've done the same thing with Nbd7 in lines of the King's Indian Defense, Benoni, Pirc/Modern and Dragon, and then laughed at myself internally at tournament games for doing it.

    Paul
  4. 13 Oct '09 10:04 / 3 edits
    I was reading an old chess book a few days ago which used descriptive notation and in a similar position it didn't bother qualifying which knight was moving, i.e. "Kt-K2" rather than "Kt(1)-K2".

    On the other hand, I'm seeing more and more games recently where an illegal move was played. Here's a genuine game I was shown last night, between two very experienced players:


    In this position White played the spectacular 10.Nxd6#!!

    I understand that it wasn't until several hours later that White realised he had taken his own pawn!

    I can't post the full game because an illegal move was played, but such games do exist (castling after a king or rook has moves being especially common). Should notation cope with illegal moves as well? It would be very difficult to handle all eventualities.
  5. 13 Oct '09 10:48
    Hi Fat Lady.

    You will of course PM me all the details.

    I recall castling after I moved my King in a league game
    (it was not done on purpose - It simply forgot as did my oppoent).

    My opponent's name was Frisher(sic!). We were going over the game
    and then I realised what had happened.
    I got up and had a quick word with my team captain and he said;

    "make an excuse and leave."

    But my understanding is once the game is over then the results stands.

    Never yet captured one of my own pieces but have had an opponent
    who did so but this was spotted and re-tracted.

    In the old descriptive notation the move in question would appear in
    books as 5.N-K2.

    in those pre computer days you wrote with a board beside you on
    something called a 'typewriter'.
    You made a move on the board, typed it on a 'sheet of paper',
    made the next move and so on and so on.

    So the human would have seen the c3 Knight was pinned.
    Yes this is Pointless pedanticism - good thread.
  6. 13 Oct '09 14:20 / 1 edit
    5. Ne2 is in fact the correct way I think, computer programmes tend not to understand this at times though.
  7. 13 Oct '09 16:50
    Mind you, it is better then the sloppy notation some people use of not even notating a capture - they simply put the square each piece has gone to, regardless of where it had come from or what the former occupant of that square was.

    I have had some good fun in correspondence with those types - I remember once pointing it out to somebody who sent me the reply "you obviously have never played chess in real life" but the boot was on the other foot when he played a rook move without specifying which one and I forced him to move the one which had been defending a threat (as I am legally allowed to by the ICCF laws)
  8. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    13 Oct '09 17:19
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    I was reading an old chess book a few days ago which used descriptive notation and in a similar position it didn't bother qualifying which knight was moving, i.e. "Kt-K2" rather than "Kt(1)-K2".

    On the other hand, I'm seeing more and more games recently where an illegal move was played. Here's a genuine game I was shown last night, between two very exper ...[text shortened]... illegal moves as well? It would be very difficult to handle all eventualities.
    lol. I like the idea of being able to use friendly fire, I feel you should be able to take your own pieces, thereby forever ending the tedious necessity of keeping an eye on the back rank.
  9. Standard member JonathanB of London
    Curb Your Enthusiasm
    13 Oct '09 17:34
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    Here's a genuine game I was shown last night, between two very experienced players ....
    last night FL?

    You should visit our blog a little more often ;-)

    http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-happened-next-vi_20.html
  10. Standard member JonathanB of London
    Curb Your Enthusiasm
    13 Oct '09 17:39
    Originally posted by JonathanB of London
    last night FL?

    You should visit our blog a little more often ;-)

    http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-happened-next-vi_20.html
    Talking of illegal moves ... we've also got a post about a game from a grandmaster tournament where one player managed to play two moves in a row - without either side noticing. I can't find it just now though :-(
  11. 13 Oct '09 17:40 / 1 edit
    Isn't this a plausible game:



    Same idea (the covering of Nf6# leads to Nd6 and practically the same game.
  12. 13 Oct '09 18:31 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by JonathanB of London
    last night FL?

    You should visit our blog a little more often ;-)

    http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-happened-next-vi_20.html
    Yes, the game was also published in the magazine my club publishes several times a year, and despite me actually printing fifty copies of it I didn't actually notice this game until the person who edits the magazine showed the game to a junior who had just managed to get a smothered mate himself in a league match (a legitimate one this time).

    By the way, it was "EJH" from your club who got me back into chess after I'd given up for several years. I saw him playing blitz in a pub and after playing a few games he invited me to Cowley Chess Club, which I am still a member of fifteen years later.
  13. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    13 Oct '09 22:07
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Fat Lady.

    You will of course PM me all the details.

    I recall castling after I moved my King in a league game
    (it was not done on purpose - It simply forgot as did my oppoent).

    My opponent's name was Frisher(sic!). We were going over the game
    and then I realised what had happened.
    I got up and had a quick word with my team captain and he ...[text shortened]... ld have seen the c3 Knight was pinned.
    Yes this is Pointless pedanticism - good thread.
    I would just add that some old books would distinguish which knight with "KN-K4" or "QN-K4" for king's knight or queen's knight, to describe which one could move to a square if there was a choice of knights. Sometimes it drove me nuts if I couldn't remember which one was which!

    Paul
  14. 14 Oct '09 07:45
    Is there a standard procedure for whether a letter or number is prefered for disambuigation?



    ie. Nbd7 vs N8d7

    I`ve seen Nbd7 much more but wonder if there is a standard law for disambiguation those times when more than one piece can indeed move to a certain square.
  15. 14 Oct '09 08:05
    My understanding of it is that you present the starting file and ranks in that order as needed, so in the case of Nbd7 v N8d7, Nbd7 would "correct". N8d7 would only be used if there were two knights on the same file.