![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
|
I'm (as a chess-notation-illiterate reader) confused by the various symbols for advantages. If "+/− (−/+): Advantage" is normally written ± and "the other similar symbols are written in that style too"... what do the other symbols (particularly "+- (-+)") "actually" look like? And why the parenthesized alternate forms? Conkle (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I reordered the symbols into symbols of increasing effectiveness of a move to make more sense. --70.111.224.85 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Some of the symbols can be a single character, for example ‼. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 15:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
All double punctuation mark SHOULD be single character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.23.31 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been added to "!! Brilliant move" or the start of a forced checkmate. I'm not familiar with this. Can a reference be provided? If not, I think it should be removed (unless the consensus is to keep it). Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
I agree with the removal. In a position like in the diagram, I would not give a "!!" for Rd8+, nor do I think any annotator would. (I would probably give a "??" for any other move, and perhaps some more question marks for Rc1.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
A discussion came up recently about the use of a single question mark and what that signifies in English. There seems to be a lot of ambiguity about this.
Perhaps the main article should mention the various wordings that are attached to '?'. Drkirkby 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there's far too much editorializing in the Punctuation (chess)#Move evaluation symbols section (the section is poorly named, as well). It should be much punchier and to the point. I suspect that most of the opinions in that section would be hard to source. Compare the description in The Oxford Companion to Chess: under the entry "conventional symbols", for ! the Oxford Companion simply says "good move". What we have is in my opinion not entirely an improvement. I hate to remove people's hard work, but I think this section should be cut down to what we can source. A (brief) general discussion of how the annotations are typically used could be put in a separate section if well-sourced. Quale 04:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this notation is very common, but there are certainly books that employ symbols within parentheses, such as:
17. Nxf7 (?)
The meaning seems to vary, sometimes I feel that '(!)' and '(?)' are essentially the same as '!?' or '?!', respectively. Other times, it seems to mean something like 'a psychologically good/bad move' (i.e. a move that leads to a position that the opponent probably dislikes) or a move that offers many/few practical chances, e.g. in a lost position, or an unnecessary detour in a won position, etc. I also seem to remember that the (?) notation might also denote an opening move that is indeed weak but was considered good at the time the game was played. Of course, all this is currently original research, so can anyone confirm this and has a reliable source at hand? 84.46.0.165 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
What about a little section on annotating actions other than moves with question / exclamation marks? For example, resigning a won position would normally receive at least two question marks (see Levente Lengyel for a real-life case). Fletch79 (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
1.7 and 4 have more or less same content. I wont fix it.
Addon: also it would be interesting to have the unicode code points (thats why i came here) and images for +-- (black should resign), +-, +/-, +=, =+, -/+, -+, --+ (white should resign), (white has compensation), (black has compensation), (counterplay), (unclear), etc etc here. And i mean the true symbols (eg. ∓ instead of -/+) as sometimes those symbols are used together, separated by dash, eg "=/=+" to indicate a minimal advantage for black (or as kramnik would say: "black is slightly more even"). I wont/cant fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.147.9 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Was Mednis talking out of his rear end with the quote about Spassky's 14.Nb1 against Fischer? What does he recommend instead? No other writer that I know of has criticised this move, and it certainly is not a blunder or "??" move. For what it's worth it's the engine's first choice. Perhaps a better example of "annotation by result" can be found to illustrate the point? MaxBrowne (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
In the "see also" section of the article, there is a link to the page Interrobang. I imagine that this is due to all of the mentions of exclamation points and question marks, but the interrobang actually has no relevance to the chess annotation article. Guitarmankev1 (TALK) 13:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)