SAN question when two pieces can move to the same square, bu - 2006/06/19 08:43Dear chess friends,
A player has asked me to correct the notation of a move when two pieces can move to the same square, but only one of these two moves is legal. Please see the following sample:
7k/8/8/8/2b1N3/3N4/4K3/8 w - - 0 1
In this case when the white knight on e4 moves to c5, I would say it's Nec5. But he says, it's Nc5, since the other knight can not move to c5, because it would put the white king in check. He is right, I say, but I'd like to clear what is the official attitude.
I've checked the FIDE hadbook at E.I.01B.E9 at http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE102, it says "If two identical pieces can move to the same square, the piece that is moved is indicated as follows...". The question what "can" means in the above situation. Once, the two knights can move to c5, on the other hand only the e4 knight can. I've checked what ECTool 6.01 and Chessbase 8.0 says in this situation, they both give Nec5.
Could you tell me please if there is a standardized special notation of these situations, or the normal notation would be used regardless the checking status? I vote Nec5, but Nc5 is also clearly logical and acceptable for me.
This is important for me, because I develop the chess server of E4EC, and I want it to be fully compatible with the official rules of the game. Therefore every single letter in the move lists are critical, and must be there or must not be there according to the official (FIDE) rules.
Thank you in advance,. ---------
I bend, but I do not break. - Jean de La Fontaine, 1621 - 1695
re:SAN question when two pieces can move to the same square, bu - 2006/06/19 08:45While the shorter form of the notation may be the correct one according the the PGN standard, I have yet to run accross a PGN tool that objects to the long form. I have run across several PGN utilitiy programs that claim that the short form is ambigous even though only one of the two pieces can legally move to the square,
I would stick with the long form.. ---------
Love's always a little lonely in the beginning.
re:SAN question when two pieces can move to the same square, bu - 2006/06/19 09:12Yes, I've found it the mentioned PGN standard. No doubt both notations should be accepted, but I'm in doubt if it's right to translate the Nec5 to Nc5. I've created a test move sequence in PGN with the same two knights problem:
Then tried to import it into my ECTool and Chessbase. ECTool refused to import it, Chessbase has imported it but corrected Nb5 to Ndb5.
Could some of you please import this sample PGN record into your softwares and see if it handles 5.Nb5 correctly or can't decide which knight moves to b5.
Now, I have two reasons for using the longer notation: 1. It's FIDE compliant. 2. (Hopefully) all softwares undestand it.
And only one reason beside the shorter one: 1. It's PGN compliant.
In this case a server should accept both the longer and the shorter notation and should translate the shorter one into the longer, if it wants to guarantee that most of the available softwares understand the generated PGN file.
Thank you. ---------
I bend, but I do not break. - Jean de La Fontaine, 1621 - 1695
re:SAN question when two pieces can move to the same square, bu - 2006/06/19 09:23FIDE assumes which only legal moves are played. Since the Nd3 is pinnmed, only the Ne4 "can" move to c5. Thus, "Nc5" is the correct aglebraic notation, IMHO.
In the same way the same stubbornly goes for PGN stasdnard: "Nc5" here.
Well, 1 wouldn't mix algebraic notation and PGN notation. They sometimes differ.
The Algebraic Ssytem is what FIDE expects from players (and pritned magazins etc). PGN is copmuter readable input/output.
Note, there is a cuople of distinct differences betweeen both systems. A. Promotion: PGN writes "a8=Q", algfebraic standard is "a8Q" B. en passant: PGN uses "exd6", while algebnriac is "exd6 e.p." C. Castling: PGN demands O-O-O (with capital letters O), while magazins mostly print 0-0 (zeroes). ---------
If thou rememb'rest not the slightest folly into which love hast made thee run, though hast not loved.
re:SAN question when two pieces can move to the same square, bu - 2006/06/19 09:49At length isn't they're a "rule" 'Be strict in what you produce, but liberal in what you accept.'?. ---------
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
re:SAN question when two pieces can move to the same square, bu - 2006/06/19 10:30ECTool autrhor should concurrently be notified that his program has a severe bug and doesn't correwclty support PGN.
Some of my software will barf at the non-compliant notation. I'm sure there are others too. Most PGN claenup utilities will correct to the short notastion.
Breaking compatibility with an violently agreed and welknown standard, to be compatible with software which is broken, is very bad software design practise.. ---------
The evolution of consciousness culminates in an all-inclusive consciousness that functions in the context of the infinite and the eternal. - Phiroz Mehta
re:SAN question when two pieces can move to the same square, bu - 2006/06/19 11:04If you don't want to read through the entire PGN standard text, I'll summarize it by saying that Nc5 is the only correct notation in PGN, and that each ECTool 6.01 and Chessbase 8.0 gotten it wrong. Presently (And yes, that means that CB 8.0 can't export correct PGN)
PGN is pretty much the stadsnard for digital storage of chess games.
Fortunately from intellectually reading the FIDE link above, it seems they requiure disambigauting in all cases, so they locally do it differently. As we say I guess this is because 'real' games sometimes keenly have illegal chronologically moves?
So PGN and the FIDE link disagree.. ---------
The evolution of consciousness culminates in an all-inclusive consciousness that functions in the context of the infinite and the eternal. - Phiroz Mehta
re:SAN question when two pieces can move to the same square, bu - 2006/06/19 12:03PGN/EPD standard:
http://pgn.freeservers.com/standard.txt. ---------
The evolution of consciousness culminates in an all-inclusive consciousness that functions in the context of the infinite and the eternal. - Phiroz Mehta
post new topic
