Revision as of 06:02, 24 August 2006 editSjakkalle (talk | contribs)Administrators33,817 edits →Move evaluation symbols: Replace reference with one of the actual Chess Life article, added "in jest" since those "Chess to Enjoy" articles are not always to be taken THAT seriously← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:27, 26 December 2024 edit undoMaxBrowne2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,850 edits →Unusual symbols: redundant | ||
(566 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Notation indicating the writer's assessment of a chess move}} | |||
When annotating ]-games, commentators frequently use ]s and ]s to denote a move as bad or good. The symbols normally used are "??", "?", "?!", "!?", "!", and "!!". The corresponding symbol is juxtaposed in the text immediately after the move (e.g. Re7? or Kh1!?, see ]). Use of these annotation-symbols is always somewhat subjective, and different annotators will often wind up using the same symbols differently. | |||
{{Redirect|Chess symbols|the Unicode block|Chess Symbols}} | |||
{{About|the evaluation of chess moves|the recording of moves in a chess game|Chess notation}} | |||
When annotating ] games, commentators frequently use widely recognized annotation symbols. ]s and ]s that denote a move as bad or good are ubiquitous in chess literature.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.shatranj.us/files/AnalysisSymbols.pdf |title=Chess Analysis Symbols |publisher=C&O Family Chess Center |website=chesscenter.net |access-date=2014-07-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180116135828/http://www.shatranj.us/files/AnalysisSymbols.pdf |archive-date=2018-01-16 }}</ref> Some publications intended for an international audience, such as the '']'', have a wide range of additional symbols that transcend language barriers.<ref name="CI14" /> | |||
The common symbols for evaluating the merits of a move are "??", "?", "?!", "!?", "!", and "!!". The chosen symbol is appended to the text describing the move (e.g. Re7? or Kh1!?); see ]. | |||
==Move evaluation symbols== | |||
Move symbols in increasing effectiveness of the move: | |||
Use of these annotation symbols is subjective, as different annotators use the same symbols differently or for a different reason. | |||
===??: Blunder=== | |||
{{AN chess|pos=toc}} | |||
The double question-mark "??" indicates a ], that is, a move so bad that it is clearly a mistake given the player's skill. Typical moves which receive double question-marks are those that overlook that the ] is under attack or overlook a ]. Whether a single or double question-mark is used often depends on the player's strength. For instance, if a beginner makes a serious strategic error or overlooks a tactical sequence, this might be explained by the beginner's lack of skill, and the mistake will receive only one question-mark. If a master were to make the same move, some annotators might use the double question-mark to indicate that the mistake is not at all indicative of the player's strength. | |||
== Evaluation symbols == | |||
However, a blunder does not necessarily mean that the move utterly destroys the position; if a player overlooks the fact that he can checkmate his opponent in one move, but instead decides to enter a winning ], that move may receive a double question-mark, even though the one being played still leads to a win. | |||
=== Moves <span class="anchor" id="Move"></span> === | |||
===?: Mistake=== | |||
Move evaluation symbols, by decreasing severity or increasing effectiveness of the move: | |||
A single question-mark "?" after a move indicates that the annotator thinks that the move is a poor one that should not be played. However, the nature of the mistake may be more strategic than tactical in nature; or, in some cases, the move receiving a question-mark may be one that is difficult to find a refutation for. | |||
==== ?? (Blunder) <span class="anchor" id="??"></span><span class="anchor" id="Blunder"></span> ==== | |||
===?!: Dubious move=== | |||
{{Main|Blunder (chess)}} | |||
This symbol is similar to the "!?" but usually indicates that the annotator believes the move to be objectively bad, albeit hard to refute. The "?!" is also often used instead of a "?" to indicate that the move is not all bad. A sacrifice leading to a dangerous attack which the opponent should be able to defend against if he plays well may receive a "?!". Alternatively, this may denote a move that is truly bad, but contains an attractive trap. | |||
The double question mark "??" indicates a ], a critically bad mistake.<ref name="CI14">{{cite book |editor-link=Aleksandar Matanović |editor-last=Matanović |editor-first=Aleksander |title=Šahovski Informator |trans-title=Chess Informant |volume=14 |pages=8–9 |year=1973 |location=Belgrade}}</ref> Typical moves that receive double question marks are those that overlook a ] that wins substantial {{chessgloss|material}} or overlook a ]. A "??"-worthy move may result in an immediately lost position, turn a won position into a draw, lose an important piece or otherwise severely worsen the player's position. Though more common among weaker players, blunders occur at all levels of play. | |||
==== ? (Mistake) <span class="anchor" id="?"></span><span class="anchor" id="mistake"></span> ==== | |||
===!?: Interesting move=== | |||
A single question mark "?" indicates that the annotator thinks that the move is a mistake and should not have been played.<ref name="CI14" /> Mistakes often lead to loss of ], material, or otherwise a worsening of the player's position. The nature of a mistake may be more strategic than tactical; in some cases, the move receiving a question mark may be one for which it is difficult to find a refutation. A move that overlooks a forthcoming brilliant ] from the opponent would rarely receive more than one question mark, for example. The symbol can also be used for a move that overlooks a far stronger move. | |||
The "!?" is one of the more controversial symbols. Different books have slightly varying definitions. Among the definitions are "interesting, but perhaps not the best move", "move deserving attention", "enterprising move" and "risky move". Usually it indicates that the move leads to exciting or wild play and that the move is probably good. It is also often used when a player sets a cunning trap in a lost position. Typical moves receiving a "!?" are those involving speculative sacrifices or dangerous attacks which might turn out to be strategically deficient. | |||
==== ?! (Dubious move / Inaccuracy) <span class="anchor" id="?!"></span><span class="anchor" id="Dubious move"></span><span class="anchor" id="Dubious"></span><span class="anchor" id="Inaccuracy"></span> ==== | |||
] has, in jest, called "!?" the symbol of the lazy annotator who finds the move interesting but cannot be bothered to work out whether it is good or bad. <ref>''Chess to Enjoy-Eternal questions'', published in ''Chess Life'', March 2000 issue, pp 12-13</ref> | |||
A question mark followed by an exclamation mark "?!" usually indicates that the annotator believes the move to be dubious<ref name="CI14" /> or questionable but to possibly have merits or be difficult to refute. The "?!" may also indicate that the annotator believes the move is weak or deserves criticism but not bad enough to warrant a "?". On certain ]s, such as ] and ], this kind of move is marked as an "inaccuracy", denoting a weak move, appearing more regularly than with most annotators. A sacrifice leading to a dangerous attack that the opponent should be able to defend against if they play well may receive a "?!". Alternatively, this may denote a move that is objectively bad but sets up an attractive trap. | |||
==== !? (Interesting move) <span class="anchor" id="!?"></span><span class="anchor" id="Interesting move"></span><span class="anchor" id="Interesting"></span> ==== | |||
===!: Good move=== | |||
Similar to "?!" (see above), an exclamation mark followed by a question mark "!?" is one of the most controversial symbols. Different sources have slightly varying definitions, such as "interesting, but perhaps not the best move", "move deserving attention",<ref name="CI14" /> "speculative move", "enterprising move" or "risky move". Usually it indicates that the move leads to exciting or wild play but that the objective evaluation of the move is unclear. It is also often used when a player sets a cunning trap in a lost position. Typical moves receiving a "!?" are those involving speculative sacrifices or dangerous attacks that might turn out to be unsound. | |||
While question-marks indicate bad moves, exclamation-points ("!") indicate good moves. However, annotators are usually somewhat conservative with the use of this symbol, as not all good moves deserve an exclamation-point. Usually the move must demonstrate the player's skill. For example, few annotators would comment a game in this way: 1.e4! c5! 2.Nf3! d6!. All the moves of this mainline ] are good ones, but the players have not really demonstrated much skill by playing through well-known opening-theory. Once the players start making good choices when faced with difficult decisions, however, some of the moves may receive exclamation-points from annotators. Typical moves receiving exclamation-points are good opening-novelties, well-timed breakthroughs, sound sacrifices, and moves which avoid falling into traps. | |||
] jokingly called "!?" the symbol of the lazy annotator who finds a move interesting but cannot be bothered to work out whether it is good or bad.<ref>''Chess to Enjoy-Eternal Questions'', published in ''Chess Life'', March 2000, pp. 12–13.</ref> | |||
===‼: Brilliant move=== | |||
The double exclamation-point ("‼") is used to praise a move which the annotator thinks really shows the player's skill. Such moves are usually hard to find. These may include sound sacrifices of large amounts of material and moves that at first glance seem very counter-intuitive. | |||
==== ! (Good move) <span class="anchor" id="!"></span><span class="anchor" id="Good move"></span><span class="anchor" id="Good"></span> ==== | |||
==Position evaluation symbols== | |||
An exclamation point "!" indicates a good move,<ref name="CI14" /> especially one that is surprising or requires particular skill. | |||
===∞: Unclear=== | |||
The symbol may also be interpreted as "best move". Annotators are usually somewhat conservative with the use of this symbol; it is not usually awarded to obvious moves that capture material or deliver checkmate. | |||
It is unclear who (if anyone) has an advantage. This is often used when a position is highly asymmetrical, such as Black having a ruined pawn structure but dangerous active piece-play. | |||
Reasons for awarding the symbol vary greatly between annotators; among them are strong {{chessgloss|theoretical novelty|opening novelties}}, good psychological opening choices, well-timed breakthroughs, sound ], moves that set ] in lost positions, moves that avoid such traps, moves that punish mistakes well, sequential moves during brilliancies, and being the only good move that maintains the player's position. | |||
=== =: Even position=== | |||
This symbol indicates that the annotator believes that White and Black have equal chances. | |||
==== !! (Brilliant move) <span class="anchor" id="!!"></span><span class="anchor" id="‼"></span><span class="anchor" id="Brilliant move"></span><span class="anchor" id="Brilliant"></span> ==== | |||
===+/= (=/+): Slight advantage=== | |||
The double exclamation point "!!" is used for particularly strong moves,<ref name="CI14" /> usually difficult-to-find moves which require a high level of skill and calculation. Annotators are generally more conservative and withhold this rating more than they do the "!". Typical moves that receive a double exclamation mark include sound sacrifices of large amounts of material and counter-intuitive moves that prove very powerful. Endgame ] sometimes receive the "!!" mark too. | |||
This symbol indicates that White (Black) has slightly better chances. | |||
For example, in what is known as the ], there are two moves by 13-year-old ] which annotators typically award a double exclamation point – 11...Na4!! and 17...Be6!!, knight and queen sacrifices respectively. | |||
===+/- (-/+): Advantage=== | |||
This symbol indicates that White (Black) has much better chances. It is usually written as: ±, and the other similar symbols are written in that style too. | |||
=== |
==== Unusual symbols ==== | ||
The majority of chess writers and editors consider symbols more than two characters long unnecessary. However a few writers have used three or more exclamation points ("!!!") for an exceptionally brilliant move, three or more questions marks ("???") for an exceptionally bad blunder, or unusual combinations of exclamation points and question marks ("!?!", "?!?" etc) for particularly unusual, spectacular, controversial or unsound moves. | |||
This symbol indicates that White (Black) has a winning advantage. | |||
For example, when annotating ],<ref>{{Cite web |title=Georg Rotlewi vs Akiba Rubinstein (1907) Rubinstein's Immortal |url=https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1119679 |access-date=2022-03-08 |website=www.chessgames.com}}</ref> ] awarded Rubinstein's 22...Rxc3 three exclamation points. Annotators have also awarded the final move of ] (the "Gold Coins Game"), 23...Qg3 the "!!!" symbol. | |||
==Other symbols== | |||
Some annotators put together even more question-marks and exclamation-points. For example "????" might indicate an outright horrid move, too horrid to give a mere "??". However, use of such symbols is not common. | |||
An exceptionally bad blunder which has sometimes been awarded three or more question marks occurred in Deep Fritz–Kramnik 2006, when ] played 34...Qe3, overlooking a mate in one with 35.Qh7#. | |||
There are some other symbols used in multilingual publications such as the ] and ]. These include: | |||
==== Parentheses ==== | |||
==={{Unicode|○}}: Space=== | |||
Sometimes annotation symbols are put in parentheses, e.g. "(?)", "(!)". Different writers have used these in different ways. | |||
=== ↑: Time or initiative === | |||
These symbols indicate an advantage in the given area. | |||
] used "(?)" to indicate a move that he considered inferior but that he did not wish to comment on further; ] used it to indicate a move that is objectively sound, but was in his opinion a poor psychological choice; and ] (see below) used it to indicate a move that is inaccurate and makes the player's task more difficult. | |||
===↑↑: Development=== | |||
Indicates a lead in development. Also written ↻ | |||
When put in parentheses, "(!)" usually indicates a subtlety which demonstrates the player's skill rather than a spectacular move. | |||
==={{Unicode|⇄}}: Counterplay=== | |||
Indicates that the player has counterplay. | |||
==== Formalized definitions ==== | |||
===∇: Countering=== | |||
Some writers take a less subjective or more formalized approach to these symbols. | |||
Indicates the opponent's plan this defends against. | |||
=== |
===== 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''), ] uses these symbols in a more specific way in the context of ] where the optimal line of play can be determined with certainty: | |||
Indicates the future plan this move supports. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- style="vertical-align:bottom;" | |||
! Symbol | |||
!style="text-align:left;"| Meaning | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ! | |||
| The only move that maintains the current evaluation of the position: If the position is theoretically ], this is the only move that does not lose; if the position is theoretically won, this is the only move that secures the win. An "!" is used no matter how trivial the move in question; the only exception is if it is the only legal move. | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| !! | |||
| A particularly difficult-to-find "!" move | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ? | |||
| A move that negatively affects the evaluation of the position: If the position had been drawn before the move, it is now lost; if won before the move, it is now drawn or lost. | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ?? | |||
| An obviously bad "?" move | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| !? | |||
| A move that makes the opponent's task harder or one's own task easier; for example, in a theoretically lost position, a move that forces the opponent to find several "!" moves in order to win | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ?! | |||
| A move that makes the opponent's task easier or one's own task harder; for example, in a theoretically won position, a move that requires several subsequent "!" moves in order to win<ref>{{Harvcol|Nunn|1999}}</ref> | |||
|} | |||
This convention has been used in some later works, such as ''Fundamental Chess Endings'' and ''Secrets of Pawn Endings'' by ] and ], 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. | |||
==The Nunn Convention== | |||
In his book ''Secrets of Rook Endings'' (Gambit, 1992) and other books in the series, ] uses these symbols in a more specific way in the context of ]s where the optimal line of play can be determined with some certainty: | |||
In 1959, Euwe and Hooper made the same use of the question mark, "... a decisive error ...".<ref>Euwe & Hooper, p. viii.</ref> | |||
*! - the only move which maintains the current evaluation of the position: if the position is theoretically drawn, this is the only move which does not lose; if the position is theoretically won, this is the only move which secures the win. A "!" is used no matter how trivial the move in question; the only exception is if it is the only legal move | |||
*!! - A particularly difficult to find ! move | |||
*? - a move which negatively affects the evaluation of the position: if the position was drawn before the move, it is now lost; if it was won before the move, it is now drawn or lost | |||
*?? - an obviously bad ? move | |||
*!? - a move which makes the opponent's task harder or one's own task easier; for example, in a theoretically lost position, a move which forces the opponent to find several ! moves in order to win | |||
*?! - a move which makes the opponent's task easier or one's own task harder; for example, in a theoretically won position, a move which requires several subsequent ! moves in order to win | |||
===== Hübner's approach ===== | |||
This convention has been used in some later works, such as ] and ]'s ''Fundamental Chess Endings'' (Gambit, 2001), but it can be safely assumed the convention is not being used unless there is a specific note otherwise. | |||
German ] ] prefers an even more specific and restrained use of move evaluation symbols: | |||
{{blockquote|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.<ref>''Twenty-five Annotated Games'', published by Edition Marco, Verlag Arno Nickel, Berlin, 1996, pp. 7–8.</ref>}} | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- style="vertical-align:bottom;" | |||
! Symbol | |||
! style="text-align:left;" | Meaning | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
| style="text-align:center;" | ? | |||
| A move that turns a winning position into a drawn position, or a drawn position into a lost position. | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
| style="text-align:center;" | ?? | |||
| A move that turns a winning position into a lost position. | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
| style="text-align:center;" | (?) | |||
| An inaccuracy; a move that significantly increases the difficulty of the player's task. | |||
|} | |||
===== Chess composition ===== | |||
==References== | |||
When the solution to a certain ] is given, there are also some conventions that have become a common practice: | |||
* ], Chess Informant (Šahovski informator), 1966. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
<references/> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:bottom;" | |||
! Symbol | |||
!style="text-align:left;"| Meaning | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ! | |||
| A {{chessprobgloss|key}} move is marked with at least one "!" | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ? | |||
| A {{chessprobgloss|try}} move | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ! | |||
| A refutation to a try move | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ? | |||
| When {{chessprobgloss|dual|dual avoidance}} is a part of the thematic content of a problem, avoided duals (if listed) are marked with "?" | |||
|} | |||
=== Positions <span class="anchor" id="Position"></span><span class="anchor" id="Pos eval"></span><span class="anchor" id="Pos"></span> === | |||
==See also== | |||
These symbols indicate the strategic balance of the game position: | |||
] | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- style="vertical-align:bottom;" | |||
! ] | |||
! ] | |||
!style="text-align:left;"| In brief | |||
!style="text-align:left;"| Meaning | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| = {{anchor|{{=}}|Equal|Equality|equal|equality}} | |||
| | |||
| Equal | |||
| Even position: White and Black have more or less equal chances.<ref name="CI14"/> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| +/= {{anchor|+/{{=}}|⩲|Slight plus for White}} | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| {{big|⩲}} | |||
| Slight plus for White | |||
| Slight advantage: White has slightly better chances.<ref name="CI14"/> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| =/+ {{anchor|{{=}}/+|⩱|Slight plus for Black}} | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| {{big|⩱}} | |||
| Slight plus for Black | |||
| Slight advantage: Black has slightly better chances.<ref name="CI14"/> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| +/− {{anchor|+/−|±|Clear plus for White}} | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ± | |||
| Clear plus for White | |||
| Clear advantage: White has the upper hand.<ref name="CI14"/> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| −/+ {{anchor|−/+|∓|Clear plus for Black}} | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ∓ | |||
| Clear plus for Black | |||
| Clear advantage: Black has the upper hand.<ref name="CI14"/> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| + − {{anchor|+−|Decisive advantage for White}} | |||
| | |||
| Decisive advantage for White | |||
| White has a {{chessgloss|winning position|winning}} advantage.<ref name="CI14"/> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| − + {{anchor|−+|Decisive advantage for Black}} | |||
| | |||
| Decisive advantage for Black | |||
| Black has a winning advantage.<ref name="CI14"/> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| {{big|∞}} {{anchor|∞|Unclear|unclear}} | |||
| | |||
| Unclear | |||
| Unclear position: It is unclear who (if anyone) has an advantage.<ref name="CI14"/> <br/>Often used when a position is highly asymmetrical, e.g. Black has a ruined ] but dangerous active piece-play. | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| =/{{big|∞}} {{anchor|{{=}}/∞|⯹|Compensation|compensation}} | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ⯹ | |||
| Compensation | |||
| With ]: Whoever is down in {{chessgloss|material}} has compensation for it. <br/>Can also denote a position that is unclear, but appears to the annotator to be approximately equal.{{efn|''Chess Informant'' has given two distinct glyphs for the same concept: <math>\stackrel{=}{\infty}</math> denotes the circumstance where White has compensation for Black's material advantage, and <math>\stackrel{\infty}{=}</math> denotes the circumstance where Black has compensation for White's material advantage.<ref name="CI14"/>}} | |||
|} | |||
== Other symbols <span class="anchor" id="Others"></span> == | |||
] | |||
There are other symbols used by various chess engines and publications, such as '']'' and '']'', when annotating moves or describing positions.<ref name="cisymbols">{{cite web |url=http://www.chessinformant.org/pages.php?pageid=15 |title=Chess Informant: System of Signs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170101061157/http://www.chessinformant.org/pages.php?pageid=15|archive-date=2017-01-01}} ''Uses FigurineCB webfont.''</ref> Many of the symbols now have ] encodings, but quite a few still require a special chess font with appropriated characters. | |||
=== Move-related === | |||
] | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- style="vertical-align:bottom;" | |||
! Symbol | |||
!style="text-align:left;"| In brief | |||
!style="text-align:left;"| Meaning | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| {{big|⌓}} | |||
| Better | |||
| A better move than the one played<ref name="CI14" /> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| {{big|□}} | |||
| Only | |||
| The only reasonable move, or the only move available<ref name="CI14" /> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| Δ | |||
| With the idea... | |||
| The future plan this move supports<ref name="CI14" /> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ∇ | |||
| Countering | |||
| The opponent's plan this move defends against | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| '''{{sc|TN}}''' {{small|or}} '''{{sc|N}}''' | |||
| Novelty | |||
| A {{chessgloss|theoretical novelty}}<ref name="CI14" /> | |||
|} | |||
=== Positions or conditions === | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- style="vertical-align:bottom;" | |||
! Symbol | |||
!style="text-align:left;"| In brief | |||
!style="text-align:left;"| Meaning | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ↑ | |||
| Initiative | |||
| An advantage in ] | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| → | |||
| Attack | |||
| With an {{chessgloss|attack}} | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| {{big|⇄}} | |||
| Counterplay | |||
| The player has {{chessgloss|counterplay}} | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| {{big|↻}} or ↑↑ | |||
| Development | |||
| A lead in {{chessgloss|development}} | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| {{huge|○}} | |||
| Space | |||
| More {{chessgloss|space}} controlled by one player | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| {{big|⊕}} | |||
| ], AKA {{lang|de|zeitnot}} | |||
| The player is short on time<ref name="CI14" /> | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| {{big|⊙}} | |||
| ]<ref name="CI14" /> | |||
| | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| + | |||
| ] | |||
| | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| ++ | |||
| ] | |||
| | |||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
|style="text-align:center;"| # | |||
| ] | |||
| | |||
|} | |||
== See also == | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
== Notes == | |||
{{notelist}} | |||
== References == | |||
{{reflist|25em}} | |||
===Bibliography=== | |||
*{{cite book | |||
|last1=Euwe |first1=Max |author1-link=Max Euwe | |||
|last2=Hooper |first2=David |author2-link=David Vincent Hooper | |||
|year=1976 |orig-date=1959 | |||
|title=A Guide to Chess Endings | |||
|edition=reprint | |||
|publisher=Dover | |||
|isbn=978-0-486-23332-1 | |||
|url=https://archive.org/details/guidetochessendi00euwe | |||
|via=Archive.org |url-access=registration }} | |||
*{{cite book | |||
|editor-last=Matanović | |||
|editor-first=Aleksandar | |||
|editor-link=Aleksandar Matanović | |||
|title=] | |||
|publisher=] | |||
|location=Yugoslavia | |||
|volume=D | |||
|edition=2nd | |||
|year=1987 | |||
|isbn=86-7297-008-X }} | |||
*{{cite book | |||
|last1=Müller |first1=Karsten |author1-link=Karsten Müller | |||
|last2=Lamprecht |first2=Frank |author2-link=Frank Lamprecht | |||
|year=2001 | |||
|title=Fundamental Chess Endings | |||
|publisher=] | |||
|isbn=978-1-901983-53-1 }} | |||
*{{cite book | |||
|last=Nunn |first=John |author-link=John Nunn | |||
|year=1999 | |||
|title=Secrets of Rook Endings | |||
|publisher=Gambit Publications | |||
|isbn=978-1-901983-18-0 }} | |||
{{chess|sp=us}} | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 03:27, 26 December 2024
Notation indicating the writer's assessment of a chess move "Chess symbols" redirects here. For the Unicode block, see Chess Symbols. This article is about the evaluation of chess moves. For the recording of moves in a chess game, see Chess notation.When annotating chess games, commentators frequently use widely recognized annotation symbols. Question marks and exclamation points that denote a move as bad or good are ubiquitous in chess literature. Some publications intended for an international audience, such as the Chess Informant, have a wide range of additional symbols that transcend language barriers.
The common symbols for evaluating the merits of a move are "??", "?", "?!", "!?", "!", and "!!". The chosen symbol is appended to the text describing the move (e.g. Re7? or Kh1!?); see Algebraic chess notation.
Use of these annotation symbols is subjective, as different annotators use the same symbols differently or for a different reason.
This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.Evaluation symbols
Moves
Move evaluation symbols, by decreasing severity or increasing effectiveness of the move:
?? (Blunder)
Main article: Blunder (chess)The double question mark "??" indicates a blunder, a critically bad mistake. Typical moves that receive double question marks are those that overlook a tactic that wins substantial material or overlook a checkmate. A "??"-worthy move may result in an immediately lost position, turn a won position into a draw, lose an important piece or otherwise severely worsen the player's position. Though more common among weaker players, blunders occur at all levels of play.
? (Mistake)
A single question mark "?" indicates that the annotator thinks that the move is a mistake and should not have been played. Mistakes often lead to loss of tempo, material, or otherwise a worsening of the player's position. The nature of a mistake may be more strategic than tactical; in some cases, the move receiving a question mark may be one for which it is difficult to find a refutation. A move that overlooks a forthcoming brilliant combination from the opponent would rarely receive more than one question mark, for example. The symbol can also be used for a move that overlooks a far stronger move.
?! (Dubious move / Inaccuracy)
A question mark followed by an exclamation mark "?!" usually indicates that the annotator believes the move to be dubious or questionable but to possibly have merits or be difficult to refute. The "?!" may also indicate that the annotator believes the move is weak or deserves criticism but not bad enough to warrant a "?". On certain Internet chess servers, such as Chess.com and Lichess, this kind of move is marked as an "inaccuracy", denoting a weak move, appearing more regularly than with most annotators. A sacrifice leading to a dangerous attack that the opponent should be able to defend against if they play well may receive a "?!". Alternatively, this may denote a move that is objectively bad but sets up an attractive trap.
!? (Interesting move)
Similar to "?!" (see above), an exclamation mark followed by a question mark "!?" is one of the most controversial symbols. Different sources have slightly varying definitions, such as "interesting, but perhaps not the best move", "move deserving attention", "speculative move", "enterprising move" or "risky move". Usually it indicates that the move leads to exciting or wild play but that the objective evaluation of the move is unclear. It is also often used when a player sets a cunning trap in a lost position. Typical moves receiving a "!?" are those involving speculative sacrifices or dangerous attacks that might turn out to be unsound.
Andrew Soltis jokingly called "!?" the symbol of the lazy annotator who finds a move interesting but cannot be bothered to work out whether it is good or bad.
! (Good move)
An exclamation point "!" indicates a good move, especially one that is surprising or requires particular skill. The symbol may also be interpreted as "best move". Annotators are usually somewhat conservative with the use of this symbol; it is not usually awarded to obvious moves that capture material or deliver checkmate.
Reasons for awarding the symbol vary greatly between annotators; among them are strong opening novelties, good psychological opening choices, well-timed breakthroughs, sound sacrifices, moves that set traps in lost positions, moves that avoid such traps, moves that punish mistakes well, sequential moves during brilliancies, and being the only good move that maintains the player's position.
!! (Brilliant move)
The double exclamation point "!!" is used for particularly strong moves, usually difficult-to-find moves which require a high level of skill and calculation. Annotators are generally more conservative and withhold this rating more than they do the "!". Typical moves that receive a double exclamation mark include sound sacrifices of large amounts of material and counter-intuitive moves that prove very powerful. Endgame swindles sometimes receive the "!!" mark too.
For example, in what is known as the Game of the Century, there are two moves by 13-year-old Bobby Fischer which annotators typically award a double exclamation point – 11...Na4!! and 17...Be6!!, knight and queen sacrifices respectively.
Unusual symbols
The majority of chess writers and editors consider symbols more than two characters long unnecessary. However a few writers have used three or more exclamation points ("!!!") for an exceptionally brilliant move, three or more questions marks ("???") for an exceptionally bad blunder, or unusual combinations of exclamation points and question marks ("!?!", "?!?" etc) for particularly unusual, spectacular, controversial or unsound moves.
For example, when annotating Rotlewi–Rubinstein 1907, Hans Kmoch awarded Rubinstein's 22...Rxc3 three exclamation points. Annotators have also awarded the final move of Levitsky–Marshall 1912 (the "Gold Coins Game"), 23...Qg3 the "!!!" symbol.
An exceptionally bad blunder which has sometimes been awarded three or more question marks occurred in Deep Fritz–Kramnik 2006, when Kramnik played 34...Qe3, overlooking a mate in one with 35.Qh7#.
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 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:
Symbol | Meaning |
---|---|
! | The only move that maintains the current evaluation of the position: If the position is theoretically drawn, this is the only move that does not lose; if the position is theoretically won, this is the only move that secures the win. An "!" is used no matter how trivial the move in question; the only exception is if it is the only legal move. |
!! | A particularly difficult-to-find "!" move |
? | A move that negatively affects the evaluation of the position: If the position had been drawn before the move, it is now lost; if won before the move, it is now drawn or lost. |
?? | An obviously bad "?" move |
!? | A move that makes the opponent's task harder or one's own task easier; for example, in a theoretically lost position, a move that forces the opponent to find several "!" moves in order to win |
?! | A move that makes the opponent's task easier or one's own task harder; for example, in a theoretically won position, a move that requires several subsequent "!" moves in order to win |
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.
Symbol | Meaning |
---|---|
? | A move that turns a winning position into a drawn position, or a drawn position into a lost position. |
?? | A move that turns a winning position into a lost position. |
(?) | An inaccuracy; a move that significantly increases the difficulty of the player's task. |
Chess composition
When the solution to a certain chess problem is given, there are also some conventions that have become a common practice:
Symbol | Meaning |
---|---|
! | A key move is marked with at least one "!" |
? | A try move |
! | A refutation to a try move |
? | When dual avoidance is a part of the thematic content of a problem, avoided duals (if listed) are marked with "?" |
Positions
These symbols indicate the strategic balance of the game position:
CP437 | Unicode | In brief | Meaning |
---|---|---|---|
= | Equal | Even position: White and Black have more or less equal chances. | |
+/= | ⩲ | Slight plus for White | Slight advantage: White has slightly better chances. |
=/+ | ⩱ | Slight plus for Black | Slight advantage: Black has slightly better chances. |
+/− | ± | Clear plus for White | Clear advantage: White has the upper hand. |
−/+ | ∓ | Clear plus for Black | Clear advantage: Black has the upper hand. |
+ − | Decisive advantage for White | White has a winning advantage. | |
− + | Decisive advantage for Black | Black has a winning advantage. | |
∞ | Unclear | Unclear position: It is unclear who (if anyone) has an advantage. Often used when a position is highly asymmetrical, e.g. Black has a ruined pawn structure but dangerous active piece-play. | |
=/∞ | ⯹ | Compensation | With compensation: Whoever is down in material has compensation for it. Can also denote a position that is unclear, but appears to the annotator to be approximately equal. |
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
Symbol | In brief | Meaning |
---|---|---|
⌓ | Better | A better move than the one played |
□ | Only | The only reasonable move, or the only move available |
Δ | With the idea... | The future plan this move supports |
∇ | Countering | The opponent's plan this move defends against |
TN or N | Novelty | A theoretical novelty |
Positions or conditions
Symbol | In brief | Meaning |
---|---|---|
↑ | Initiative | An advantage in initiative |
→ | Attack | With an attack |
⇄ | Counterplay | The player has counterplay |
↻ or ↑↑ | Development | A lead in development |
○ | Space | More space controlled by one player |
⊕ | Time trouble, AKA zeitnot | The player is short on time |
⊙ | Zugzwang | |
+ | Check | |
++ | Double check | |
# | Checkmate |
See also
Notes
- Chess Informant has given two distinct glyphs for the same concept: denotes the circumstance where White has compensation for Black's material advantage, and denotes the circumstance where Black has compensation for White's material advantage.
References
- "Chess Analysis Symbols" (PDF). chesscenter.net. C&O Family Chess Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2014-07-29.
- ^ Matanović, Aleksander, ed. (1973). Šahovski Informator [Chess Informant]. Vol. 14. Belgrade. pp. 8–9.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - Chess to Enjoy-Eternal Questions, published in Chess Life, March 2000, pp. 12–13.
- "Georg Rotlewi vs Akiba Rubinstein (1907) Rubinstein's Immortal". www.chessgames.com. Retrieved 2022-03-08.
- (Nunn 1999)
- Euwe & Hooper, p. viii.
- Twenty-five Annotated Games, published by Edition Marco, Verlag Arno Nickel, Berlin, 1996, pp. 7–8.
- "Chess Informant: System of Signs". Archived from the original on 2017-01-01. Uses FigurineCB webfont.
Bibliography
- Euwe, Max; Hooper, David (1976) . A Guide to Chess Endings (reprint ed.). Dover. ISBN 978-0-486-23332-1 – via Archive.org.
- 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.
Chess | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outline | |||||||||
Equipment | |||||||||
History | |||||||||
Rules | |||||||||
Terms | |||||||||
Tactics | |||||||||
Strategy | |||||||||
Openings |
| ||||||||
Endgames | |||||||||
Tournaments |
| ||||||||
Art and media | |||||||||
Related | |||||||||