Answers.Body: <p>There is no problem with this notation . Chess Board is divided into 1-8 ranks and a-h files . </p>
  
  <p>When a Rook standing on different ranks and have one common attacking Square or same Piece then we use R(1-8) * Square number . eg of such moves are R7e3,R2e3 .</p>
  
  <p>When Rook standing on different Files and have one common attacking Square or same Piece then we use R(a-h) * Square number. eg of such common moves when we are almost completing the Development Rad1,Rfe1.</p>
  
  <p>You may even remove the asterisk in both cases .</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-14T09:48:25.837Z
Answers.Text: -1 It is an “x”, *not* an asterisk. I have never seen an asterisk used in chess notation. This answer is difficult to read. This is partly because of the broken English, but also because of this phrase: “have one common attacking Square or same Piece”. What does this mean?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Drake
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-17T08:41:39.140Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-03-17T08:41:39.140Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Seth Projnabrata
Answers.Body: <p>If this notation is needed to differentiate between 2 rooks on the "d" file, then it is valid,  If there's only one rook on the "d" file, it's not invalid, but redundant.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-06-04T22:18:58.850Z
Answers.Text: Just out of perversity, you might have promoted two pawns to Rooks so that you now have four of the things, placed on d8,d1,a2,h2, and if one of them captures on d2 you will need to specify both rank and file. Well, I thought was funny
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T21:59:17.547Z
Answers.Text: @PhilipRoe No. (Although the same perverse thinking led me to search for this question) In your example, Rd8xd2 = R8xd2, Rd1xd2 = R1xd2, Ra2xd2 = Raxd2, Rh2xd2 = Rhxd2. In fact, the necessity for "full specification" is only possible with Queens, Knights, or Bishops. See the comment thread in the accepted answer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Benjamin Wang
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-14T09:51:51.187Z
Answers.Text: -1 This answer has it backwards. If there is only one rook on the d-file (but there is also a rook on the second rank that can capture on d2), that is precisely when this notation *should* be used. This notation *cannot* differentiate between two rooks on the d-file; this requires a rank.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Drake
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-06-04T19:17:24.197Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-06-04T19:17:24.197Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: CConero
Answers.Body: <p>If you have two rooks, standing on different files (one of them on the <code>d</code>-file), that could capture on <code>d2</code>, then <code>Rdxd2</code> is the correct notation.</p>
  <p>If you have two rooks on the <code>d</code>-file, and both can take on <code>d2</code>, then use the rank number to disambiguate, for instance <code>R1xd2</code>.</p>
  <p>This is according to the Algebraic System required by FIDE's <a href="http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?view=article&amp;id=171" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Laws of Chess</a> (see appendix C, paragraph C.10).</p>
  <p>In the very, very rare case that you have more than two pieces of the same kind that can capture on the same square, it might be necessary to use both rank and file to disambiguate. This could theoretically be needed for queens, bishops and knights, but never for rooks. As Martin Bonner explains in the comments, for this to be necessary you would need to have a piece which is on the same rank as another of the same kind and the same file as a third of the same kind, and all three attack the same square. That is not possible with rooks.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-17T08:27:21.380Z
Answers.Text: That will never be necessary with rooks; it can only happen with queens. E.g. with queens on a1, b1 and a2, Qa1xb2 is the same move in short and in long algebraic notation.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-17T08:38:22.583Z
Answers.Text: @Glorfindel I guess it could also happen with knights or bishops.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dag Oskar Madsen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-17T08:38:57.493Z
Answers.Text: Ah, of course, you're right. I meant that I have only *seen* it happen with queens.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-17T13:33:46.913Z
Answers.Text: Why can't it happen with rooks?  If you have rooks on `d1`, `d3`, `c2`, and `e2` then they can all capture on `d2`, (ignoring discovered check).  I concede that this is not a particularly common position in normal play.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Martin Bonner supports Monica
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-17T13:42:07.047Z
Answers.Text: @MartinBonner True, but in your example you only need rank _or_ file to disambiguate, you don't need both for the same move: `R1xd2`, `R3xd2`, `Rcxd2`, `Rexd2`.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dag Oskar Madsen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-17T13:54:55.993Z
Answers.Text: Ah yes, of course.  You need to have a piece which is on the same rank as another and the same file as a third, and all three can attack a square - and that is *not* possible with rooks.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Martin Bonner supports Monica
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-14T09:55:22.320Z
Answers.Text: @DagOskarMadsen It looks like you are still around; I suggest you delete the words “I think” from your answer and add a brief explanation of why it will never be necessary (or delete that whole paragraph).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Drake
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-15T10:38:55.760Z
Answers.Text: @BrianDrake Thanks. I will when I have time.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dag Oskar Madsen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-17T07:24:53.350Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-03-17T19:38:12.427Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-03-17T19:38:12.427Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dag Oskar Madsen
Body: <p>Is the algebraic notation <code>Rdxd2</code> valid?</p>
  
  <p>If there is a problem with this notation, then how can it be corrected?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-18T01:19:24.043Z
Comments.Text: Even "R2d2" could be valid :-)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Noam D. Elkies
Tags: <notation><rooks>
Title: Is "Rdxd2" algebraic chess notation valid?
ThreadText: # Is "Rdxd2" algebraic chess notation valid?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-17)
  
  Is the algebraic notation `Rdxd2` valid?
  
  If there is a problem with this notation, then how can it be corrected?
  
  **Tags:** notation, rooks
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Even "R2d2" could be valid :-)  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2017-03-17. Score: 18 | Accepted answer
  
  If you have two rooks, standing on different files (one of them on the `d`-file), that could capture on `d2`, then `Rdxd2` is the correct notation.
  
  If you have two rooks on the `d`-file, and both can take on `d2`, then use the rank number to disambiguate, for instance `R1xd2`.
  
  This is according to the Algebraic System required by FIDE's [Laws of Chess](http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?view=article&id=171) (see appendix C, paragraph C.10).
  
  In the very, very rare case that you have more than two pieces of the same kind that can capture on the same square, it might be necessary to use both rank and file to disambiguate. This could theoretically be needed for queens, bishops and knights, but never for rooks. As Martin Bonner explains in the comments, for this to be necessary you would need to have a piece which is on the same rank as another of the same kind and the same file as a third of the same kind, and all three attack the same square. That is not possible with rooks.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: That will never be necessary with rooks; it can only happen with queens. E.g. with queens on a1, b1 and a2, Qa1xb2 is the same move in short and in long algebraic notation.  
  > **username_7**: @username_8 I guess it could also happen with knights or bishops.  
  > **username_8**: Ah, of course, you're right. I meant that I have only *seen* it happen with queens.  
  > **username_9**: Why can't it happen with rooks?  If you have rooks on `d1`, `d3`, `c2`, and `e2` then they can all capture on `d2`, (ignoring discovered check).  I concede that this is not a particularly common position in normal play.  
  > **username_7**: @MartinBonner True, but in your example you only need rank _or_ file to disambiguate, you don't need both for the same move: `R1xd2`, `R3xd2`, `Rcxd2`, `Rexd2`.  
  > **username_9**: Ah yes, of course.  You need to have a piece which is on the same rank as another and the same file as a third, and all three can attack a square - and that is *not* possible with rooks.  
  > **username_3**: @DagOskarMadsen It looks like you are still around; I suggest you delete the words “I think” from your answer and add a brief explanation of why it will never be necessary (or delete that whole paragraph).  
  > **username_7**: @BrianDrake Thanks. I will when I have time.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2017-03-17. Score: 0
  
  There is no problem with this notation . Chess Board is divided into 1-8 ranks and a-h files .
  
  When a Rook standing on different ranks and have one common attacking Square or same Piece then we use R(1-8) \* Square number . eg of such moves are R7e3,R2e3 .
  
  When Rook standing on different Files and have one common attacking Square or same Piece then we use R(a-h) \* Square number. eg of such common moves when we are almost completing the Development Rad1,Rfe1.
  
  You may even remove the asterisk in both cases .
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: -1 It is an “x”, *not* an asterisk. I have never seen an asterisk used in chess notation. This answer is difficult to read. This is partly because of the broken English, but also because of this phrase: “have one common attacking Square or same Piece”. What does this mean?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2017-06-04. Score: -1
  
  If this notation is needed to differentiate between 2 rooks on the "d" file, then it is valid, If there's only one rook on the "d" file, it's not invalid, but redundant.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: Just out of perversity, you might have promoted two pawns to Rooks so that you now have four of the things, placed on d8,d1,a2,h2, and if one of them captures on d2 you will need to specify both rank and file. Well, I thought was funny  
  > **username_6**: @PhilipRoe No. (Although the same perverse thinking led me to search for this question) In your example, Rd8xd2 = R8xd2, Rd1xd2 = R1xd2, Ra2xd2 = Raxd2, Rh2xd2 = Rhxd2. In fact, the necessity for "full specification" is only possible with Queens, Knights, or Bishops. See the comment thread in the accepted answer.  
  > **username_3**: -1 This answer has it backwards. If there is only one rook on the d-file (but there is also a rook on the second rank that can capture on d2), that is precisely when this notation *should* be used. This notation *cannot* differentiate between two rooks on the d-file; this requires a rank.  
  
  ---
  
  