A wide variety of notations may or may not used across various media, and I can't say I've ever seen e.p. denoted myself. It should be fairly clear even without specific notation.
Chess.com doesn't record "e.p." in the game annotations?
Sort:
Jun 6, 2013
0
#3
I'll give you an example :
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 f5
If white wants to take en passant, the move would be recorded as : 4.exf6.
n tournaments some show it, and some don't. I am on 3 chess websites, and none of them show it.
Jun 6, 2013
0
#5
paulgottlieb wrote:
I think actually writing "e.p" is a relic of the past
I thought that might be the case too but it's only a guess
Jun 6, 2013
0
#6
JamesColeman wrote:
I'll give you an example :
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 f5
If white wants to take en passant, the move would be recorded as : 4.exf6.
Thank you for explaining, James :)
In the following position, exf6 is all you need to describe an en passant capture in algebraic. In descriptive, you have a bit of a quandry: PxP is not sufficient, neither is KPxP or PxKBP. I'd imagine one would put PxP e.p. in the case of the en passant capture and just PxP for the normal capture. I don't think I've seen any descriptively notated games with such a situation but PxKBP(6) would be a (slightly uglier) option I suppose.
Jun 6, 2013
0
#9
.
.
When was en passant first played? Was it always there as a chess rule?
Jun 6, 2013
0
#10
lol the answer was here:
This rule was added in the 15th century when the rule giving pawns the option of initially moving two squares was introduced. It prevents a pawn from using the two-square advance to pass an adjacent enemy pawn without the risk of being captured.
as someone already posted in a diagram, it is not necessary even if you had doubled pawns that could capture by either normal or en passant, the target square is not the same (e.g exf6 and exf5)
so don't use it, also some PGN viewers might not support it and don't load the game properly
The old "e.p." suffix is just a mark of the annotator's astonishment at encountering a move that he considers extraordinary.
nebunulpecal wrote:
The old "e.p." suffix is just a mark of the annotator's astonishment at encountering a move that he considers extraordinary.
That sounds made up.
In fact I have just looked through my bookshelf and found a case of an author writing in descriptive using e.p. to describe an en passant capture.
Jun 6, 2013
0
#14
GreenCastleBlock wrote:
nebunulpecal wrote:
The old "e.p." suffix is just a mark of the annotator's astonishment at encountering a move that he considers extraordinary.
That sounds made up.
In fact I have just looked through my bookshelf and found a case of an author writing in descriptive using e.p. to describe an en passant capture.
Ah, yeah, this is it. Thanks for lookin' ^^
Jun 6, 2013
0
#15
GreenCastleBlock wrote:
In the following position, exf6 is all you need to describe an en passant capture in algebraic. In descriptive, you have a bit of a quandry: PxP is not sufficient, neither is KPxP or PxKBP. I'd imagine one would put PxP e.p. in the case of the en passant capture and just PxP for the normal capture. I don't think I've seen any descriptively notated games with such a situation but PxKBP(6) would be a (slightly uglier) option I suppose.
Thank you 
Hi everyone! This isn't an issue or anything, I'm curious. What signifies an en passant move in the game annotations? I've seen on another website that e.p. is noted. Is that incorrect? What is written in tournaments?
Happy Thursday everyone