Answers.Body: <p>It should be Ne2 because, as you correctly say, only that knight may move to e2.</p>
  
  <p>By contrast, if, say, each of two knights could move to e2, but one would discover check and the other would not give check, then the move must be disambiguated in both cases. The presence or absence of a <code>+</code> does not disambiguate. Cf, from the PGN reference:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>8.2.3.5: Check and checkmate indication characters</p>
    
    <p>If the move is a checking move, the plus sign "+" is appended as a suffix to
    the basic SAN move notation; if the move is a checkmating move, the octothorpe
    sign "#" is appended instead.</p>
    
    <p>Neither the appearance nor the absence of either a check or checkmating
    indicator is used for disambiguation purposes.  This means that if two (or
    more) pieces of the same type can move to the same square the differences in
    checking status of the moves does not allieviate the need for the standard rank
    and file disabiguation described above.  (Note that a difference in checking
    status for the above may occur only in the case of a discovered check.)</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Cf <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1864/is-this-case-considered-an-ambiguity-or-not">this question</a>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T13:35:24.030Z
Answers.Text: Thanks! In your example, why you say the presence or absence of a + does not disambiguate? If one knight moves to e2 is a check and another is not, to me the notation + will be sufficient to tell which knight is moving.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T13:42:23.323Z
Answers.Text: @Zuriel I have updated my answer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T13:31:47.583Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-21T13:41:59.337Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-01-21T13:41:59.337Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Answers.Body: <p>Only <code>Ne2</code> is correct. There is a FIDE rule that explains what to do "if two identical pieces can move to the same square" (C10), that would lead to the Nge2 notation. But that rule simply doesn't apply here as the c3 knight cannot move to e2.</p>
  
  <p>That said, there is no problem with writing Nge2, as it is still clear what move is meant. I think most software that reads PGN will also accept Nge2 (no guarantees!).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-27T09:03:58.143Z
Answers.Text: This is the most technically correct answer so far. The downvotes seem to come from those who did not read what the FIDE rules actually say.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T14:39:05.927Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-21T14:39:05.927Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.Body: <p>Both are legal and acceptable.</p>
  
  <p>Appendix C of the <a href="https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&amp;view=article" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FIDE Laws of Chess</a> describes the rules for writing the moves.</p>
  
  <p>The relevant article if the c3 knight had not been pinned is C10 -</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>C.10 If two identical pieces can move to the same square, the piece that is
    moved is indicated as follows:</p>
    
    <p>C.10.1 If both pieces are on the same rank by:</p>
    
    <p>C.10.1.1 the abbreviation of the name of the piece,</p>
    
    <p>C.10.1.2 the file of departure, and</p>
    
    <p>C.10.1.3 the square of arrival.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>but note that longer forms are acceptable. As article C8 says -</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>A longer form containing the square of departure is acceptable.
    Examples: Bb2e5, Ng1f3, Ra1d1, e7e5, d2d4, a6a5.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T14:40:25.280Z
Answers.Text: C10 simply does not apply as only the knight on g1 can move to e2. As you note, it would have been relevant had the c3 knight not been pinned, but it is.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T13:35:24.297Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-21T13:35:24.297Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p>The correct notation stays <code>Nge2</code> irrespective of the fact that <code>Nce2</code> would be an illegal move in this position. </p>
  
  <p>In such cases, always remember that the notation should be as complete and self-contained as possible, such that everything that happens in the game remains reproducible, even errors such as illegal moves. These things become more relevant when conflicts arise and an arbiter has to resolve it based on the record of the game. So by writing <code>Nge2</code> you'll have left no room for uncertainty. </p>
  
  <p>Chess notation serves merely as a way of recording the state and evolution of a game in a fully reproducible manner, it is not an implementation of the rules of the game per se.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T14:19:47.747Z
Answers.Text: Phonon, what should the arbiter do in the case that the player writes Ne2?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T14:39:57.540Z
Answers.Text: I disagree, only Ne2 is actually technically correct.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-22T11:23:54.663Z
Answers.Text: @RemcoGerlich Sure `Ne2` also remains technically correct in this case, I'm merely pointing out the importance of being on the safe side in such circumstances, leaving no room for doubt or false claims by opponent.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ellie
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T13:32:25.597Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-21T13:32:25.597Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ellie
Answers.Body: <p>It doesn't matter. The purpose of algebraic notation is to produce an unambiguous record of the game, not a canonical representation that you could compare character by character.</p>
  
  <p>This is not spelled out on the official rules, but I believe it is the inescapable conclusion considering that some parts of the notation are explicitly optional (here I'm talking about the FIDE Laws of Chess); for example:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>[...] each player is free to use the name which is commonly used in his country [...]</p>
    
    <p>A longer form containing the square of departure is acceptable.</p>
    
    <p>[...] an x may be inserted [...]</p>
    
    <p>[...] ‘e.p.’ may be appended.</p>
    
    <p>[...] The last four [capture, check, checkmate, and <em>en passant</em>] are optional.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>That said, the rules are clear that disambiguation is only needed when two identical pieces <em>can</em> move to the same square, so the "correct" notation would be Ne2.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T14:53:45.543Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-21T17:08:09.600Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-01-21T17:08:09.600Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Body: <pre><code>[FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp2ppp/4pn2/3p4/1bPP4/2NBP3/PP3PPP/R1BQK1NR w KQ - 0 6"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>If white move his king knight to e2 in the next move, should this move be recorded as Nge2 or Ne2 in the algebraic notation? </p>
  
  <p>After all, the other knight cannot legally move to e2 in this move.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T13:49:45.370Z
Comments.Text: Dear Zuriel, I've noticed you've rarely ever accepted an answer in any of your previous question posts! Accepting answers that have resolved your question(s) [gives closure](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/163740/actually-how-important-is-accepting-an-answer-to-the-stack-exchange-model/163743#163743) to a post and the discussions within, and it potentially entices more people to consider answering your future questions. Thanks for considering it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user929304
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T13:55:20.990Z
Comments.Text: @user929304 Thanks! One user had criticised me for accepting answers too early and it discourages other user from giving other answers to my question. Since then I usually wait for a few years (perhaps it is too long and I should accept an answer within a few days?) before accepting an answer.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T14:41:28.627Z
Comments.Text: Do you care about FIDE rules or others? Maybe choose some tags like that.
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-21T18:31:10.177Z
Comments.Text: I personally think itub and phonon are giving the more "advisable" solution, meaning the safe way of going about it, which seems quite reasonable.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user929304
Tags: <fide><notation>
Title: For white's next move, should it be recorded as Nge2 or Ne2 as there is only one knight which can legally move to e2?
ThreadText: # For white's next move, should it be recorded as Nge2 or Ne2 as there is only one knight which can legally move to e2?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-01-21)
  
  ```
  [FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp2ppp/4pn2/3p4/1bPP4/2NBP3/PP3PPP/R1BQK1NR w KQ - 0 6"]
  
  ```
  
  If white move his king knight to e2 in the next move, should this move be recorded as Nge2 or Ne2 in the algebraic notation?
  
  After all, the other knight cannot legally move to e2 in this move.
  
  **Tags:** fide, notation
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Dear username_0, I've noticed you've rarely ever accepted an answer in any of your previous question posts! Accepting answers that have resolved your question(s) [gives closure](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/163740/actually-how-important-is-accepting-an-answer-to-the-stack-exchange-model/163743#163743) to a post and the discussions within, and it potentially entices more people to consider answering your future questions. Thanks for considering it.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 Thanks! One user had criticised me for accepting answers too early and it discourages other user from giving other answers to my question. Since then I usually wait for a few years (perhaps it is too long and I should accept an answer within a few days?) before accepting an answer.  
  > **username_2**: Do you care about FIDE rules or others? Maybe choose some tags like that.  
  > **username_1**: I personally think username_7 and phonon are giving the more "advisable" solution, meaning the safe way of going about it, which seems quite reasonable.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2019-01-21. Score: 5 | Accepted answer
  
  It doesn't matter. The purpose of algebraic notation is to produce an unambiguous record of the game, not a canonical representation that you could compare character by character.
  
  This is not spelled out on the official rules, but I believe it is the inescapable conclusion considering that some parts of the notation are explicitly optional (here I'm talking about the FIDE Laws of Chess); for example:
  
  > [...] each player is free to use the name which is commonly used in his country [...]
  >
  > A longer form containing the square of departure is acceptable.
  >
  > [...] an x may be inserted [...]
  >
  > [...] ‘e.p.’ may be appended.
  >
  > [...] The last four [capture, check, checkmate, and *en passant*] are optional.
  
  That said, the rules are clear that disambiguation is only needed when two identical pieces *can* move to the same square, so the "correct" notation would be Ne2.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2019-01-21. Score: 1
  
  It should be Ne2 because, as you correctly say, only that knight may move to e2.
  
  By contrast, if, say, each of two knights could move to e2, but one would discover check and the other would not give check, then the move must be disambiguated in both cases. The presence or absence of a `+` does not disambiguate. Cf, from the PGN reference:
  
  > 8.2.3.5: Check and checkmate indication characters
  >
  > If the move is a checking move, the plus sign "+" is appended as a suffix to
  > the basic SAN move notation; if the move is a checkmating move, the octothorpe
  > sign "#" is appended instead.
  >
  > Neither the appearance nor the absence of either a check or checkmating
  > indicator is used for disambiguation purposes. This means that if two (or
  > more) pieces of the same type can move to the same square the differences in
  > checking status of the moves does not allieviate the need for the standard rank
  > and file disabiguation described above. (Note that a difference in checking
  > status for the above may occur only in the case of a discovered check.)
  
  Cf [this question](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1864/is-this-case-considered-an-ambiguity-or-not).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks! In your example, why you say the presence or absence of a + does not disambiguate? If one knight moves to e2 is a check and another is not, to me the notation + will be sufficient to tell which knight is moving.  
  > **username_3**: @username_0 I have updated my answer.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2019-01-21. Score: 0
  
  Only `Ne2` is correct. There is a FIDE rule that explains what to do "if two identical pieces can move to the same square" (C10), that would lead to the Nge2 notation. But that rule simply doesn't apply here as the c3 knight cannot move to e2.
  
  That said, there is no problem with writing Nge2, as it is still clear what move is meant. I think most software that reads PGN will also accept Nge2 (no guarantees!).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: This is the most technically correct answer so far. The downvotes seem to come from those who did not read what the FIDE rules actually say.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2019-01-21. Score: 0
  
  Both are legal and acceptable.
  
  Appendix C of the [FIDE Laws of Chess](https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&view=article) describes the rules for writing the moves.
  
  The relevant article if the c3 knight had not been pinned is C10 -
  
  > C.10 If two identical pieces can move to the same square, the piece that is
  > moved is indicated as follows:
  >
  > C.10.1 If both pieces are on the same rank by:
  >
  > C.10.1.1 the abbreviation of the name of the piece,
  >
  > C.10.1.2 the file of departure, and
  >
  > C.10.1.3 the square of arrival.
  
  but note that longer forms are acceptable. As article C8 says -
  
  > A longer form containing the square of departure is acceptable.
  > Examples: Bb2e5, Ng1f3, Ra1d1, e7e5, d2d4, a6a5.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: C10 simply does not apply as only the knight on g1 can move to e2. As you note, it would have been relevant had the c3 knight not been pinned, but it is.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2019-01-21. Score: -2
  
  The correct notation stays `Nge2` irrespective of the fact that `Nce2` would be an illegal move in this position.
  
  In such cases, always remember that the notation should be as complete and self-contained as possible, such that everything that happens in the game remains reproducible, even errors such as illegal moves. These things become more relevant when conflicts arise and an arbiter has to resolve it based on the record of the game. So by writing `Nge2` you'll have left no room for uncertainty.
  
  Chess notation serves merely as a way of recording the state and evolution of a game in a fully reproducible manner, it is not an implementation of the rules of the game per se.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: Phonon, what should the arbiter do in the case that the player writes Ne2?  
  > **username_2**: I disagree, only Ne2 is actually technically correct.  
  > **username_6**: @username_2 Sure `Ne2` also remains technically correct in this case, I'm merely pointing out the importance of being on the safe side in such circumstances, leaving no room for doubt or false claims by opponent.  
  
  ---
  
  