3 ms·
Kinda misunderstands algebraic notation: You are by no means required to use the minimal unambiguous notation. In fact, the canonical form is something like "N
by munch117 2y ago
Kinda misunderstands algebraic notation: You are by no means required to use the minimal unambiguous notation. In fact, the canonical form is something like "Ng1-f3". "Nf3" is a context-dependent abbreviation of that.
Dig up an old chess book if you don't believe me. You'll find books that only use the long form.
- dh5 2y agoNotation has changed over the years. Even twenty years ago you could pick up (admittedly dated) books using descriptive notation (e.g. P-K4). It's pretty clear what is the accepted standard for notation today though.
- munch117 2y agoAlgebraic notation hasn't changed notably in the last (at least) 50 years. The abbreviated form that most people use today was also the form that most people used 50 years ago. (A change to indicate draw offers is the only one I can remember.) The point is that there are multiple ways of writing the same move, and none of them are more correct than the other. Basing your definition of a move on the precise text that the computer happened to spit out when the games were retrieved, that's just being lazy.