Ambiguity in notation resolved by +Draws, en passant, and the FIDE's 2014 rulebook revisionSwiss pairing parametersFormal rules for two-player bughouse without a clockWhat should the penalty be for a player leaving the playing venue?Helpmate of arbitrary lengthWhat is the result? (Rules + puzzle)Rules: How does right to castle and en passant get considered for the purpose of calculating a threefold repetition?How to disambiguate checking moves in descriptive notation?What should the arbiter and what should have I done in this case?
What is the purpose of this tool?
Cannot find Database Mail feature in SQL Server Express 2012 SP1
What does a Light weapon mean mechanically?
My research paper filed as a patent in China by my Chinese supervisor without me as inventor
Are scroll bars dead in 2019?
What exactly is a marshrutka (маршрутка)?
Is the Dodge action perceptible to other characters?
How are unbalanced coaxial cables used for broadcasting TV signals without any problems?
Relocation error involving libgnutls.so.30, error code (127) after last updates
Ambiguity in notation resolved by +
Percentage buffer around multiline in QGIS?
How do email clients "send later" without storing a password?
Make 2019 with single digits
Is there a real-world mythological counterpart to WoW's "kill your gods for power" theme?
What is a realistic time needed to get a properly trained army?
Difference in using Lightning Component <lighting:badge/> and Normal DOM with slds <span class="slds-badge"></span>? Which is Better and Why?
How to publish superseding results without creating enemies
How can I discourage sharing internal API keys within a company?
Diffraction of a wave passing through double slits
Does an oscilloscope subtract voltages as phasors?
Why is the T-1000 humanoid?
Does my opponent need to prove his creature has morph?
How can I locate a missing person abroad?
What are uses of the byte after BRK instruction on 6502?
Ambiguity in notation resolved by +
Draws, en passant, and the FIDE's 2014 rulebook revisionSwiss pairing parametersFormal rules for two-player bughouse without a clockWhat should the penalty be for a player leaving the playing venue?Helpmate of arbitrary lengthWhat is the result? (Rules + puzzle)Rules: How does right to castle and en passant get considered for the purpose of calculating a threefold repetition?How to disambiguate checking moves in descriptive notation?What should the arbiter and what should have I done in this case?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
In the board position both knights can move to e4. To distinguish which knight moved one would normally write Nce4 or Nfe4. However in this special situation only Nce4 is check.
Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e. without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?
By sufficient I mean whether there are any (FIDE or other organization) laws regarding such issue.
8/8/5N2/8/3k4/2N5/8/B3K3 w - - 1 1
rules notation
asked 8 hours ago
user1583209user1583209
13.1k2 gold badges22 silver badges63 bronze badges
add a comment
|
In the board position both knights can move to e4. To distinguish which knight moved one would normally write Nce4 or Nfe4. However in this special situation only Nce4 is check.
Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e. without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?
By sufficient I mean whether there are any (FIDE or other organization) laws regarding such issue.
8/8/5N2/8/3k4/2N5/8/B3K3 w - - 1 1
rules notation
asked 8 hours ago
user1583209user1583209
13.1k2 gold badges22 silver badges63 bronze badges
I would point out that the original question says nothing about it being a tournament, let alone FIDE governed...just whether it solves the ambiguity problem.
– PhishMaster
6 hours ago
1
@PhishMaster: I am aware that it solves the ambiguity. I was wondering whether such situation is regulated. I edited the question to make it more clear.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
In the board position both knights can move to e4. To distinguish which knight moved one would normally write Nce4 or Nfe4. However in this special situation only Nce4 is check.
Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e. without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?
By sufficient I mean whether there are any (FIDE or other organization) laws regarding such issue.
8/8/5N2/8/3k4/2N5/8/B3K3 w - - 1 1
rules notation
asked 8 hours ago
user1583209user1583209
13.1k2 gold badges22 silver badges63 bronze badges
In the board position both knights can move to e4. To distinguish which knight moved one would normally write Nce4 or Nfe4. However in this special situation only Nce4 is check.
Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e. without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?
By sufficient I mean whether there are any (FIDE or other organization) laws regarding such issue.
8/8/5N2/8/3k4/2N5/8/B3K3 w - - 1 1
rules notation
rules notation
asked 8 hours ago
user1583209user1583209
13.1k2 gold badges22 silver badges63 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
user1583209user1583209
13.1k2 gold badges22 silver badges63 bronze badges
edited 4 hours ago
user1583209
asked 8 hours ago
user1583209user1583209
13.1k2 gold badges22 silver badges63 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
user1583209user1583209
13.1k2 gold badges22 silver badges63 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
user1583209user1583209
13.1k2 gold badges22 silver badges63 bronze badges
13.1k2 gold badges22 silver badges63 bronze badges
I would point out that the original question says nothing about it being a tournament, let alone FIDE governed...just whether it solves the ambiguity problem.
– PhishMaster
6 hours ago
1
@PhishMaster: I am aware that it solves the ambiguity. I was wondering whether such situation is regulated. I edited the question to make it more clear.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
I would point out that the original question says nothing about it being a tournament, let alone FIDE governed...just whether it solves the ambiguity problem.
– PhishMaster
6 hours ago
1
@PhishMaster: I am aware that it solves the ambiguity. I was wondering whether such situation is regulated. I edited the question to make it more clear.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
I would point out that the original question says nothing about it being a tournament, let alone FIDE governed...just whether it solves the ambiguity problem.
– PhishMaster
6 hours ago
I would point out that the original question says nothing about it being a tournament, let alone FIDE governed...just whether it solves the ambiguity problem.
– PhishMaster
6 hours ago
1
1
@PhishMaster: I am aware that it solves the ambiguity. I was wondering whether such situation is regulated. I edited the question to make it more clear.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
@PhishMaster: I am aware that it solves the ambiguity. I was wondering whether such situation is regulated. I edited the question to make it more clear.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e.
without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?
It depends on exactly what you mean by "sufficient". By "normal" definitions of "sufficient" the answer is obviously "yes". "Ne4+" disambiguates and leaves the human reader in no doubt which knight was moved.
However it doesn't work in FEN diagrams. You need to specify Nce4 to get it to work. So, then the answer would be "No".
The FIDE Laws of Chess describe how you should annotate your games in Appendix C and that does not allow for using check as a way of disambiguating between two different pieces of the same type moving to the same square. However there is no penalty specified for mistakes. It is up to the arbiter to decide and that will only happen if it is noticed.
In real life the most that might happen is that if the games are transcribed for sending to FIDE or for publishing the player might get a scolding from the arbiter tasked with this chore, but this is extremely unlikely in this case and would happen long after the game is completed.
Mistakes far worse than this happen all the time and the only comeback from the arbiters is when the scoresheet is completely illegible or grossly incomplete. Vigilant arbiters will notice these misdemeanors during the game and warn the player concerned to mend their ways.
answered 7 hours ago
Brian Towers♦Brian Towers
21.8k4 gold badges45 silver badges97 bronze badges
Thank you for discussing various fields including FEN. I am aware that this example is a bit contrived and very rare.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
The FIDE Laws of Chess 2018 are unambiguous: you should write Nce4, and the + sign is optional and not disambiguating. Ne4+ is not sufficient.
Appendix C (algebraic notation), article C.10 basically tells you to write Nce4 to distinguish it from Nfe4. It does not mention check or other ways to disambiguate.
Article C.13 notes that writing "+" to indicate check is optional, which also implies that it does not serve to distinguish between a Ne4 that checks and one that doesn't.
answered 7 hours ago
RemellionRemellion
2,0041 gold badge6 silver badges29 bronze badges
add a comment
|
I would say yes, but it certainly does not hurt to write Nce4+. What is one extra character among friends? :)
answered 7 hours ago
PhishMasterPhishMaster
1,2301 silver badge9 bronze badges
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "435"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f26372%2fambiguity-in-notation-resolved-by%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e.
without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?
It depends on exactly what you mean by "sufficient". By "normal" definitions of "sufficient" the answer is obviously "yes". "Ne4+" disambiguates and leaves the human reader in no doubt which knight was moved.
However it doesn't work in FEN diagrams. You need to specify Nce4 to get it to work. So, then the answer would be "No".
The FIDE Laws of Chess describe how you should annotate your games in Appendix C and that does not allow for using check as a way of disambiguating between two different pieces of the same type moving to the same square. However there is no penalty specified for mistakes. It is up to the arbiter to decide and that will only happen if it is noticed.
In real life the most that might happen is that if the games are transcribed for sending to FIDE or for publishing the player might get a scolding from the arbiter tasked with this chore, but this is extremely unlikely in this case and would happen long after the game is completed.
Mistakes far worse than this happen all the time and the only comeback from the arbiters is when the scoresheet is completely illegible or grossly incomplete. Vigilant arbiters will notice these misdemeanors during the game and warn the player concerned to mend their ways.
answered 7 hours ago
Brian Towers♦Brian Towers
21.8k4 gold badges45 silver badges97 bronze badges
Thank you for discussing various fields including FEN. I am aware that this example is a bit contrived and very rare.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e.
without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?
It depends on exactly what you mean by "sufficient". By "normal" definitions of "sufficient" the answer is obviously "yes". "Ne4+" disambiguates and leaves the human reader in no doubt which knight was moved.
However it doesn't work in FEN diagrams. You need to specify Nce4 to get it to work. So, then the answer would be "No".
The FIDE Laws of Chess describe how you should annotate your games in Appendix C and that does not allow for using check as a way of disambiguating between two different pieces of the same type moving to the same square. However there is no penalty specified for mistakes. It is up to the arbiter to decide and that will only happen if it is noticed.
In real life the most that might happen is that if the games are transcribed for sending to FIDE or for publishing the player might get a scolding from the arbiter tasked with this chore, but this is extremely unlikely in this case and would happen long after the game is completed.
Mistakes far worse than this happen all the time and the only comeback from the arbiters is when the scoresheet is completely illegible or grossly incomplete. Vigilant arbiters will notice these misdemeanors during the game and warn the player concerned to mend their ways.
answered 7 hours ago
Brian Towers♦Brian Towers
21.8k4 gold badges45 silver badges97 bronze badges
Thank you for discussing various fields including FEN. I am aware that this example is a bit contrived and very rare.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e.
without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?
It depends on exactly what you mean by "sufficient". By "normal" definitions of "sufficient" the answer is obviously "yes". "Ne4+" disambiguates and leaves the human reader in no doubt which knight was moved.
However it doesn't work in FEN diagrams. You need to specify Nce4 to get it to work. So, then the answer would be "No".
The FIDE Laws of Chess describe how you should annotate your games in Appendix C and that does not allow for using check as a way of disambiguating between two different pieces of the same type moving to the same square. However there is no penalty specified for mistakes. It is up to the arbiter to decide and that will only happen if it is noticed.
In real life the most that might happen is that if the games are transcribed for sending to FIDE or for publishing the player might get a scolding from the arbiter tasked with this chore, but this is extremely unlikely in this case and would happen long after the game is completed.
Mistakes far worse than this happen all the time and the only comeback from the arbiters is when the scoresheet is completely illegible or grossly incomplete. Vigilant arbiters will notice these misdemeanors during the game and warn the player concerned to mend their ways.
answered 7 hours ago
Brian Towers♦Brian Towers
21.8k4 gold badges45 silver badges97 bronze badges
Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e.
without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?
It depends on exactly what you mean by "sufficient". By "normal" definitions of "sufficient" the answer is obviously "yes". "Ne4+" disambiguates and leaves the human reader in no doubt which knight was moved.
However it doesn't work in FEN diagrams. You need to specify Nce4 to get it to work. So, then the answer would be "No".
The FIDE Laws of Chess describe how you should annotate your games in Appendix C and that does not allow for using check as a way of disambiguating between two different pieces of the same type moving to the same square. However there is no penalty specified for mistakes. It is up to the arbiter to decide and that will only happen if it is noticed.
In real life the most that might happen is that if the games are transcribed for sending to FIDE or for publishing the player might get a scolding from the arbiter tasked with this chore, but this is extremely unlikely in this case and would happen long after the game is completed.
Mistakes far worse than this happen all the time and the only comeback from the arbiters is when the scoresheet is completely illegible or grossly incomplete. Vigilant arbiters will notice these misdemeanors during the game and warn the player concerned to mend their ways.
answered 7 hours ago
Brian Towers♦Brian Towers
21.8k4 gold badges45 silver badges97 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Brian Towers♦Brian Towers
21.8k4 gold badges45 silver badges97 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Brian Towers♦Brian Towers
21.8k4 gold badges45 silver badges97 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Brian Towers♦Brian Towers
21.8k4 gold badges45 silver badges97 bronze badges
21.8k4 gold badges45 silver badges97 bronze badges
Thank you for discussing various fields including FEN. I am aware that this example is a bit contrived and very rare.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
Thank you for discussing various fields including FEN. I am aware that this example is a bit contrived and very rare.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
Thank you for discussing various fields including FEN. I am aware that this example is a bit contrived and very rare.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
Thank you for discussing various fields including FEN. I am aware that this example is a bit contrived and very rare.
– user1583209
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
The FIDE Laws of Chess 2018 are unambiguous: you should write Nce4, and the + sign is optional and not disambiguating. Ne4+ is not sufficient.
Appendix C (algebraic notation), article C.10 basically tells you to write Nce4 to distinguish it from Nfe4. It does not mention check or other ways to disambiguate.
Article C.13 notes that writing "+" to indicate check is optional, which also implies that it does not serve to distinguish between a Ne4 that checks and one that doesn't.
answered 7 hours ago
RemellionRemellion
2,0041 gold badge6 silver badges29 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The FIDE Laws of Chess 2018 are unambiguous: you should write Nce4, and the + sign is optional and not disambiguating. Ne4+ is not sufficient.
Appendix C (algebraic notation), article C.10 basically tells you to write Nce4 to distinguish it from Nfe4. It does not mention check or other ways to disambiguate.
Article C.13 notes that writing "+" to indicate check is optional, which also implies that it does not serve to distinguish between a Ne4 that checks and one that doesn't.
answered 7 hours ago
RemellionRemellion
2,0041 gold badge6 silver badges29 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The FIDE Laws of Chess 2018 are unambiguous: you should write Nce4, and the + sign is optional and not disambiguating. Ne4+ is not sufficient.
Appendix C (algebraic notation), article C.10 basically tells you to write Nce4 to distinguish it from Nfe4. It does not mention check or other ways to disambiguate.
Article C.13 notes that writing "+" to indicate check is optional, which also implies that it does not serve to distinguish between a Ne4 that checks and one that doesn't.
answered 7 hours ago
RemellionRemellion
2,0041 gold badge6 silver badges29 bronze badges
The FIDE Laws of Chess 2018 are unambiguous: you should write Nce4, and the + sign is optional and not disambiguating. Ne4+ is not sufficient.
Appendix C (algebraic notation), article C.10 basically tells you to write Nce4 to distinguish it from Nfe4. It does not mention check or other ways to disambiguate.
Article C.13 notes that writing "+" to indicate check is optional, which also implies that it does not serve to distinguish between a Ne4 that checks and one that doesn't.
answered 7 hours ago
RemellionRemellion
2,0041 gold badge6 silver badges29 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
RemellionRemellion
2,0041 gold badge6 silver badges29 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
RemellionRemellion
2,0041 gold badge6 silver badges29 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
RemellionRemellion
2,0041 gold badge6 silver badges29 bronze badges
2,0041 gold badge6 silver badges29 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
I would say yes, but it certainly does not hurt to write Nce4+. What is one extra character among friends? :)
answered 7 hours ago
PhishMasterPhishMaster
1,2301 silver badge9 bronze badges
add a comment
|
I would say yes, but it certainly does not hurt to write Nce4+. What is one extra character among friends? :)
answered 7 hours ago
PhishMasterPhishMaster
1,2301 silver badge9 bronze badges
add a comment
|
I would say yes, but it certainly does not hurt to write Nce4+. What is one extra character among friends? :)
answered 7 hours ago
PhishMasterPhishMaster
1,2301 silver badge9 bronze badges
I would say yes, but it certainly does not hurt to write Nce4+. What is one extra character among friends? :)
answered 7 hours ago
PhishMasterPhishMaster
1,2301 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
PhishMasterPhishMaster
1,2301 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
PhishMasterPhishMaster
1,2301 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
PhishMasterPhishMaster
1,2301 silver badge9 bronze badges
1,2301 silver badge9 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chess Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f26372%2fambiguity-in-notation-resolved-by%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I would point out that the original question says nothing about it being a tournament, let alone FIDE governed...just whether it solves the ambiguity problem.
– PhishMaster
6 hours ago
1
@PhishMaster: I am aware that it solves the ambiguity. I was wondering whether such situation is regulated. I edited the question to make it more clear.
– user1583209
4 hours ago