Pointless pedanticism

Originally posted by Meadows
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.

What if both knights were on the same square to begin with?

I didnt know you were such an imaginative thinker Fat Lady.
I feel enlightened.

You must also consider under promotions.

Here:



Somply writing Nxp will not do.

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?

Can you get the rules and see why? If there are two pieces that can go to the same square then ambiguity must be avoided. Get a pgn checker and see whether it will accept 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. Ne2 . Sometimes when i get a pgn into winboard it complains about such things.

Only an idiot would write 5. Ne2 "because the other knight is pinned". Where in the PGN notation does it list the knight is pinned? Can you show me this in the PGN convention?

Originally posted by CCNoob
Can you get the rules and see why? If there are two pieces that can go to the same square then ambiguity must be avoided. Get a pgn checker and see whether it will accept 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. Ne2 . Sometimes when i get a pgn into winboard it complains about such things.

[b]Only an idiot would write 5. Ne2 "because the other knight ...[text shortened]... he PGN notation does it list the knight is pinned? Can you show me this in the PGN convention?[/b]

FIDE rule E10 gives these examples:

(1) There are two knights, on the squares g1 and e1, and one of them moves to the square f3: either Ngf3 or Nef3, as the case may be.
(2) There are two knights, on the squares g5 and g1, and one of them moves to the square f3: either N5f3 or N1f3, as the case may be.
(3) There are two knights, on the squares h2 and d4, and one of them moves to the square f3: either Nhf3 or Ndf3, as the case may be.

Seems to me that part (3) says that letters is better than numbers if there is a choice.

Originally posted by CCNoob
Can you show me this in the PGN convention?

http://www.very-best.de/pgn-spec.htm

Section 8.2.3

"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"."

I remember getting very frustrated working through something in an old chess book with descriptive notation, when it listed a move as "Kt-Q5" (or something) and there were two knights pointing at that square. Eventually I figured out the other one would have been "Kt-Q5 ch." So I'm all for carefully avoiding ambiguity, even where it's not 'really' ambiguous.

Oh, and it's 'pendantism', not 'pedanticism' :-)

Originally posted by Meadows
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: T ...[text shortened]... is position, however, it's quite clear that only one knight can move to e2. Can anyone help?

Why would an ambiguity be avoided? I would like it to go to the other direction: More unambiguity, more unneccessary information (to a point).

In the example a Ne2 would be preferred, according to the thread initiator. But even this notation give unambiguity, right? Why not the minimalistic N2 or Ne? Since there is only one knight that can go to the second row, then Ne would be sufficient?

Nad what about when there is only one piece that can go to only one square? Why have anything at all? Or just a hyphen (-) to indicte that no notation is neccesary?

I use long notation when making notes in games. Weather unambiguity or not. Why? Because when you write a mistake, then clues in the notation gives information of what it should be.
If I write (by mistake) Qg6 when it should be Bg6, and both pieces actually can go there, then something will be wrong. But if i wrote Bg2-g6 instead of Bf7-g6 then I can easily deduce that I meant the queen, not the bishop. I can easily repair the mistake if I have more information than I need.

I go a step further: When I take a piece, I also write which piece I take: Like Qg2xBg7. This make's it possible to go through the game in backward direction, if I need. I can track the game from the last position to the first, if I want. From a diagram, I can easily see what move, even if a piece is taken, that led to the current position.

I always write e.p. for en passant, ++ for double check, and if a check is a discovered one with what piece the king is checked (but I don't have any symbol for that one).

I call this extended notation for 'The Fabian Notation'. The disadvantage is that you cannot store these extra things in a computerized database, and FIDE tells us that only the short algebraic notation is allowed in tournament game protocolls.

I find the Fabian Notation very easy to read games from the protocoll. The short algebraic notation makes is much harder to follow the game.