When annotating chess games, commentators frequently use widely recognized annotation symbols. Question marks and exclamation points that denote a move as bad or good are ubiquitous in chess literature.[1] Some publications intended for an international audience, such as the Chess Informant, have a wide range of additional symbols that transcend language barriers.
The common symbols for evaluating the merits of a move are "??", "?", "?!", "!?", "!", and "!!". The chosen symbol is appended to the text describing the move (e.g. Re7? or Kh1!?); see Algebraic chess notation.
Use of these annotation symbols is subjective, as different annotators use the same symbols differently.
See main article: Blunder (chess). The double question mark "??" indicates a blunder, a critically bad mistake.[2] Typical moves that receive double question marks are those that overlook a tactic that wins substantial or overlook a checkmate. A "??"-worthy move may result in an immediately lost position, turn a won position into a draw, lose an important piece or otherwise severely worsen the player's position. Though more common among less experienced players, blunders occur at all levels of play, seen among grandmasters too.
Andrew Soltis jokingly called "!?" the symbol of the lazy annotator who finds a move interesting but cannot be bothered to work out whether it is good or bad.[3]
Reasons for awarding the symbol vary greatly between annotators; among them are strong, good psychological opening choices, well-timed breakthroughs, sound sacrifices, moves that set traps in lost positions, moves that avoid such traps, moves that punish mistakes well, sequential moves during brilliancies, and being the only good move that maintains the player's position.
For example, in what is known as the Game of the Century, there are two moves by 13-year-old Bobby Fischer which annotators typically award a double exclamation point - 11...Na4!! and 17...Be6!!, knight and queen sacrifices respectively.
A few writers have used three or more exclamation points ("!!!") for exceptionally brilliant moves. For example, when annotating Rotlewi–Rubinstein 1907,[4] Hans Kmoch awarded Rubinstein's double rook and queen sacrifice, 22...Rxc3!!! three exclamation points. Annotators have also awarded the final move of Levitsky-Marshall 1912 (the "gold-coin game") the "!!!" symbol - 23...Qg3!!!.
Likewise, an exceptionally bad blunder may be awarded three or more question marks ("???"), such as Deep Fritz-Kramnik 2006 with Kramnik playing 34...Qe3???, which resulted in 35. Qh7#. This is often called the "Blunder of the Century". The majority of chess writers and editors consider symbols more than two characters long unnecessary.
A few writers have used unusual combinations of question marks and exclamation points (e.g. "!!?", "?!?", "??!") for particularly unusual, spectacular or controversial moves, but these have no generally accepted meaning and are typically used for humorous or entertainment purposes.
Sometimes annotation symbols are put in parentheses, e.g. "(?)", "(!)". Different writers have used these in different ways; for example, Ludek Pachman used "(?)" to indicate a move that he considered inferior but that he did not wish to comment on further; Simon Webb used it to indicate a move that is objectively sound, but was in his opinion a poor psychological choice; and Robert Hübner (see below) used it to indicate a move that is inaccurate and makes the player's task more difficult.
Some writers take a less subjective or more formalized approach to these symbols.
In his 1992 book Secrets of Rook Endings and other books in the series (Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings and Secrets of Pawnless Endings), John Nunn uses these symbols in a more specific way in the context of endgames where the optimal line of play can be determined with certainty:
| Symbol | Meaning | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| The only move that maintains the current evaluation of the position: If the position is theoretically drawn, this is the only move that does not lose; if the position is theoretically won, this is the only move that secures the win. An "!" is used no matter how trivial the move in question; the only exception is if it is the only legal move. | |||
| A particularly difficult-to-find "!" move | |||
| ? | A move that negatively affects the evaluation of the position: If the position had been drawn before the move, it is now lost; if won before the move, it is now drawn or lost. | ||
| ?? | An obviously bad "?" move | ||
| ? | A move that makes the opponent's task harder or one's own task easier; for example, in a theoretically lost position, a move that forces the opponent to find several "!" moves in order to win | ||
| ? | A move that makes the opponent's task easier or one's own task harder; for example, in a theoretically won position, a move that requires several subsequent "!" moves in order to win |
This convention has been used in some later works, such as Fundamental Chess Endings and Secrets of Pawn Endings by Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, but it can be safely assumed the convention is not being used unless there is a specific note otherwise. The Nunn convention cannot be used to annotate full games because the exact evaluation of a position is generally impractical to compute.
In 1959, Euwe and Hooper made the same use of the question mark, "... a decisive error ...".[5]
German grandmaster Robert Hübner prefers an even more specific and restrained use of move evaluation symbols:
| Symbol | Meaning | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ? | A move that turns a winning position into a drawn position, or a drawn position into a lost position. | ||
| ?? | A move that turns a winning position into a lost position. | ||
| (?) | An inaccuracy; a move that significantly increases the difficulty of the player's task. | ||
| This annotation only serves to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator. |
When the solution to a certain chess problem is given, there are also some conventions that have become a common practice:
| Symbol | Meaning | |
|---|---|---|
| A move is marked with at least one "!" | ||
| ? | A move | |
| A refutation to a try move | ||
| ? | When is a part of the thematic content of a problem, avoided duals (if listed) are marked with "?" |
| CP437 | Unicode | In brief | Meaning | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| = | Equal | Even position: White and Black have more or less equal chances. | ||
| +/= | Slight plus for White | Slight advantage: White has slightly better chances. | ||
| =/+ | Slight plus for Black | Slight advantage: Black has slightly better chances. | ||
| +/− | ± | Clear plus for White | Clear advantage: White has the upper hand. | |
| −/+ | ∓ | Clear plus for Black | Clear advantage: Black has the upper hand. | |
| + − | Decisive advantage for White | White has a advantage. | ||
| − + | Decisive advantage for Black | Black has a winning advantage. | ||
| Unclear | Unclear position: It is unclear who (if anyone) has an advantage. Often used when a position is highly asymmetrical, e.g. Black has a ruined pawn structure but dangerous active piece-play. | |||
| =/ | ⯹ | Compensation | With compensation: Whoever is down in has compensation for it. Can also denote a position that is unclear, but appears to the annotator to be approximately equal. |
| Symbol | In brief | Meaning | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Better | A better move than the one played | ||
| Only | The only reasonable move, or the only move available | ||
| Δ | With the idea... | The future plan this move supports | |
| ∇ | Countering | The opponent's plan this move defends against | |
| Novelty | A |
| Symbol | In brief | Meaning | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ↑ | Initiative | An advantage in initiative | |
| → | Attack | With an | |
| Counterplay | The player has | ||
| or ↑↑ | Development | A lead in | |
| Space | More controlled by one player | ||
| Time trouble, AKA German: zeitnot | The player is short on time | ||
| + | |||
| ++ | |||