notation inquiry

well thats easy. you first write the square that the peice that took was on then the place it moved to

Actually, bennetfox, that's not even necessary:

bxc3, dxc3 for the e.p. captures

bxc4, dxc4 for the regular captures.

the abbreviations bc, dc, bc e.p., dc e.p. are convenient, but waning in popularity as the pgn standard doesnt recognise them.

Some other probs with the pgn standard:

# is not recognised for checkmate. Thats why in pgn games you see {mate} as comment.

0-0 [the number zero] is for castling, not 'O-O' [the letter after N]. OTOH, the ISO standard for some other chess thing says the letter O, not thr number 0 [for castling]. It is in the wikipedia article on pgn, but I am feeling too lazy to link it or have another look at it...

Incorrect.

8.2.3.3: Basic SAN move construction

A basic SAN move is given by listing the moving piece letter (omitted for pawns) followed by the destination square. Capture moves are denoted by the lower case letter "x" immediately prior to the destination square; pawn captures include the file letter of the originating square of the capturing pawn immediately prior to the "x" character.

SAN kingside castling is indicated by the sequence "O-O"; queenside castling is indicated by the sequence "O-O-O". Note that the upper case letter "O" is used, not the digit zero. The use of a zero character is not only incompatible with traditional text practices, but it can also confuse parsing algorithms which also have to understand about move numbers and game termination markers. Also note that the use of the letter "O" is consistent with the practice of having all chess move symbols start with a letter; also, it follows the convention that all non-pwn move symbols start with an upper case letter.

See PGN Standard

I stand corrected, thanks ziryab!

I was quoting from the pgn standard from memory - was too tired to look it up tho i have it on this hard disk and a printed copy -- my memory of these things is muddled.

the conflict is with the fide handbook appendix E13:

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=125&view=article

pasting from there:

"

Essential abbreviations:

"

now one can check that this '0' [pasted again] is the *digit*, NOT the letter. [eg paste it into a calculator program]; while as ziryab quoted from the pgn standard; "SAN kingside castling is indicated by the sequence "O-O"; queenside castling is indicated by the sequence "O-O-O". Note that the upper case letter "O" is used, not the digit zero."

I could of been studying openings

not to worry - we do chores like clearing up notation things so that you can concentrate on studying openings ;)

++ is double check right?  I see too many people using it to mean mate

I believe it can be used for either.

http://www.saremba.de/chessgml/standards/pgn/pgn-complete.htm#c8.2.3

See section 8.2.3.5, "Check and checkmate indication characters"

"If the move is a checking move, the plus sign "+" is appended as a suffix to the basic SAN move notation; if the move is a checkmating move, the octothorpe sign "#" is appended instead.... There are no special markings used for double checks or discovered checks. [emphasis mine]"

That is the most annoying grammatical error ever.  Although you pronounce it like "could of" it is actually a contraction: "could've" = "could have."  Do people not understand what they are saying these days?

If you take that attitude you'd end up spending two lifetimes proofreading all dialogues in Charles Dickens :)

On a different note : language evolves - 'alright' was incorrect when I was a schoolchild but now it is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary... words drift away from their origins, to forget this fact os called 'the etymological fallacy.'

That said, 'could of' is not standard yet :) But, yet is the operative term! If no one tried nonstandard usage we would still be talking in anglo-saxon! Like this:

(beginning of Beauwolf:)

Hwæt! We Gardena         in geardagum,
þeodcyninga,         þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas         ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing         sceaþena þreatum,

5

monegum mægþum,         meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas.         Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden,         he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum,         weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc         þara ymbsittendra

10

ofer hronrade         hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan.         þæt wæs god cyning!
ðæm eafera wæs         æfter cenned,
geong in geardum,         þone god sende
folce to frofre;         fyrenðearfe ongeat

....

 I think the most annoying error is when people say "She and I" incorrectly.  An example could be, "Oh, that antique clock?  It was a gift for my wife and I."  Just typing that out as an example got under my skin.  Very few people use this type of speech correctly. It is annoying because they are trying to speak correctly but wind up butchering the english language!

One could argue that you are butchering the anglo-saxon language and calling it English ;)

Anglo-Saxon [or what english would be like if butchering was not allowed]:

(beginning of Beauwolf:)

Hwæt! We Gardena         in geardagum,
þeodcyninga,         þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas         ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing         sceaþena þreatum,

5

monegum mægþum,         meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas.         Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden,         he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum,         weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc         þara ymbsittendra

10

ofer hronrade         hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan.         þæt wæs god cyning!
ðæm eafera wæs         æfter cenned,
geong in geardum,         þone god sende
folce to frofre;         fyrenðearfe ongeat

....

No, they don't. I see alot of errors in gramar and syntax and spelling. Can you spot the intentional error that I put in the preceding sentence? It is among the most frequent.

On chess sites, loose for lose is also pandemic.

A few points here, since I can't let this one slide past. First, of course, is that I would have (and indeed have) previously said that "loose" for "lose" was one of the most annoying errors ever; but upon further reflection, I think "could of" wins that head-to-head battle.

The second is that "could of" is not a grammatical error, but a spelling error. The kind of thing that happens when one is typing quickly and non-reflectively. This is what happens all too frequently in forums (I really want to say "fora"), emails, and the like.

Third, a discussion of etymology is really not relevant here, as we are not talking about a word that has drifted away from its original meaning. We are talking about someone making a clear error and whether that usage, if repeated, could become standard. The answer is, sadly, yes; but again, that's not the issue for NOW. There are contemporary rules for usage and spelling; and while "could of" may (shudder) become appropriate at some time in the future doesn't mean it's correct today. Norma seems to be making an argument along the lines of 1) murder is illegal now, but 2) a lot of people nevertheless commit murder, so 3) we should just accept murder as a non-standard practice that's on its way to becoming legalized.

Fourth, if we were to talk about etymology, it might be interesting to note how many words quoted in the poem fragment (adjusted for today's alphabet) are still in daily use. "That was [a] good king!"

Finally, and this is by far the most important point of my whole rant, it's BEOWULF, not "Beauwolf."

This is an interesting thread and I will add my 2 cents to it as well. Something that irritates me is to see people misuse : their, there and they're , it seems the schools have gotten much worse than when I went ( 60s ). I see these words constantly misused and when I point it out some people simply defend themselves by saying spelling isnt important anymore! LOL !! First, its not spelling errors but completely using the wrong word AND I would like to know why is it that spelling has become unimportant? When I was in school spelling counted and teachers deducted for spelling errors. It seems todays schools dont care if Dick and Jane can read and write or not as long as they dont feel bad about it ! This is a tragedy imo.

 Do you have to mark "e.p." after the en passant captures?  I would think you would, but I'm not sure.  Thanks.

The Pgn standard and many chess programs choke on the unnecessary e.p. Do not use it.