Answers.Body: <p>If † means check, then †† means a double check.  A double check is when two pieces give check at the same time.  For example:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[White "NN"]
  [Black "NN"]
  [FEN "7k/8/5Rpn/8/3Q4/8/8/7K w - - 0 1"]
  [SetUp "1"]
  [CurrentPosition "6nk/5N2/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 1 2"]
  
  1.Rf8++
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>If this does not apply to the position in question, then you should know that †† is sometimes generically used to indicate a footnote.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T06:22:43.177Z
Answers.Text: Rarely, I have also seen ++ to be used as a symbol for checkmate in older books (where double check only got a single +). This is just for completeness, in this particular case the ++ cannot possible mean checkmate (because of the following Kxf7).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T07:12:55.547Z
Answers.Text: I'm not sure if the symbols in the question are intended to be plus signs (in which case they'd represent double-check or checkmate), or if they're intended to be daggers (in which case I assume they have some editorial meaning I don't know about).
Answers.UserDisplayName: patbarron
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T12:33:53.947Z
Answers.Text: Added an excerpt from the book to provide context
Answers.UserDisplayName: ThaDon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T13:31:57.240Z
Answers.Text: @patbarron I'm leaning toward your "dagger" explanation. Seems like the author is saying "this is the move I will elaborate on"
Answers.UserDisplayName: ThaDon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T13:50:40.843Z
Answers.Text: D M, I believe your footnote theory is on the right track. I think it's meant to state "the focus of the following paragraphs will be on this move"
Answers.UserDisplayName: ThaDon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T15:57:45.740Z
Answers.Text: It's pretty bad that they use the same notation for both.  They should have used a normal + instead of the † to mean check, if they were going to have some other meaning for ††.  Oh well.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-27T17:32:05.427Z
Answers.Text: And yet there were no checks in the OP example let alone a double
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-28T05:20:20.010Z
Answers.Text: @edwinaoliver He edited to add the example after I had posted this answer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T05:03:16.327Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-07-06T05:03:16.327Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.Body: <p>Well, after your update I come to the conclusion that these signs are used by the author to mark the omission of the notation of the respective move by White. </p>
  
  <p>This is not a common usage of them, and I have never seen it before. It <em>should</em> be documented somewhere at the beginning or end of the book. But I'd not be surprised  if it's not, since it doesn't reflect a healthy common sense to use the check symbol of all things for this purpose to begin with..</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T13:24:23.103Z
Answers.Text: Yeah, the first page he has an index of notation and nowhere is a double cross mentioned! It's so strange. Maybe a testament to the need of a non-subject matter expert to review a book before it's published ;)
Answers.UserDisplayName: ThaDon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T13:30:38.897Z
Answers.Text: I posted another page, now I suspect this is to denote "in the paragraph below I'll describe this move" as @patbarron had eluded in another answer
Answers.UserDisplayName: ThaDon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T13:35:22.867Z
Answers.Text: Oh god, a triple chess sign. Throw away this book.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T13:35:25.843Z
Answers.Text: (just joking, but.. really..)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T13:39:39.010Z
Answers.Text: lol, yes. I'm a beginner so I don't have much experience with the notation. As a side note the English notation makes way more sense than algebraic from a visualization point of view. With algebraic, I find myself constantly looking back at the board and counting "1,2,3...a,b,c". And reversing that from black perspective. I guess it just takes practice.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ThaDon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T13:46:58.653Z
Answers.Text: Yes,  you will get used to it ;)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T13:20:47.653Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-07-06T13:20:47.653Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.Body: <p>Single plus sign means a check. Here the king can move, or a piece can interpose (place itself in between the checking piece and the king) to prevent the check, or the checking piece can be captured.</p>
  
  <p>Double plus means a double check. Here the king has to move only.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T10:30:51.403Z
Answers.Text: In the single check, another possibility is to capture the checking piece, something cannot be done in Double Check.
Answers.UserDisplayName: William Nathanael
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T12:34:10.313Z
Answers.Text: Added an excerpt from the book to provide context
Answers.UserDisplayName: ThaDon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T10:07:09.523Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-22T19:53:41.647Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-22T19:53:41.647Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Seth Projnabrata
Body: <p>I am reading a book on chess openings called <em>51 Chess Openings for Beginners by Bruce Albertson</em> and the author uses notation like so:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <ol start="6">
    <li>...†† Kxf7</li>
    </ol>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>What does the <code>††</code> mean? I know a single <code>†</code> means <em>check</em> however the author doesn't (to my knowledge) explain what the <code>††</code> is meant to signify.</p>
  
  <p><strong>EDIT</strong>: here's a screenshot to provide some context of its usage </p>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/dCQhn.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/dCQhn.png" alt="excerpt from chess book"></a>
  <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Qtdb6.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Qtdb6.png" alt="the next page"></a></p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T06:16:19.473Z
Comments.Text: Are the three dots (...) from the original source or inserted by you to replace white's preceding move? Because I would expect the ++ to be written *after* a move, not before one.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-07-06T22:51:38.830Z
Comments.Text: It seems rather bizarre that you have a question about a book but do not identify the book. Is it that you don't know the title and author of the book (the title page has been ripped out maybe?), or you just don't want us to know?
Comments.UserDisplayName: bof
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-07-07T04:04:58.690Z
Comments.Text: @bof "51 Chess Openings for Beginners" -- Bruce Albertson
Comments.UserDisplayName: ThaDon
Tags: <notation>
Title: What does the †† notation mean?
ThreadText: # What does the †† notation mean?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-07-06)
  
  I am reading a book on chess openings called *51 Chess Openings for Beginners by Bruce Albertson* and the author uses notation like so:
  
  > 6. ...†† Kxf7
  
  What does the `††` mean? I know a single `†` means *check* however the author doesn't (to my knowledge) explain what the `††` is meant to signify.
  
  **EDIT**: here's a screenshot to provide some context of its usage
  
  [![excerpt from chess book](https://i.sstatic.net/dCQhn.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/dCQhn.png)
  [![the next page](https://i.sstatic.net/Qtdb6.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/Qtdb6.png)
  
  **Tags:** notation
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Are the three dots (...) from the original source or inserted by you to replace white's preceding move? Because I would expect the ++ to be written *after* a move, not before one.  
  > **username_2**: It seems rather bizarre that you have a question about a book but do not identify the book. Is it that you don't know the title and author of the book (the title page has been ripped out maybe?), or you just don't want us to know?  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 "51 Chess Openings for Beginners" -- Bruce Albertson  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2017-07-06. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  If † means check, then †† means a double check.  A double check is when two pieces give check at the same time.  For example:
  [White "NN"]
  [Black "NN"]
  [FEN "7k/8/5Rpn/8/3Q4/8/8/7K w - - 0 1"]
  [SetUp "1"]
  [CurrentPosition "6nk/5N2/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 1 2"]
  
  1.Rf8++
  
  If this does not apply to the position in question, then you should know that †† is sometimes generically used to indicate a footnote.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Rarely, I have also seen ++ to be used as a symbol for checkmate in older books (where double check only got a single +). This is just for completeness, in this particular case the ++ cannot possible mean checkmate (because of the following Kxf7).  
  > **username_4**: I'm not sure if the symbols in the question are intended to be plus signs (in which case they'd represent double-check or checkmate), or if they're intended to be daggers (in which case I assume they have some editorial meaning I don't know about).  
  > **username_0**: Added an excerpt from the book to provide context  
  > **username_0**: @username_4 I'm leaning toward your "dagger" explanation. Seems like the author is saying "this is the move I will elaborate on"  
  > **username_0**: username_3, I believe your footnote theory is on the right track. I think it's meant to state "the focus of the following paragraphs will be on this move"  
  > **username_3**: It's pretty bad that they use the same notation for both.  They should have used a normal + instead of the † to mean check, if they were going to have some other meaning for ††.  Oh well.  
  > **username_5**: And yet there were no checks in the OP example let alone a double  
  > **username_3**: @edwinaoliver He edited to add the example after I had posted this answer.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2017-07-06. Score: 8
  
  Well, after your update I come to the conclusion that these signs are used by the author to mark the omission of the notation of the respective move by White.
  
  This is not a common usage of them, and I have never seen it before. It *should* be documented somewhere at the beginning or end of the book. But I'd not be surprised if it's not, since it doesn't reflect a healthy common sense to use the check symbol of all things for this purpose to begin with..
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Yeah, the first page he has an index of notation and nowhere is a double cross mentioned! It's so strange. Maybe a testament to the need of a non-subject matter expert to review a book before it's published ;)  
  > **username_0**: I posted another page, now I suspect this is to denote "in the paragraph below I'll describe this move" as @username_4 had eluded in another answer  
  > **username_1**: Oh god, a triple chess sign. Throw away this book.  
  > **username_1**: (just joking, but.. really..)  
  > **username_0**: lol, yes. I'm a beginner so I don't have much experience with the notation. As a side note the English notation makes way more sense than algebraic from a visualization point of view. With algebraic, I find myself constantly looking back at the board and counting "1,2,3...a,b,c". And reversing that from black perspective. I guess it just takes practice.  
  > **username_1**: Yes,  you will get used to it ;)  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2017-07-06. Score: 0
  
  Single plus sign means a check. Here the king can move, or a piece can interpose (place itself in between the checking piece and the king) to prevent the check, or the checking piece can be captured.
  
  Double plus means a double check. Here the king has to move only.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: In the single check, another possibility is to capture the checking piece, something cannot be done in Double Check.  
  > **username_0**: Added an excerpt from the book to provide context  
  
  ---
  
  