@@naveendennis If they wanted complete notation they would use Ng8f6, which is also endorsed by Fide. Using the algebraic notation they would have to use either Nf6 of Ng8f6.
@@Manbun_Carlsen he almost lost to gukesh in the Norway chess tournament and he hasn’t won a single classical game in the tournament AND he said on a podcast he hasn’t studied chess in months
@@Shiro642 Terrible analogy bud, notation is easily something that all chess players should be experts on while on the other hand an NBA player cannot be an expert in playing and coaching at the same time and learn both from a young age, so if anyone is suffering from a low IQ is it's you and the guy above you
I made several Chess engines, so I studied notations, and the extra letter (or number) should only be used when multiple moves are acceptable. So Magnus is absolutely right, it should be Nf6 because only 1 knight can move.
@@alinantal5721 excellent observation, sir! Proves the point that the notation should be helpful and descriptive and a little extra information even if it’s redundant is not a problem.
the code is probably a lot more complicated to take into account illegal moves. In the next release of code, they will put it in now since Magnus noticed.
Then ud have to apply that to every case in the entire game So instead of writing bishop to F6 You’d have clarify the bishop on the C rank to F4 even though the one on the F file can in no possible way ever reach F6 but just for clarity…
@@markhudson5897 exactly it’s not necessary when no other same piece can move thier at that point in the game Same thing as the pinned knight it’s basically a non existent piece in terms of moves
The argument against Carlsen's conscised notation is that while Ndf6 is an illegal move, it is a move that can be physically made with no one noticing it until much later especially in low-rated games or if both opponents are drunk.
The point of notation is to record a game such that it can be replayed. The notation of a move like this simply needs to be unambiguous - what players actually play isn't relevant.
@@evilishieshuh? Surely which moves are ACTUALLY played are important? It is the precise definition of notation, i.e. recording which moves are actually played.
@@cdorresteijnyeah i put it badly. i meant that chess notation isn't designed to specify illegal moves, so whether someone is likely to play an illegal move isn't a relevant factor.
I would argue that both knights actually can move to the square, even if one of those moves are illegal, since the move in and of itself doesn't actually stop the game if n arbiter is called. It is the subtle difference betwen a legal and a possible move.
@@aaronbarlow4376 But less efficient. There is a trade off between efficiency and ambiguity. To me it seems more elegant to be as efficient as possible.
@@aaronbarlow4376 It can matter, especially if you want to store millions of chess games in storage, all those single letters will add up in storage, so yes it does matter.
@@obesecow5706 But the extra letter is going to be used anyway as the string variable length to accommodate the instances where it does occur. You have to understand how computer programs work. A variable length is defined at the start, in this case a string with a length to cover all eventualities, so space in memory is set aside for the variable length regardless of what characters are input. So the 'move' string variable is going to be long enough to account for the times where both knights or rooks could move to a square.
The 2nd letter/number to indicate starting square is only used to make chess notation unambiguous. Since the other Knight cannot legally move, Magnus is correct.
For documentation purposes Ngf6 is correct notation. Ndf6 would be an illegal but possible move. In a classical game this can be played and has to be rolled back when determined before the game ends.
No. It breaks the second principle in the Zen of Python: Explicit is better than Implicit. Python isn't a contest to squeeze any functionality into a oneliner with minimal character count (we have Perl for that). Python is about writing beautiful, clear, concise yet unambiguous code. While the "g" is strictly speaking not nessesary, it saves the mental gymastics of evaluating the pin on the d7 knight and realizing why Nf6 is sufficient notation. That's a huge payoff for a single letter. Explicit is better than Implicit. (I'm not a chess expert but I can't imagine that there is a ruling that the notation has to be as minimalist as possible.)
@@pmnt_ you autistic people really don’t know how to have fun … it was a joke but my son took it too seriously. “Mental gymnastics” 🤣 - it’s really not THAT hard.
@@TanishqMishra_IIT-R bro has WAY too much time on his hands 🤣 He just wants to flex his “intelligence” to a bunch of random people on CZcams who really don’t care.
@@d_15745 or discussing with nerds like us who debate (or are entertained by the debate on) chess notation. It is relevant and adds to the conversation, why not demonstrate knowledge of Python? (I will add, however, that the intended meaning of "pythonic" was probably in reference to Magnus' suffocating playing style, not the computer language)
One day I played in the Nationals here in Portugal, and I asked the referee exactly that. He told me that for notation it doesn't matter if the move is illegal. You should write Ngf6 even tho Ndf6 is illegal.
That doesn't sound logical. Should you do that with all illegal moves or only pins? If the other knight is taken off the board? It is illegal to put it back. Or if it is a square that the other knight can't reach? They are as illegal options.
Players have made mistakes before. If you illegally move a pinned piece, you lose the game. So I see Magnus’ point, it is redundant in a way to write Ngf6, but it also helps specify that an illegal move was not made.
That doesn’t make sense because by that logic the notation should always specify which piece was moved because you could, for example, try moving knight like a rook which is also an illegal move. The additional info in notation is there to remove ambiguity which there is none of in this case.
@@hawkmne …you just proved my point for me, as the notation literally does exactly that: it specifies which piece is moved (queen, rook, bishop, etc.) By extension, let’s also specify which piece was moved as well, if more than one could have possibly made that move, to clarify that an illegal and game-ending move was not made.
You have to understand that the entire point of notation is for reviewing the game afterwards, and so this is simply something that negates the possibility of an error for whoever goes over the game. Basically, just because you the player realize that one Knight can't move there, a person reading the notation might miss it and get off track while reviewing the game.
Ngf6 is just "lazy code" from the programmer. You actually need to look 2 moves ahead in order to write the proper notation. Here, the code didn't calculate anything ahead so the programmer was like "whatever".
Magnus is an expert in chess, well he’s a grandmaster, which is two steps above expert, and also number one in the world. However, he may not consider himself an expert in algebraic notation, which is fair, because someone may be more familiar with the rules of algebraic notation than him (assuming such rules exist). That said, I realize you were probably joking, so my tldr reply was unnecessary.
My 2 cents. If two of any knights or rooks or pawns can move onto that space, whether legal or not, then the notation should clarify which piece was moved. Many people, especially lower-rated players can easily miss that a piece was pinned and couldn't move. Best to clarify.
Coding parsimoniously is my guess. This way you unconditionally specify which knight regardless of pins or illegal moves and you don’t have to write conditionals for when they’re present.
Agreed. They have some subroutine, or object, which works out the notation for each move. It checks to see if two pieces of the same type can be moved to the target square and, if yes, it then specifies the origin square in the notation. Why don't they check (pardon the pun!) to see if the other move is legal, and ignore it if it is, which would alleviate this problem? Well, either they didn't think of it, or it's because it is actually a bit more complex than it might first appear. There could be any number up to 8 pieces of the same type which can be moved to the target square (yes, you can have up to 10 of the same piece on the board, but there is no way to have 10 of the same piece attacking one square, only a maximum of 8 can target one individual square). You would have to check each and every one of those pieces for legality, before you wrote the notation, and if any of them were legal, only then would you include the origin. Now, because you might have, for example, 3 queens on the same row or column, attacking the one square, you might have to go further than just specifying the column, and actually specify the row as well. So, to answer Carlsen's question, they either: 1. Didn't think of it. 2. Did think of it, but realised there was a chunk of code needed to check everything and ensure it was right, but decided it really didn't hurt to have one superfluous letter, on the extremely rare occasions when this scenario arose. I'd be interested to see what it would do if there _were_ two pieces on the same column, both attacking the same square, whether or not it would specify the row. It would tell us more about how well they thought it all through...
Ex-world champion, still number 1 in the world by far. No one takes the world champion title at the moment, the chess world will be focused on Magnus Carlsen no matter what the current world champion does. The world champion winning a tournament is less interesting than Magnus Carlsen tying his shoes.
Depends what you think the point of the notation is. There is no harm in having the extra clarity and in the case of people going through the position over the board, it helps to allow for the fact that they might forget about the pin and get confused later on if you don't include 1 extra letter.
Nf6 makes sense, but in my opinion, Ngf6 makes it quicker and easier to analyse the game. I don't see why you wouldn't just add the 'g' for simplicity's sake
Because the other knight physically can’t go there And this is a GM game so clearly no one is considering the Pinned knight moving there… By writing the g your literally saying the other could’ve gone to that square… The only time you ever write the extra info is incase the 2 of the same piece and legally reach the same square..
@@universalplayz7496 Yeah, true, but if you're quickly remaking a position OTB to find the best move at a certain point, or something similar like that, it would probably save a little bit of time and effort to not have to think about the pin. It is at least more beneficial to have it there than not from what I see.
@@lewisjones284 yeah but anyone replays this game they would never consider the pinned knight to move there So just saying Nf6 gets the point across And writing the g implies another knight could go there which well it can’t
Since moving the other, pinned Knight would have been illegal, the only possible Knight move to f6 would be the one on g8, so Nf6 then is arguably correct.
Magnus is correct here because the software already knows the legal moves for every position. That’s how it prevents illegal moves. To notate ngf6 in this case is an oversight by the programmer and makes me question the software’s architecture.
I'm not 100% sure but I believe it's because the engine checks if there's another identical piece that could reach the same square without checking if that move is legal.
Ndf6 is an illegal move, but it is still a possible move. You CAN play Ndf6, hit the clock, and get penalized because of the illegal move. Just because the move is illegal doesn't mean it's not playable. The notation is there to denote which move you played, not what is legal.
You can make a lot of other illegal moves too, like your bishop jumping across the board to a different coloured square, but we don't change notation to accommodate their possibility.
It's like paentheses in mathematics. Sometimes they are redundant, eg. a + (b * c) is the same as a + b * c but there's no harm in them either, and they can improve readability in some cases
It's because the program isn't coded to check for alternate move legality then generate minimal notation. It checks that 2 knights could get to that spot in theory and notes the move. In any development cycle it would be considered unnecessary rework.
@@Gooeybots The issue is that the notation part of the code is almost definitely a separate from the part that governs the board itself. So in order to test if ndf6 is legal, the logic would need to separately instantiate a board to test it. It would be an additional step of recursion and an additional dev/test cycle. My guess is that they saw it worked at the time and decided that over explaining and removing ambiguity is preferable to another dev cycle and making the notation more abridged. Imagine someone who's 800 or lower rated setting up a board based on the notation hitting that line and being completely confused not noticing that ndf6 is illegal and nf6 could only mean ngf6. it's likely not a mistake and just a design choice.
I think it is to make sure you didn't make an illegal move. So if there is any discussion they can trace it back? However an illegal move has to be claimed immediately...
Saw a comment saying that even Nf should than be enough since the knight can only move to the 6th row. I'm of the opinion, that if both knights can reach a square (pinned or not) there's no harm to indicate which knight you're moving.
if two pieces of the same kind (Rook,Knight,Pawn) COULD be moved to the same fiel u have to write down the starting-field that only occures to the moved piece. So if pawn a3 and c3 can hit on b4 u have to write axb4 if u hit with the a-pawn and cxb4 ,if u hit with the c-pawn
@@blackhitler8572 It's right if there's another knight that could move to the same square. The pin is secondary. The pieces able to move to the square based on the elementary piece movement rules are the primary consideration and foremost in people's minds. Remembering the pin is an additional layer of consideration which can be circumvented by extra specificity. It saves having to work out that the pin prevents the other knight from moving, it saves time and makes for a more efficient analysis. After all in the end, the specific knight that moves to the square is notated and no confusion is created. Is it because the Jews are very intellectual and specific in their analysis that you hate it Black Hitler? Lol
The whole concept of notations is to be able to describe and communicate what’s happening weather legal or not doesn’t matter it still has to be communicated
It's not a mistake at all, both are completely acceptable. Of course Nf6 is shorter as to add the g is unnecessary, on the other hand it helps unexperienced players to immediately know which knight to move. Both are OK
@@PrometheanRisingI already answered that one: adding the g help inexperienced to know which knight moved. Both are correct, but adding the g is helpful.
Magnus mentioned in an interview that he was curious about the same notation question with the knight being pinned, as the computer showed Ngf6 instead of just Nf6
The reason is that there is a general software that takes in account illegal moves because it commonly happens in youth championships that they castle even if there is a bishop pointing in this direction. So, engineeringly it is better to have the full game with illegal moves rather than having none transcribtion of the game and possibly contumation. The only one who can question illegal moves is the opponent or possibly arbiter so therefore illegal moves can be overlooked and the end result counts.
"I hope there is expert to explain this, so I can learn" And he smiled right after that cause he knew no one would show up and explain chess to the greatest chess player of all time
It's a very subtle thing, but there's a difference between "illegal in the rules of chess" and "impossible on the chessboard". One way to think about this is that algebraic notation will still work for chess variants.
Bro is looking for side quests at this point
Haha epic bro.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
what side quests?
Exacly
Some developer realized now that they forgot to take pins into account
That's it. I made myself some engines and studied the proper way to write notations. Only valid moves should be considered. So it must be Nf6.
Just more clear to include the g as someone replaying it fast or reading the notation might miss it. Clarity > concise
Or it’s just easier to have a complete notation in code 😅
@@naveendennis If they wanted complete notation they would use Ng8f6, which is also endorsed by Fide. Using the algebraic notation they would have to use either Nf6 of Ng8f6.
Moving the D knight isn't out of the question, a bit like that stray rook nearly moved illegally the other day eh 😏
Only magnus can answer this as he is the only person who can answer how a knight moves.
Its unpredictable, especially in blitz match 😂😂
Nice reference
😂
literally saw the clip this morning
Andrea burner?
Magnus "If one letter is not needed, I ain't writin' it." Carlsen
😅👍
Haha gold
*1
#efficiency master
Thats jus dum😅
When a chess player outsmarts an entire company 💀
He's not A chess player he is THE best chess player
@@Manbun_Carlsen he almost lost to gukesh in the Norway chess tournament and he hasn’t won a single classical game in the tournament AND he said on a podcast he hasn’t studied chess in months
@@Maple760 he's still the best
@@pratyakshkumar8940 he’s not as good as he used to be but he’s still the best
@@pratyakshkumar8940 😂😂
magnus asking better questions than journalists in world championship match
to be fair, asking worse questions than the journalists would be quite impressive
Magnus calling out for "chess experts" 😂
😅
?? Is this a joke or you trippin'?! 🤣
i think he asked for technical experts
and he smiled after that cause he knew no one would show up and explain chess to the greatest chess player of all time
and he smiled right after that cause he knew no one would show up and explain chess to the greatest chess player of all time
Magnus the kid in school to point out errors in the textbook.
If an average joe asked this in twitch chat then the other chatters would roast him not realizing he is completely right
E
I like Ngf6 because I'm bad at chess
Based
You would hang your king wouldn't you? 😂
I like gNf6
And you sacrificed the...
King and the....
GAAAAAAAMMMMMEEEE
All I see is a 3 letters and a number because I’m even worse at chess than you are
“If any experts out there know”
My guy that should be u
The best players in a sport aren’t necessarily the best with every rule and regulation.
@@magicmulder Who cares, ppl are dumb
@@magicmulder
Yea,.. so many low iq ppl here. Its like saying michael jordan would be the best coach/ref
@@Shiro642 Terrible analogy bud, notation is easily something that all chess players should be experts on while on the other hand an NBA player cannot be an expert in playing and coaching at the same time and learn both from a young age, so if anyone is suffering from a low IQ is it's you and the guy above you
@@magicmulder🤦🏻♂️
Magnus just started another holy war after programmers reached a treaty with tabs and spaces.
Wait! There's an end to tabs and spaces?!
ofc, tabs are retarded and never aligned right.
@@ModestGuitar of course, 4 spaces over tabs :).
There's no treaty. Some philistines still use tabs.
@@ModestGuitar Yes, tabs won.
"if any experts know" Magnus XD
We gotta ring up drunk magnus
I made several Chess engines, so I studied notations, and the extra letter (or number) should only be used when multiple moves are acceptable. So Magnus is absolutely right, it should be Nf6 because only 1 knight can move.
the notation should be just Nf, he can only move the knight to 6th column, this is BS man
You made chess engines? Why lmao
@@alexfoley9103 hes trying to take over the world
@@alinantal5721 excellent observation, sir! Proves the point that the notation should be helpful and descriptive and a little extra information even if it’s redundant is not a problem.
@@alinantal5721 chess notation is a very simple grammar, it really needn't confuse you this much
Magnus questioning every software developer out there 😂
the code is probably a lot more complicated to take into account illegal moves. In the next release of code, they will put it in now since Magnus noticed.
Its just chess notations bro it shouldn't be that hard
What? @@lordcezar4657
"If any experts out there know."
My brother, you ARE the expert.
It has to be written as Ngf6 because you have to record the move accurately to show you didn’t make illegal moves in my opinion
Then ud have to apply that to every case in the entire game
So instead of writing bishop to F6
You’d have clarify the bishop on the C rank to F4 even though the one on the F file can in no possible way ever reach F6 but just for clarity…
@@universalplayz7496 you would only if you promoted a pawn to a bishop when two bishops could occupy the same square
@@markhudson5897 exactly it’s not necessary when no other same piece can move thier at that point in the game
Same thing as the pinned knight it’s basically a non existent piece in terms of moves
Wtf why did they cut out Judit’s answer? 😆
Perhaps her laugh *was* her answer? IDK.
The argument against Carlsen's conscised notation is that while Ndf6 is an illegal move, it is a move that can be physically made with no one noticing it until much later especially in low-rated games or if both opponents are drunk.
Many moves could easily be played by low-rated and/or inebriated competitors - that is not a criterion for alteration to the notation syntax.
or both. low-rated players drink too.
The point of notation is to record a game such that it can be replayed. The notation of a move like this simply needs to be unambiguous - what players actually play isn't relevant.
@@evilishieshuh? Surely which moves are ACTUALLY played are important? It is the precise definition of notation, i.e. recording which moves are actually played.
@@cdorresteijnyeah i put it badly. i meant that chess notation isn't designed to specify illegal moves, so whether someone is likely to play an illegal move isn't a relevant factor.
FIDE notation rules indicate 'if two identical pieces can move to the same square...'
Magnus is correct.
I would argue that both knights actually can move to the square, even if one of those moves are illegal, since the move in and of itself doesn't actually stop the game if n arbiter is called. It is the subtle difference betwen a legal and a possible move.
I agree with Magnus. Nf6 in that case is unambiguous
But Ngf6 is even more unambiguous
@@aaronbarlow4376 But less efficient. There is a trade off between efficiency and ambiguity. To me it seems more elegant to be as efficient as possible.
@@joegreenwood86 To me an extra letter is hardly a big price to pay for specificity. The removal of all ambiguity to me is elegant.
@@aaronbarlow4376 It can matter, especially if you want to store millions of chess games in storage, all those single letters will add up in storage, so yes it does matter.
@@obesecow5706 But the extra letter is going to be used anyway as the string variable length to accommodate the instances where it does occur. You have to understand how computer programs work. A variable length is defined at the start, in this case a string with a length to cover all eventualities, so space in memory is set aside for the variable length regardless of what characters are input.
So the 'move' string variable is going to be long enough to account for the times where both knights or rooks could move to a square.
The 2nd letter/number to indicate starting square is only used to make chess notation unambiguous. Since the other Knight cannot legally move, Magnus is correct.
For documentation purposes Ngf6 is correct notation. Ndf6 would be an illegal but possible move. In a classical game this can be played and has to be rolled back when determined before the game ends.
My man asking real questions
that's the king right there, still asking for questions.
Nf6 is the more “pythonic” way of writing Ngf6
No. It breaks the second principle in the Zen of Python: Explicit is better than Implicit.
Python isn't a contest to squeeze any functionality into a oneliner with minimal character count (we have Perl for that). Python is about writing beautiful, clear, concise yet unambiguous code.
While the "g" is strictly speaking not nessesary, it saves the mental gymastics of evaluating the pin on the d7 knight and realizing why Nf6 is sufficient notation. That's a huge payoff for a single letter.
Explicit is better than Implicit.
(I'm not a chess expert but I can't imagine that there is a ruling that the notation has to be as minimalist as possible.)
@@pmnt_bro whom are you explaining to😂
@@pmnt_ you autistic people really don’t know how to have fun … it was a joke but my son took it too seriously.
“Mental gymnastics” 🤣 - it’s really not THAT hard.
@@TanishqMishra_IIT-R bro has WAY too much time on his hands 🤣
He just wants to flex his “intelligence” to a bunch of random people on CZcams who really don’t care.
@@d_15745 or discussing with nerds like us who debate (or are entertained by the debate on) chess notation. It is relevant and adds to the conversation, why not demonstrate knowledge of Python? (I will add, however, that the intended meaning of "pythonic" was probably in reference to Magnus' suffocating playing style, not the computer language)
This is like a super chill John McEnroe moment.
"If any experts can tell" said the biggest chess expert ever
That feeling when you're learning chess and you make a move and your opponent silently just starts resetting the board.
One day I played in the Nationals here in Portugal, and I asked the referee exactly that. He told me that for notation it doesn't matter if the move is illegal. You should write Ngf6 even tho Ndf6 is illegal.
Yeah. The intention of notation should be that it's readable, not unnecessarily concise
@@julianw1010 You have taken the words out of my mouth! Exactly!
He was wrong
That doesn't sound logical. Should you do that with all illegal moves or only pins?
If the other knight is taken off the board? It is illegal to put it back.
Or if it is a square that the other knight can't reach?
They are as illegal options.
@@Samlaren that is only for pins for what I was told
U have to give extra information, if both nights can reach the same square. But in this position, only one can, so the notation must be fixed.
Players have made mistakes before.
If you illegally move a pinned piece, you lose the game.
So I see Magnus’ point, it is redundant in a way to write Ngf6, but it also helps specify that an illegal move was not made.
See other posts ... since you asked....
That’s a nice way of thinking. I think it is important to clarify no illegal move was made.
In speed chess illegal moves are acceptable punishable by loss of game but not in classical. It just simply is not allowed.
That doesn’t make sense because by that logic the notation should always specify which piece was moved because you could, for example, try moving knight like a rook which is also an illegal move. The additional info in notation is there to remove ambiguity which there is none of in this case.
@@hawkmne …you just proved my point for me, as the notation literally does exactly that: it specifies which piece is moved (queen, rook, bishop, etc.) By extension, let’s also specify which piece was moved as well, if more than one could have possibly made that move, to clarify that an illegal and game-ending move was not made.
Bro is top ranked chess player for 14 years and is asking "if any experts out there" 😂
You have to understand that the entire point of notation is for reviewing the game afterwards, and so this is simply something that negates the possibility of an error for whoever goes over the game. Basically, just because you the player realize that one Knight can't move there, a person reading the notation might miss it and get off track while reviewing the game.
Exactly
Maybe both are accepted. I think it should just be Nf6. Then again, I'm only an advanced beginner, and I haven't thought about this much.
“Advanced beginner” seems oxymoronic, don’t you think?
@@-jmac995 fr just say like 900 or wtv
Ngf6 is just "lazy code" from the programmer. You actually need to look 2 moves ahead in order to write the proper notation. Here, the code didn't calculate anything ahead so the programmer was like "whatever".
@@-jmac995
It's a somewhat common Chess term for someone in between beginner and intermediate.
@@circleo1992 doesn’t change my opinion lol
Magnus just rewrote the whole chess book 📖 😅
Scrolling through the comments looking for any mention of Ben Finegold lol. Dude rants about this every other lecture. 😂
He's always somewhere in the comments lol
“If any experts out there…” Magnus you are the expert out there
😂
Magnus is an expert in chess, well he’s a grandmaster, which is two steps above expert, and also number one in the world. However, he may not consider himself an expert in algebraic notation, which is fair, because someone may be more familiar with the rules of algebraic notation than him (assuming such rules exist).
That said, I realize you were probably joking, so my tldr reply was unnecessary.
@@yunoewig3095 I was joking, but this is exactly how I would have replied to my own comment so I have no issue with you doing the same lol
My 2 cents. If two of any knights or rooks or pawns can move onto that space, whether legal or not, then the notation should clarify which piece was moved.
Many people, especially lower-rated players can easily miss that a piece was pinned and couldn't move. Best to clarify.
This guy is a genius, it's incredible how good he is. I hope he doesn't go crazy like Fischer.
The fact that he asked this question means it's already too late.
Coding parsimoniously is my guess. This way you unconditionally specify which knight regardless of pins or illegal moves and you don’t have to write conditionals for when they’re present.
Agreed.
They have some subroutine, or object, which works out the notation for each move. It checks to see if two pieces of the same type can be moved to the target square and, if yes, it then specifies the origin square in the notation.
Why don't they check (pardon the pun!) to see if the other move is legal, and ignore it if it is, which would alleviate this problem?
Well, either they didn't think of it, or it's because it is actually a bit more complex than it might first appear.
There could be any number up to 8 pieces of the same type which can be moved to the target square (yes, you can have up to 10 of the same piece on the board, but there is no way to have 10 of the same piece attacking one square, only a maximum of 8 can target one individual square).
You would have to check each and every one of those pieces for legality, before you wrote the notation, and if any of them were legal, only then would you include the origin.
Now, because you might have, for example, 3 queens on the same row or column, attacking the one square, you might have to go further than just specifying the column, and actually specify the row as well.
So, to answer Carlsen's question, they either:
1. Didn't think of it.
2. Did think of it, but realised there was a chunk of code needed to check everything and ensure it was right, but decided it really didn't hurt to have one superfluous letter, on the extremely rare occasions when this scenario arose.
I'd be interested to see what it would do if there _were_ two pieces on the same column, both attacking the same square, whether or not it would specify the row. It would tell us more about how well they thought it all through...
Ex-world champion: If there's any experts out there....
Yeah we should call drunk Magnus to answer that one 😢
Ex-world champion, still number 1 in the world by far.
No one takes the world champion title at the moment, the chess world will be focused on Magnus Carlsen no matter what the current world champion does.
The world champion winning a tournament is less interesting than Magnus Carlsen tying his shoes.
"Any experts, out there"
-said by the number 1 expert on chess 😂
Yeah I think you want to keep notation as minimal as possible, so since Ndf6 is illegal, gotta side with the goat here.
It’s because of a feature added to Norway Chess’s premium notation account.
Depends what you think the point of the notation is.
There is no harm in having the extra clarity and in the case of people going through the position over the board, it helps to allow for the fact that they might forget about the pin and get confused later on if you don't include 1 extra letter.
Nf6 makes sense, but in my opinion, Ngf6 makes it quicker and easier to analyse the game. I don't see why you wouldn't just add the 'g' for simplicity's sake
Because the other knight physically can’t go there
And this is a GM game so clearly no one is considering the Pinned knight moving there…
By writing the g your literally saying the other could’ve gone to that square…
The only time you ever write the extra info is incase the 2 of the same piece and legally reach the same square..
@@universalplayz7496 Yeah, true, but if you're quickly remaking a position OTB to find the best move at a certain point, or something similar like that, it would probably save a little bit of time and effort to not have to think about the pin. It is at least more beneficial to have it there than not from what I see.
@@lewisjones284 yeah but anyone replays this game they would never consider the pinned knight to move there
So just saying Nf6 gets the point across
And writing the g implies another knight could go there which well it can’t
Since moving the other, pinned Knight would have been illegal, the only possible Knight move to f6 would be the one on g8, so Nf6 then is arguably correct.
Magnus is correct here because the software already knows the legal moves for every position. That’s how it prevents illegal moves. To notate ngf6 in this case is an oversight by the programmer and makes me question the software’s architecture.
If someone makes an illegal move, do you still write it down? If so, I'd think that differentiation should be noted
I'm not 100% sure but I believe it's because the engine checks if there's another identical piece that could reach the same square without checking if that move is legal.
Ndf6 is an illegal move, but it is still a possible move. You CAN play Ndf6, hit the clock, and get penalized because of the illegal move. Just because the move is illegal doesn't mean it's not playable. The notation is there to denote which move you played, not what is legal.
You can make a lot of other illegal moves too, like your bishop jumping across the board to a different coloured square, but we don't change notation to accommodate their possibility.
Man must be on the olymp of chess before opening this kind of question
queue the Bob Sieger song "Night Moves"
I like the part where they answered his question because I am curious too 😂
A question was just his polite way to say... "guys, you f*d up that one... and I noticed!!"
I like his humbleness n how he puts his point accross.
It's like paentheses in mathematics.
Sometimes they are redundant, eg.
a + (b * c)
is the same as
a + b * c
but there's no harm in them either, and they can improve readability in some cases
Definitely not the same thing.
Magnus out there correcting the computers 😂
Legend has it, Magnus is still investigating.
Magnus" subtle way to say "you done F*ckd up boy"
“any experts out there” bro is the expert
It's because the program isn't coded to check for alternate move legality then generate minimal notation. It checks that 2 knights could get to that spot in theory and notes the move. In any development cycle it would be considered unnecessary rework.
good point, It could take a decent amount of code to program the logic to check for pins as well, just not worth it.
I wouldnt of thought so as most boards need to know if a piece can move so not much extra code at all
@@Gooeybots The issue is that the notation part of the code is almost definitely a separate from the part that governs the board itself. So in order to test if ndf6 is legal, the logic would need to separately instantiate a board to test it. It would be an additional step of recursion and an additional dev/test cycle. My guess is that they saw it worked at the time and decided that over explaining and removing ambiguity is preferable to another dev cycle and making the notation more abridged. Imagine someone who's 800 or lower rated setting up a board based on the notation hitting that line and being completely confused not noticing that ndf6 is illegal and nf6 could only mean ngf6. it's likely not a mistake and just a design choice.
In this case, this is incorrect because each position must make a list of all legal moves. Checking if ndf6 is legal has already been performed.
I love the greatest player on earth asking for help from experts as if he didn’t know what he was talking about
I think it is to make sure you didn't make an illegal move. So if there is any discussion they can trace it back? However an illegal move has to be claimed immediately...
Saw a comment saying that even Nf should than be enough since the knight can only move to the 6th row. I'm of the opinion, that if both knights can reach a square (pinned or not) there's no harm to indicate which knight you're moving.
One technical answer can be that it saves some CPU cycles because you don't have to check to see if it's ambiguous.
Magnus developing Chess 2
That smirk bro try to hide ...
If MC says so,make it happen. No overthinking necessary...
He's traumatized by Twitter when it had 120 character count 😂😂
Same reason you can't move king into "check" despite the checking piece being pinned.
if two pieces of the same kind (Rook,Knight,Pawn) COULD be moved to the same fiel u have to write down the starting-field that only occures to the moved piece. So if pawn a3 and c3 can hit on b4 u have to write axb4 if u hit with the a-pawn and cxb4 ,if u hit with the c-pawn
homie was on shrooms haha
Judit just laughs 😂😂😂😂😂
He is right it should not be Ngf6
Why? Ngf6 is not wrong, it's just more specific.
@@aaronbarlow4376 it’s wrong in chess to specify when no specification is needed
@@blackhitler8572 It's right if there's another knight that could move to the same square. The pin is secondary. The pieces able to move to the square based on the elementary piece movement rules are the primary consideration and foremost in people's minds. Remembering the pin is an additional layer of consideration which can be circumvented by extra specificity. It saves having to work out that the pin prevents the other knight from moving, it saves time and makes for a more efficient analysis. After all in the end, the specific knight that moves to the square is notated and no confusion is created.
Is it because the Jews are very intellectual and specific in their analysis that you hate it Black Hitler? Lol
both knights can land on f6; its to differentiate witch knight moved.
Wow you're a chess player also Magnus? I thought you're a poker player only. Nice side quest.
Imagine stressing about playing magnus and not being able to sleep and hes worried about this during your match. SHEESH
Magnus checking devs
The whole concept of notations is to be able to describe and communicate what’s happening weather legal or not doesn’t matter it still has to be communicated
only one horse on the chessboard ...
GM David Howell : " ... and the black horse ... "
Magnus wrote Nf6 because he is the G
You are the expert. You figured it out.
Magnus innovating chess notation
Even if Ndf6 is illegal, it is still theoretically possible to see it on the board, if the player makes a mistake.
Bro really said “If any experts know’’- Magnus Carlsen
He knows how the knight moves 😂
It's not a mistake at all, both are completely acceptable. Of course Nf6 is shorter as to add the g is unnecessary, on the other hand it helps unexperienced players to immediately know which knight to move. Both are OK
The question is whether adding the g implies something that is untrue based on the rules of notation.
@@PrometheanRisingI already answered that one: adding the g help inexperienced to know which knight moved. Both are correct, but adding the g is helpful.
Carlsen was absolutely right on this. It is the original specification for algebraic notation.
Pretty simple, it didn’t check if the knight move is legal. Just how many knights can reach f6 square
Nf6 all day. Anyone watching the game will know the context (what's legal or not)
I agree. Definitely Nf6
Magnus mentioned in an interview that he was curious about the same notation question with the knight being pinned, as the computer showed Ngf6 instead of just Nf6
Makes sense to be honest, as Ndf6 is illegal due to the pin so I get Nf6. I suppose they write the move fully so it's easier for everyone to follow.
The reason is that there is a general software that takes in account illegal moves because it commonly happens in youth championships that they castle even if there is a bishop pointing in this direction. So, engineeringly it is better to have the full game with illegal moves rather than having none transcribtion of the game and possibly contumation. The only one who can question illegal moves is the opponent or possibly arbiter so therefore illegal moves can be overlooked and the end result counts.
form is temporary , class is permanent
Ben: The famous knight "kdf6 attack" by the famous: "Mr. attack!"
"I hope there is expert to explain this, so I can learn"
And he smiled right after that cause he knew no one would show up and explain chess to the greatest chess player of all time
It's a very subtle thing, but there's a difference between "illegal in the rules of chess" and "impossible on the chessboard". One way to think about this is that algebraic notation will still work for chess variants.