# Algebraic notation

• Last updated on 4/24/13, 8:53 AM.

• Send to friend

K=king

Q=queen

R=rook

B=bishop

N=knight

when pawns move,only the destination square is described.

Here is an example of an opening with algebric notation.

Notice that there are letters and numbers that show the destination sqare.

O-O=castle kingside

O-O-O=castle queenside

+=check

#=checkmate

x=capture

You will also notice that if 2 pieces that are the same can move to a square,the file that one of the pieces were on would be described if that piece moved there.

• 7 years ago · Quote · #1
Thanks for the update.  Have been out of chess for the last 45 years and the new notation was quite a surprise.  Same old game though.  ---and glad to be back!!!
• 4 years ago · Quote · #2

When were the first boards printed with algebraic notation and available for purchase in NA.  It sure is surprising that it originated in 1100s and is only recently becoming popular.  The old descriptive notation is so clumsy.

• 4 years ago · Quote · #3

seriously, you'd think if a quick and easy method had been around for almost 900yrs, people would've started using it! It'd be like no one using emails until year 2900!

• 2 years ago · Quote · #4

i find it "easier" because i like the idea of a square having one designation, not two. in descriptive the fourth rank differs depending on which side you are playing, seems a bit cumbersome for discussions/postmortems and "king-bishop four"(White's perspective) takes more time to say than f4. As to why it didn't get used right away, could be that king (etc) doesn't start with the same letter in each country, so this system will probably default to one language for widespread use (i find that a bit disappointing, chess seems representative of international boundaries falling). i believe that's why figuirine alg was created, but this too has limits, as instead of one alphabet now we limit it to one set, the staunton design (though this is a minor quibble to me, i like the staunton set, but good points have been made that we need not reference medieval or renaissance europe anymore considering this confuses matters of origin and simply has nothing to do with the game, see duchamp or man ray designs [awesome aesthetics, but unplayable for me, not acclimated enough on these designs]).

• 17 months ago · Quote · #5

Nothing is mentioned about full or short AN, such as 1. e2-e4 e7-e5 or 1. e4 e5.  There is no mention of when two of the same pieces can move to the same square, such as this example:

Another thing that's missing is pawn captures, such as exd5:

Full/long algebraic is in the notes on the games.

I think this should finish the article.

Oh, and to illustrate the castling, checks and checkmates.

Please, don't play like the previous example!

• 17 months ago · Quote · #6

What about annotation, why not explain that?

• 17 months ago · Quote · #7
nahtanoj23 wrote:

What about annotation, why not explain that?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think this whole page is about that.