Answers.Body: <p>While it's not ambiguous (only <code>Nfe3</code> is legal), it is better to be specific with <code>Nfe3</code>.  Successful software can deal with both <code>Ne3</code> and <code>Nfe3</code>, but not every pgn parser is perfect, and some beginners will appreciate the additional guidance.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-01-17T15:04:37.417Z
Answers.Text: This. There's no reason other than pedanticism to "follow the spec". On the other hand, being specific is immediately obvious and doesn't require the mental processing of "Which Knight? Oh, the f-Knight".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jonathan Garber
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-01-17T06:05:35.167Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-01-17T06:05:35.167Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew
Answers.Body: <p>just found this:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>8.2.3.4: Disambiguation</p>
    
    <p>Note that the above disambiguation is needed only to distinguish among
    moves of the same piece type to the same square; it is not used to
    distinguish among attacks of the same piece type to the same square. 
    An example of this would be a position with two white knights, one on
    square c3 and one on square g1 and a vacant square e2 with White to
    move.  Both knights attack square e2, and <strong>if both could legally move
    there, then a file disambiguation is needed</strong>; the (nonchecking) knight
    moves would be "Nce2" and "Nge2".  <strong>However</strong>, if the white king were at
    square e1 and a black bishop were at square b4 with a vacant square d2
    (thus <strong>an absolute pin</strong> of the white knight at square c3), <strong>then only one
    white knight (the one at square g1) could move</strong> to square e2: "Ne2".</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p><a href="http://www6.chessclub.com/help/PGN-spec" rel="noreferrer">http://www6.chessclub.com/help/PGN-spec</a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-10-17T18:54:55.647Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-10-17T18:54:55.647Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ajax333221
Answers.Body: <p>It is not ambiguous for only one <code>Ne3</code> is legal.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-01-17T05:50:48.120Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-01-17T05:50:48.120Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Nikana Reklawyks
Answers.Body: <p>Ne3 is perfectly fine, every normal pgn viewer knows legal moves and will perform it correctly.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-01-17T10:55:18.743Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-01-17T10:55:18.743Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: relipse
Body: <p>From <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/1818/478">the answer</a> to my question <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/1817/478">How are PGN ambiguities handled?</a>:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>In the case of ambiguities (multiple pieces of the same type moving to
    the same square), the first appropriate disambiguating step of the
    three following steps is taken: <strong>...</strong></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>After reading that, a new ambiguity surged from that disambiguation, it is not clear what would happen if the pieces that look like they can move to a same square are all pinned except one piece, is then a need to disambiguate even if only one of those pieces can legally move in there?</p>
  
  <p>Here is an illustrated example:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/q2NKN2 w - - 0 1"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Should I use <code>Ne3</code> or <code>Nfe3</code>?</p>
  
Tags: <notation><pgn>
Title: Is this case considered an ambiguity or not?
ThreadText: # Is this case considered an ambiguity or not?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-01-17)
  
  From the answer to my question How are PGN ambiguities handled?:
  
  In the case of ambiguities (multiple pieces of the same type moving to
    the same square), the first appropriate disambiguating step of the
    three following steps is taken: ...
  
  After reading that, a new ambiguity surged from that disambiguation, it is not clear what would happen if the pieces that look like they can move to a same square are all pinned except one piece, is then a need to disambiguate even if only one of those pieces can legally move in there?
  Here is an illustrated example:
  [FEN "4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/q2NKN2 w - - 0 1"]
  
  Should I use Ne3 or Nfe3?
  
  **Tags:** notation, pgn
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2013-01-17. Score: 7 | Accepted answer
  
  Ne3 is perfectly fine, every normal pgn viewer knows legal moves and will perform it correctly.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2013-01-17. Score: 8
  
  While it's not ambiguous (only `Nfe3` is legal), it is better to be specific with `Nfe3`. Successful software can deal with both `Ne3` and `Nfe3`, but not every pgn parser is perfect, and some beginners will appreciate the additional guidance.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: This. There's no reason other than pedanticism to "follow the spec". On the other hand, being specific is immediately obvious and doesn't require the mental processing of "Which Knight? Oh, the f-Knight".  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2013-10-17. Score: 5
  
  just found this:
  
  > 8.2.3.4: Disambiguation
  >
  > Note that the above disambiguation is needed only to distinguish among
  > moves of the same piece type to the same square; it is not used to
  > distinguish among attacks of the same piece type to the same square.
  > An example of this would be a position with two white knights, one on
  > square c3 and one on square g1 and a vacant square e2 with White to
  > move. Both knights attack square e2, and **if both could legally move
  > there, then a file disambiguation is needed**; the (nonchecking) knight
  > moves would be "Nce2" and "Nge2". **However**, if the white king were at
  > square e1 and a black bishop were at square b4 with a vacant square d2
  > (thus **an absolute pin** of the white knight at square c3), **then only one
  > white knight (the one at square g1) could move** to square e2: "Ne2".
  
  <http://www6.chessclub.com/help/PGN-spec>
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2013-01-17. Score: 3
  
  It is not ambiguous for only one `Ne3` is legal.
  
  
  ---
  
  