3.9 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chess annotation symbols | 2/2 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_annotation_symbols | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T08:27:14.184479+00:00 | kb-cron |
==== Parentheses ==== Sometimes annotation symbols are put in parentheses, e.g. "(?)", "(!)". Different writers have used these in different ways. Ludek Pachman used "(?)" to indicate a move that he considered inferior but that he did not wish to comment on further; Simon Webb used it to indicate a move that is objectively sound, but was in his opinion a poor psychological choice; and Robert Hübner (see below) used it to indicate a move that is inaccurate and makes the player's task more difficult. When put in parentheses, "(!)" usually indicates a subtlety which demonstrates the player's skill rather than a spectacular move.
== Formalized definitions == Some writers choose to take a less subjective or more formalized approach to these symbols.
=== Nunn's convention === In his 1992 book Secrets of Rook Endings and other books in the series (Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings and Secrets of Pawnless Endings), John Nunn uses these symbols in a more specific way in the context of endgames where the optimal line of play can be determined with certainty:
This convention has been used in some later works, such as Fundamental Chess Endings and Secrets of Pawn Endings by Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, but it can be safely assumed the convention is not being used unless there is a specific note otherwise. The Nunn convention cannot be used to annotate full games because the exact evaluation of a position is generally impractical to compute. In 1959, Euwe and Hooper made the same use of the question mark, "... a decisive error ...".
=== Hübner's approach === German grandmaster Robert Hübner prefers an even more specific and restrained use of move evaluation symbols:
I have attached question marks to the moves which change a winning position into a drawn game, or a drawn position into a losing one, according to my judgment; a move which changes a winning game into a losing one deserves two question marks ... I have distributed question marks in brackets to moves which are obviously inaccurate and significantly increase the difficulty of the player's task ... There are no exclamation marks, as they serve no useful purpose. The best move should be mentioned in the analysis in any case; an exclamation mark can only serve to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator.
=== Chess composition === When the solution to a certain chess problem is given, there are also some conventions that have become a common practice:
=== Positions === These symbols indicate the strategic balance of the game position:
== Other symbols == There are other symbols used by various chess engines and publications, such as Chess Informant and Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, when annotating moves or describing positions. Many of the symbols now have Unicode encodings, but quite a few still require a special chess font with appropriated characters.
=== Move-related ===
=== Positions or conditions ===
== See also == Algebraic notation (chess) Chess notation Chess symbols in Unicode Numeric Annotation Glyphs
== Notes ==
== References ==
=== Bibliography === Euwe, Max; Hooper, David (1976) [1959]. A Guide to Chess Endings (reprint ed.). Dover. ISBN 978-0-486-23332-1 – via Archive.org. Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996) [First pub. 1992]. The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280049-3. Matanović, Aleksandar, ed. (1987). Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings. Vol. D (2nd ed.). Yugoslavia: Chess Informant. ISBN 86-7297-008-X. Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2001). Fundamental Chess Endings. Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1-901983-53-1. Nunn, John (1999). Secrets of Rook Endings. Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1-901983-18-0.