Is the algebraic notation Rdxd2 valid?

If there is a problem with this notation, then how can it be corrected?


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 (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 I think will never be necessary with rooks?

  • 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. – Glorfindel Mar 17 '17 at 8:27
  • 2
    @Glorfindel I guess it could also happen with knights or bishops. – Dag Oskar Madsen Mar 17 '17 at 8:38
  • Ah, of course, you're right. I meant that I have only seen it happen with queens. – Glorfindel Mar 17 '17 at 8:38
  • 4
    @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. – Dag Oskar Madsen Mar 17 '17 at 13:42
  • 4
    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. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Mar 17 '17 at 13:54

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 .


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.

  • 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 – Philip Roe Jun 4 '17 at 22:18
  • @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. – Benjamin Wang Mar 1 at 21:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.