Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Alg. Notation - Capturing


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1

    DylanAM

    I have noticed in the last couple of years that the algebraic notation used to describe pawn captures has been shortened.  For instance,

    52. exd4 is now 52. ed

    - When did this change happen?  Was it mandated by books, FIDE, players, or did it just naturally evolve?

    - What happens if there are multiple possible "ed" captures?  For example, two sets of doubled pawns next to each other, so that exd5 and exd4 are possible.  Would the correct way to write a d4 capture in this situation be "ed4"?

    - Does this shorthand only apply to pawn captures?  I haven't seen anything like "15. Nxe4 fxe4" becoming "15. Nxe4 fe".

    I have a bad feeling this happened years ago and I just never came upon it in any of my books or studies...anyways, thanks in advance.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #2

    DylanAM

    Bump -- Anybody know this?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #3

    JG27Pyth

    I don't know the answer to: What happens if there are multiple possible "ed" captures?

    But the shortened notation you've noticed is not recent... it's been around for quite a long time. There are a couple different flavors of algebraic notation. Another notation you'll see sometimes is a colon : to denote a capture... So what you're used to seeing as, say, Bxe4, would be B:e4.

    There's no standard mandated notation that I know of -- I don't think FIDE endorses one or another, (do they?) -- it's a matter of publisher's preference as far as I know.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #4

    ichabod801

    I don't know. I've seen that in a few places myself. Some research on Wikipedia implies it's from Informant. I can see the point if you're lacking space in a magazine, but for me it just makes the notation harder to read.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #5

    Scarblac

    Quite a few books also omit the "x" altogether, with pieces capture as well (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Ne5 etc). I hate it, it's harder to read.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #6

    AnthonyCG

    Scarblac wrote:

    Quite a few books also omit the "x" altogether, with pieces capture as well (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Ne5 etc). I hate it, it's harder to read.


    Some books only do pawn captures that way and I think it's more readable then. E.g; 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 ed Nxd4
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #7

    goldendog

    There have been long and shorter forms of algebraic for many, many years. It boils down to choice.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #8

    eainca

    Probably the same discussion went on when they changed from1. KP2-KP4, KP2-KP4,2. KN-KB3, QN-QB3 to1. PK4, PK4 2. NKB3, NQB3.


Back to Top

Post your reply: