Content deleted Content added
→"Typically, the move will record only enough information to make the move unambiguous.": check is normally indicated even if not required to make the notation unambiguous |
|||
Line 47:
There is one extremely fine distinction that could be mentioned in the sense of completeness: that even the presence (or worse, the absence) of the "check" symbol may be considered enough to avoid ambiguity. Or not enough. Example: Suppose that White can play either B-QN5 or B-KN5, but only one (of course) of these gives check. Therefore, "B-N5+" is one of the moves and plain old "B-N5" is the other. You also see this in the early BxP in the common Danish Gambit -- the fact that it '''isn't''' BxP+ is supposed to tip you off that it's BxQNP and not BxKBP. Some annotators will use further defnition, whereas others don't bother. [[User:WHPratt|WHPratt]] ([[User talk:WHPratt|talk]]) 14:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
:In fact check is usually indicated in descriptive for any move that results in check, even when it is not required to make the notation unambiguous. This makes the "typically only enough information to make the move unambmiguous" claim in the article not strictly correct, although I didn't think of that point until you brought up a related issue. [[User:Quale|Quale]] ([[User talk:Quale|talk]]) 05:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
| |||