16027 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!
Hi everyone, my name is Dennis and I've got a question about Algebraic Notation.
I used to go to a Dutch chess club until a few years ago, and I learned about Notation there as well - but since I joined Chess.com, I noticed something. Algebraic Notation is just that, right? Well, first let me tell you how I learned it at the chess club: We used the letter of the moving piece, then the square it was on, then the square it moved to. Now, that's where my confusion lies - on Chess.com, I never see the square that a piece was on in the Notation at all. I mean, what if there are two Knights that can both move to the same square? So that's what I'm confused about. Everything else is the same - a + if in check, an x if a piece is captured, 0-0 for Kingside castling and 0-0-0 for Queenside, and finally # for checkmate.
Finally, there's one more question about Algebraic Notation I want to ask - something I never learned about at that chess club, and actually the reason I am writing this topic in the first place. So this is it: What do "?", "!" and "?!" and so on and so forth mean in Notation? It makes me confused (yet again!), so I would be grateful if anyone can enlighten me about this matter.
Thanks & regards in advance,
ng1-f3 is what's called long form algebraic. nf3, also correct, is the accepted shorter version.
Once again, Google and wikipedia is your friend:The first link, when you type "algebraic notation" in Google's search engine, is wikipedia's entry, which answers all your questions:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_notation_%28chess%29
Thanks a lot, MrEdCollins! This does indeed answer both questions raised in my post. Because it was a particularly long article, I first feared that the signs such as "?", "!" and "?!" and such were not mentioned, but thankfully there were simply at the very end, thus the bottom, of the page. I did think that those signs said something about the move, I just had no idea what they said. But thanks to you, I now know, MrEdCollins.
...I have to admit, I'm feeling a bit ashamed. It's so obvious that the answers I asked for can be found by using Google and Wikipedia, but somehow I always forget trying it first - before I think of it, I usually ask someone else if they know about it first... and that's what happened this time, too.
If two pieces of the same kind can go the square you add the letter of the square where you piece was on to it.
So:Ngf3 or Rab1
When both pieces are on the same letter then you use the rank:
N1f3 or R1b2
Meaning of ?, ??, ?!, !, !!
?: Questionable move (bad move)??: Very questionable move (Very bad move, often losing)?!: Interesting but questionable move!: Good move!!: Very good move+: Check
So:gNf3 or aRb1
1Nf3 or 1Rb1
Not how I've seen it. Normally the letter denoting the piece still comes first, like Ngf3 or Rab1.
Oops, you are absolutely right! My head's a little vague.
Well what does the "?!" mean in the title of your post? Interesting but most likely dubious...
?! - is dubious move !? - Interesting move
?? - Terrible move !! - Brilliant move
? - Blunder ! - Best move
This symbols are used to praised the moves that has been made.
You would think that !! - Brilliant move is better than ! - best move. Therefore one could assume that best is not necessarily best?
Mr EDCollins. . .
Are Google and Wiki the only (and "non plus ultra") references or bibliography that you can recommend? Why, instead, did you not explain the matter to Papikra?
Are Google and wikipedia the only references that I recommend? Not at all. I recommend whatever reference I think might be best.Why did I not explain the matter?Because the best explanation would have been to explain in it in the same manner and text as the website I mentioned. That site explained it very well. (That's the purpose of that site - it's what it is there for.) Oh sure, I could have just cut and pasted the text from that site to this forum, but why bother? Why not just mention and list the link? Faster that way, and now the entire page, which lists even more information, can be read in full.Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Chess Sacrifice. ...??
by The_Cosmologist a few minutes ago
Why hasn't Ivanov been banned yet?
by waffllemaster a few minutes ago
can a women ever become world chess champion
by Osiris27 a few minutes ago
London Chess Classic - Super 16 Rapid 2013
by fabelhaft 3 minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by gunnarst 4 minutes ago
Borislav Ivanov is BACK!
by socialista 4 minutes ago
The longest checkmate problem - 290 move
by BigDoggProblem 4 minutes ago
What should be Black's response?
by csalami10 8 minutes ago
If you could combine two chess pieces powers what would the two pieces be???????
by Xeelfiar 8 minutes ago
Introduction of 'Flip-board function' to Live Chess
by doublebruce 9 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!