8905 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
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.
Bump -- Anybody know this?
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.
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.
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.
AnthonyCG
goldendog
There have been long and shorter forms of algebraic for many, many years. It boils down to choice.
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.
Have your chess skills helped you in real life?
by pellik 2 minutes ago
How to improve chess at faster rate
by pellik 4 minutes ago
Chess.com needs and easter egg!
by Samsch 5 minutes ago
Puzzeal
by Bishopful 7 minutes ago
Aggressive Response to 4...Nf6 in the Scotch
by whatupyodog2 8 minutes ago
computer analysis rating
by hominoid 11 minutes ago
Good Game? My rating?
Being restricted
by kr3utter 13 minutes ago
Program that calculates rating by analyzing your games?
by hominoid 15 minutes ago
5/26/2012 - Ragozin - Veresov, Moscow 1945
by garrthog 21 minutes ago