I think it's indirectly covered by "!?"
i agree, it might look better to assign all different icons to categorize the moves, but i think it's really fine and keeps things simple the way it is now
do you think ¡ (aggressive move) should exist?
Sort:
4 days ago
0
#7
In the chess board above, black’s bishop sacrifices to let the white king lose its castling rights.
4 days ago
0
#8
I'll second the belief that "!?" is pretty much for that, although it never appears in the review. The only problem is that "!?" is also sometimes used for tricky moves in a lost position that require careful precision and/or defensive play from the winning side in order to stop, so a new symbol would be interesting.
chess_and-checkers wrote:
Say 67 if you want me to make a forum about unexpected move (¿)
76
4 days ago
0
#10
chess_and-checkers wrote:
In the chess board above, black’s bishop sacrifices to let the white king lose its castling rights.
Bxf1 is aggressive move (¡)
interesting idea
4 days ago
0
#12
Bxf1 isn't aggressive... it's making a positional trade (removing castling rights), and also you're trading when you're ahead material.
Also, I third the statement that !? should suffice. When I annotate, I use it to represent any off-beat moves that are not best, but hard to deal with, and usually aggressive moves are either really good (!) or just tricky to deal with (!?). For example, a sacrifice I might categorize three different ways: as unsound (??), slightly unsound but practically makes sense (!?), or brilliant (!!).
Evan’s Gambit ( e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 ): Sacrifices a pawn to build a massive center and speed up development. So, b4 would be ¡ (aggressive move).
Danish/Nordic Gambit ( e5 exd4 ): Offers one or two pawns for rapid development and attacking bishops. In this case, two are aggressive. d4 and c3 are ¡ (aggressive).
Well, so far, I think aggressive moves SHOULD exist. I don’t care if you don’t agree, that’s just my opinion.