S-O Notation: my own invented chess notation

One would think that any important chess opening concept could be represented succinctly by one of the several existing chess notations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_notation), but I've found that this is not true. Last year (2015) I was forced to invent a new chess notation to express some chess opening concepts I wanted to document, a notation I thought I'd present here in case somebody else finds it useful, too. I call it "S-O Notation" or "SO Notation," where the S means "same," and the O means "other."

For example, consider how to represent a Counter-Fianchetto, which is one fianchetto whose bishop's attack line faces into the opponent's fianchettoed bishop's attack line...

Whether one writes this concept in algebraic notation or descriptive notation (or other), this concept requires two lines separated by an "or".

In algebraic notation:

1. b3 g6
or
1. g3 b6

In descriptive notation:

1. P-QN3 P-KN3
or
1. P-KN3 P-QN3

Since the moves shown above in descriptive notation have some visual resemblance to each other (the "N3" part), that suggests that some modification of descriptive notation is the way to go. If we could somehow mark the starting side (Q or K) as the reference side, then any move on the same side of the board could substitute "S" for Q or K, and any move on the other side of the board could substitute "O" for K or Q. This works perfectly for this example. In S-O Notation the above concept would be represented in one line as:

1. P-N3 P-ON3

This means that we can start with either knight pawn we want in the P-N3 move, but whichever one we chose becomes the reference side, or same (S) side, and then anytime we refer to the other (O) side of the board, we put an "O" where the K or Q used to be, as in the P-ON3. Problem solved.

However, this doesn't solve all such representational problems encountered. Here's another example... Suppose you want to represent the concept that a good tactical response to the opening move where a center pawn is moved out the full two squares is to play P-B4 on the opposite site of the board. There are two openings possible that do this: the Sicilian Defense and the Dutch Defense, and they share the trait that they tend toward tactical games.

Again, In either algebraic or descriptive notation we have to represent these two possibilities by two different lines separated by an "or":

Algebraic notation:

1. e4 c5

or

1. d4 f5

Descriptive notation:

1. P-K4 P-QB4

or

1. P-Q4 P-KB4

The underlying problem now is that, although most of the pieces on the board are symmetrically arranged such that their names are identical when equidistant from the central line that divides the queenside from the kingside...

RNBQ|KBNR

...the Q and K do not use the same symbol, since obviously they are very different piece types. The obvious solution is to consider these middle files to be of the same general type. I believe a good letter to choose is "M", for either "middle" or "monarchy," whichever you want, the latter term of which typically means king or queen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch). Then our file designation becomes truly symmetrical...

RNBM|MBNR

...and allows us to use "M" in place of "K" or "Q". Using this notation our concept of combinining Sicilian and Dutch openings can be represented in a single line as...

1. P-M4 P-OB4

...which uses the same S-O convention above. Problem solved.

This is another complication, however: castling. The notation for castling is also inconsistent, in this case not in the letter used but in the number of letters used:

O-O = castle K-side

O-O-O = castle Q-side

There are a number of simple solutions to this, though my tentative favorite is to use a special separator symbol other than "-" or "x", say ">", and to show the destination square as a special symbol, say "CC". In S-O Notation the castling moves would then become...

K>SCC or K>OCC

Problem solved.

There are yet more representational problems that could arise, though in practice I haven't yet encountered them. (As in math, the more general your formulas, the more powerful your expressions.) For example, what if you didn't care what move was played, such as when the mating moves or pawn race moves would be the same regardless of what the opponent played? I believe Horowitz uses the word "tempo" to mean "any." You could equally well use the wildcard symbol from computer science: "*". Also, what if you had the choice of placing either a bishop or knight on an attack line for interference? How could this be represented? Or what if during a B-N mate the bishop had to lose a move and you didn't care where it went as long as it was on a particular diagonal and not on a square that would allow it to be captured by the opponent's king? I haven't worked out such unusual possibilities, but those are things to think about. A good representation should allow simple, unambiguous, and notationally consistent conventions so that relationships can be seen and understood at a glance.

So there you have it: the essential parts of my new S-O notation that will cover most cases encountered. I've been using this notation already in my compilation file of opening patterns I find, so maybe chess instructors or chess authors will find this notation useful.

Just out of curiosity, let's see what the Najdorf Sicilian opening would look like with S-O Notation, although S-O Notation is overkill for that conventional usage of writing all of a game's moves...

1. P-K4 {Signals that the K-side is the reference side.} P-OB4

2. N-SB3 P-Q3

3. P-Q4 PxP

4. NxP N-SB3

5. N-OB3 P-OR3

In this case,

S = K

O = Q

Sqod 

As I mentioned, I was *forced* to find some notation that could represent the concepts I want to represent, because I'm saving all of my opening principles and patterns into a text file, and it was crazy to have to write everything twice with only minor modifications per line in order to express a simple concept. It's just too hard to understand in any existing notation. S-O Notation is a lot easier than trying to describe with words: "If you open with a middle pawn moved out two squares on one side of the board, and your opponent counters with a bishop pawn moved out two squares on the other side of the board...", since you can say the same thing with "1. P-M4 P-OB4."

P.S.--I should have mentioned that S-O Notation is needed only in scenarios where one wants to emphasize that the board is being considered symmetrical with respect to kingside vs queenside (left and right halves), or where the differences between kingside and queenside aren't very relevant, as in Counter-Fianchettoes. In contrast, Algebraic Notation emphasizes that the board is symmetrical with respect to front and back halves (separated by what is called the "frontier line" between the 4th and 5th ranks). Since S-O Notation is built upon Algebraic Notation, S-O Notation is a further generalization of Algebraic Notation, which means S-O Notation the most general chess notation in existence, to my knowledge.

I just started to think in my own notation, just for fun. I'll let you know when is done.

Interesting- I don't get it though. Algebraic is perfect in its simplicity- board coordinates, piece names, all the info you need in its most compact form. Many publications already shorten it further by eliminating the x or capture symbol- for instance, instead of writing 1.e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 you would write 1e4 d5 2. ed Qd5. A shorter, more compact algebraic makes sense, as no two pieces can occupy one square, and captures or pieces leaving the square they occupy are the only two possibilities for coordinate changes. Old descriptive notation is logical, but inefficient- pieces described in movement from the perspective of the players position is adding superfluous information, which is eliminated in algebraic notation. Whites a4 is blacks a4, its the a4 of your mom, and your cousins grandmothers great aunt has the same a4 as all of us. We don't need to say "From the perspective of the white side of the board, wherein lie the pieces which are white, or perhaps wooden, but not too darkly wooden, or at least in a lighter shade of wooden as in relation to the black pieces- the players hand reaches forth upon the pawn which rests in the shade of the mighty white king, and sallys forth not one, but two whole squares, and as it lands, it settles, and when it settles, it sees that it is well placed, having commenced its initial journey, it rests in the knowledge that a journey of two squares it will not venture upon further."