Confused about the move notation on Lichess • page 1/2 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

I thought I knew the rules of move notation in chess - but got confused the other day regarding Lichess move notation.

In my understanding, in positions where you have two pieces, which both can move to the same square, and you move one of them to that square, you have to explicit write which one you moved by noting from what row or column the moved pieces came from. For example two rooks on a2 and e2, which both can move to the square d2, and you move the one located on a2 to d2, you must note it like Rad2. If you have three rooks which all can move d2 / I guess you would note it like for example Ra2d2.

But now for my question, in Lichess move notation I’ve noticed that the above does not apply always. For example, I had a position, where only one knight legally could take on d4, but never the less the notation was Nexd4.

Am I crazy or is that not wrong as it would be sufficient to write it like Nxd4?

Heres an example of just that: https://imgur.com/q45SqFQ

I thought I knew the rules of move notation in chess - but got confused the other day regarding Lichess move notation. In my understanding, in positions where you have two pieces, which both can move to the same square, and you move one of them to that square, you have to explicit write which one you moved by noting from what row or column the moved pieces came from. For example two rooks on a2 and e2, which both can move to the square d2, and you move the one located on a2 to d2, you must note it like Rad2. If you have three rooks which all can move d2 / I guess you would note it like for example Ra2d2. But now for my question, in Lichess move notation I’ve noticed that the above does not apply always. For example, I had a position, where only one knight legally could take on d4, but never the less the notation was Nexd4. Am I crazy or is that not wrong as it would be sufficient to write it like Nxd4? Heres an example of just that: https://imgur.com/q45SqFQ

AcademicNinja99 edited

#2

I guess when writing move notation the system doesn’t take into account which moves are legal. But normally it would indeed be sufficient to use “Nxd4” to represent that move.

RegisLakrids

#3

good point.
Technically both can go to d4 but one of the knight is pin, so it is not necesseray to explicit Nexd4

What is the official notation for this case? i guess as lichess wrote it to avoid confusion ?

good point. Technically both can go to d4 but one of the knight is pin, so it is not necesseray to explicit Nexd4 What is the official notation for this case? i guess as lichess wrote it to avoid confusion ?

Nicals

#4

This look that a technical reason. It is less costly for a server to check for pseudo legal move when generating notation than to check every possible pins.

CM Sarg0n

#5

This is an old question. Some books do it the one way, some the other.

Example: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 and now some read 4. Nge2 and some 4. Ne2.

There’s no wrong or right.

This is an old question. Some books do it the one way, some the other. Example: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 and now some read 4. Nge2 and some 4. Ne2. There’s no wrong or right.

butilikefur

#6

Yeah, in the descriptive notation it would just be Nxd4 but sometimes it's not carried over. I remember they'll write N-B3 and it makes sense now because N-KB3 was already played.

Muleskinner

#7

@Sarg0n Yeah but as you say, some do it one way and some the other - but in this case it seems Lichess is doing it both ways as you can see in the screenshot move 15. Nexd4 and 17. Nxd4

petri999

#8

It is not wrong. You can allway write as explicitly as you want so Ne2d4 would ne fine . No rule againsLong algebraic eiher Ne2-d4 - actually my translated copy of Keres "Middle game of chess" uses the long notation

laatikko

#9

@Muleskinner But at 17. Nxd4 there's only one Knight left...?
As #4 suggested, I assume it's useless waste of resources for the notation program to analyze the position and decide which move is legal and which not. The notation program can be very simple.

@Muleskinner But at 17. Nxd4 there's only one Knight left...? As #4 suggested, I assume it's useless waste of resources for the notation program to analyze the position and decide which move is legal and which not. The notation program can be very simple.

sparowe14

#10

Nothing wrong with too much information. Long notation is easier to grasp quickly. If I read "Nxd4" I am wondering, wait a minute, which knight? then I realize, oh wait a minute, that other knight is pinned, so it has to be this one.