As most of you will know, moves in a chess game are sometimes
annotated with ?s and !s and many other signs. ? means a bad move
and ! is a good move.

This used to lead to some confusion, for example, "I suddenly had a
great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" Here the reader may be puzzled for a
while; was 32.Rg4 a good move or a bad move or just a move?

Recent chess publications have tried to solve the problem, quite
cleverly, with double punctuation:
"White now played 12.exd5?."
The full stop marks the end of the sentence. Anything previous to that
is 'in the sentence'.
The sentence "I suddenly had a great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" stays
the same, but usage should immediately tell one that the last ? marks
the sentence as a question and is not marking the move as bad.

It can go wrong. In a recent book I saw something like this: "Without
this I would have finished last!."

On Feb 6, 6:45*am, Offramp wrote:
As most of you will know, moves in a chess game are sometimes
annotated with ?s and !s and many other signs. ? means a bad move
and ! is a good move.

This used to lead to some confusion, for example, "I suddenly had a
great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" Here the reader may be puzzled for a
while; was 32.Rg4 a good move or a bad move or just a move?

Recent chess publications have tried to solve the problem, quite
cleverly, with double punctuation:
"White now played 12.exd5?."
The full stop marks the end of the sentence. Anything previous to that
is 'in the sentence'.

I hit on the same solution for my own chess writing some years ago.
However, it won't always work.

The sentence "I suddenly had a great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" stays
the same, but usage should immediately tell one that the last ? marks
the sentence as a question and is not marking the move as bad.

But what if 32.Rg4 really was a bad move? And the writer is
lamenting playing it? Then, according to the punctuation system we've
just mooted, he would have to write either "Why did I play 32.Rg4?.",
which ungrammatically ends a question with a period, or "Why did I
play 32.Rg4??", where the first ? indicates the move is bad, and the
second ends the sentence as a question. But that could also be
interpreted as meaning 32.Rg4 was a really bad move, a blunder. And if
it actually was a blunder, we'd have to write "Why did I play
32.Rg4???"
In my own writing I tried to avoid such ambiguities. I might have
written your sentence thusly: "I suddenly had a great idea: why not
move the rook? 32.Rg4! would ..." etc.

On 6 Feb, 11:45, Offramp wrote:
As most of you will know, moves in a chess game are sometimes
annotated with ?s and !s and many other signs. ? means a bad move
and ! is a good move.

When were these symbols first used?

On Feb 6, 11:04*am, "Andrew B." wrote:
On 6 Feb, 11:45, Offramp wrote:

As most of you will know, moves in a chess game are sometimes
annotated with ?s and !s and many other signs. ? means a bad move
and ! is a good move.

When were these symbols first used?

Apparently mid- to late-1800s. The matter is discussed here in Chess
Notes:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/w...C.N.s_622__647

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/w...card_C.N._4319

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/w...N.s_4330__4335

On Feb 6, 6:55*am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:45*am, Offramp wrote:

Recent chess publications have tried to solve the problem, quite
cleverly, with double punctuation:
"White now played 12.exd5?."
The full stop marks the end of the sentence. Anything previous to that
is 'in the sentence'.

* I hit on the same solution for my own chess writing some years ago.
However, it won't always work.

The sentence "I suddenly had a great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" stays
the same, but usage should immediately tell one that the last ? marks
the sentence as a question and is not marking the move as bad.

* But what if 32.Rg4 really was a bad move? And the writer is
lamenting playing it? Then, according to the punctuation system we've
just mooted, he would have to write either "Why did I play 32.Rg4?.",
which ungrammatically ends a question with a period, or "Why did I
play 32.Rg4??", where the first ? indicates the move is bad, and the
second ends the sentence as a question. But that could also be
interpreted as meaning 32.Rg4 was a really bad move, a blunder. And if
it actually was a blunder, we'd have to write "Why did I play
32.Rg4???"
* In my own writing I tried to avoid such ambiguities. I might have
written your sentence thusly: "I suddenly had a great idea: why not
move the rook? 32.Rg4! would ..." etc.

My own solution was different (I don't write about chess much,
hence it didn't matter :-). Chess notation should end with an end
space.
Now we have:

1. Why did you play 12... h3 ? (A question about a regular move)
2. Why did you play 12... h3? ? (A question about a weak move)
3. Why didn't you play 12... h3 ? (A question about a regular move)
4. Why did't you play 12... h3! ? (A question about a strong move)
5. What do you think about 12... h3!? ? (A question about a promising
move)
6. In such positions play 12... h3! ! (An emphasis on a strong move).
7. Never play anything like 12... h3? !
8. A clever but objectively weak was 12... h3?! .

or, preferably (for aesthetic reasons):

8'. A clever but objectively weak was 12... h3?!.

When Full stop finishes a sentence then we may avoid the space
after the space before it.

etc.

Regards,

Wlod

On Feb 6, 6:55*am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:45*am, Offramp wrote:

As most of you will know, moves in a chess game are sometimes
annotated with ?s and !s and many other signs. ? means a bad move
and ! is a good move.

This used to lead to some confusion, for example, "I suddenly had a
great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" Here the reader may be puzzled for a
while; was 32.Rg4 a good move or a bad move or just a move?

Recent chess publications have tried to solve the problem, quite
cleverly, with double punctuation:
"White now played 12.exd5?."
The full stop marks the end of the sentence. Anything previous to that
is 'in the sentence'.

* I hit on the same solution for my own chess writing some years ago.
However, it won't always work.

The sentence "I suddenly had a great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" stays
the same, but usage should immediately tell one that the last ? marks
the sentence as a question and is not marking the move as bad.

* But what if 32.Rg4 really was a bad move? And the writer is
lamenting playing it? Then, according to the punctuation system we've
just mooted, he would have to write either "Why did I play 32.Rg4?.",
which ungrammatically ends a question with a period, or "Why did I
play 32.Rg4??", where the first ? indicates the move is bad, and the
second ends the sentence as a question. But that could also be
interpreted as meaning 32.Rg4 was a really bad move, a blunder. And if
it actually was a blunder, we'd have to write "Why did I play
32.Rg4???"
* In my own writing I tried to avoid such ambiguities. I might have
written your sentence thusly: "I suddenly had a great idea: why not
move the rook? 32.Rg4! would ..." etc.


You forgot one thing TK--it the UK, the period goes inside the quote
marks, whereas in America it's the opposite. So "32.Rg4??" is
entirely different in meaning from "32.Rg4?"?, but in fact mean the
same thing depending on whether you're British or American.

RL

On Feb 7, 9:35*am, raylopez99 wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:55*am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:





On Feb 6, 6:45*am, Offramp wrote:

As most of you will know, moves in a chess game are sometimes
annotated with ?s and !s and many other signs. ? means a bad move
and ! is a good move.

This used to lead to some confusion, for example, "I suddenly had a
great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" Here the reader may be puzzled for a
while; was 32.Rg4 a good move or a bad move or just a move?

Recent chess publications have tried to solve the problem, quite
cleverly, with double punctuation:
"White now played 12.exd5?."
The full stop marks the end of the sentence. Anything previous to that
is 'in the sentence'.

* I hit on the same solution for my own chess writing some years ago.
However, it won't always work.

The sentence "I suddenly had a great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" stays
the same, but usage should immediately tell one that the last ? marks
the sentence as a question and is not marking the move as bad.

* But what if 32.Rg4 really was a bad move? And the writer is
lamenting playing it? Then, according to the punctuation system we've
just mooted, he would have to write either "Why did I play 32.Rg4?.",
which ungrammatically ends a question with a period, or "Why did I
play 32.Rg4??", where the first ? indicates the move is bad, and the
second ends the sentence as a question. But that could also be
interpreted as meaning 32.Rg4 was a really bad move, a blunder. And if
it actually was a blunder, we'd have to write "Why did I play
32.Rg4???"
* In my own writing I tried to avoid such ambiguities. I might have
written your sentence thusly: "I suddenly had a great idea: why not
move the rook? 32.Rg4! would ..." etc.

You forgot one thing TK--it the UK, the period goes inside the quote
marks, whereas in America it's the opposite.

Sorry, Ray, but the American way is to put periods and commas inside
the quotes. I quote from the Style Gide for Writers of Term Papers,
Masters' Theses and Doctoral Dissertations, by Janice L. Gorn, Ph.D.
(New York, 1973):

RULE: Quotation marks are placed /outside/ periods and commas.

RULE: Quotation marks are place inside the following punctuation
marks: exclamation point, question mark, colon and semicolon.

Can you imagine saying "I'm not concerned"?

There are three foci i Queen's study: "authoritarianism";
"ethnocentrism"; and "totalitarianism."

EXCEPTION: When the exclamation point or the question mark is an
organic part of the material quoted, the quotation mark is placed
outside.

He said, "Woe is me!"

I don't have an official British style guide handy, so I can't cite
an authoritative refence there. But having read a lot of British
authors, their custom seems to be that commas, at least, go outside
quotes. Not sure about other punctuation. Also, they use a single
quote mark where Americans use a double, and vice versa.

On 6 Feb, 17:29, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:04*am, "Andrew B." wrote:

On 6 Feb, 11:45, Offramp wrote:

As most of you will know, moves in a chess game are sometimes
annotated with ?s and !s and many other signs. ? means a bad move
and ! is a good move.

When were these symbols first used?

* Apparently mid- to late-1800s. The matter is discussed here in Chess
Notes:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/w..._Punctuation_C....

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/w...Postcard_C.N._...

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/w..._Punctuation_C....

Thanks. Anyone know when, say, "!?" and "?!" were first used?

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 9:35 am, raylopez99 wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:55 am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:



In my own writing I tried to avoid such ambiguities. I might
have
written your sentence thusly: "I suddenly had a great idea: why
not
move the rook? 32.Rg4! would ..." etc.

You forgot one thing TK--it the UK, the period goes inside the
quote
marks, whereas in America it's the opposite.

Sorry, Ray, but the American way is to put periods and commas
inside
the quotes. I quote from the Style Gide for Writers of Term Papers,
Masters' Theses and Doctoral Dissertations, by Janice L. Gorn, Ph.D.
(New York, 1973):


Who died and made Janice L. Gorn the US punctuation queen?
(I will not deny that what "rules" you cite in her work agree with the
Chicago Manual of Style, but, again, that is but ONE style sheet.)
Does PhD Gorn cite the CMOS? I think that its creation and further
editions predate her work.

She seems to be shilling for some particular publisher(s). Do you
know which?

RULE: Quotation marks are placed /outside/ periods and commas.

RULE: Quotation marks are place inside the following punctuation
marks: exclamation point, question mark, colon and semicolon.

Can you imagine saying "I'm not concerned"?

There are three foci i Queen's study: "authoritarianism";
"ethnocentrism"; and "totalitarianism."

EXCEPTION: When the exclamation point or the question mark is an
organic part of the material quoted, the quotation mark is placed
outside.

He said, "Woe is me!"

I don't have an official British style guide handy, so I can't cite
an authoritative refence there. But having read a lot of British
authors, their custom seems to be that commas, at least, go outside
quotes. Not sure about other punctuation. Also, they use a single
quote mark where Americans use a double, and vice versa.

I think you will find that the British usage of punctuation follows a
situational pattern (but there are numerous residents of AEU who hail
from the UK, and they can explain their patterns better than I). If
the pause is indicated within the quotation marks, then that is where
a comma will be placed. I, born and raised in the US, learned from a
very early age to use commas and periods where the meaning lies,
whether that be within or outside the quotation marks.

On Feb 7, 11:31*am, "Pat Durkin" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...





On Feb 7, 9:35 am, raylopez99 wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:55 am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

* In my own writing I tried to avoid such ambiguities. I might
have
written your sentence thusly: "I suddenly had a great idea: why
not
move the rook? 32.Rg4! would ..." etc.

You forgot one thing TK--it the UK, the period goes inside the
quote
marks, whereas in America it's the opposite.

*Sorry, Ray, but the American way is to put periods and commas
inside
the quotes. I quote from the Style Gide for Writers of Term Papers,
Masters' Theses and Doctoral Dissertations, by Janice L. Gorn, Ph.D.
(New York, 1973):

Who died and made Janice L. Gorn the US punctuation queen?

Who said anyone ever did? I cited her book merely because it is a
relevant reference I have.

(I will not deny that what "rules" you cite in her work agree with the
Chicago Manual of Style,

Then it would seem we have no important point of disagreement in the
topic at hand.

but, again, that is but ONE style sheet.)

Yes, that is quite obvious. One book is one book. In general I have
found 1 = 1 to be a very sound equation (trinitarian mysticism
notwithstanding).

Does PhD Gorn cite the CMOS? *I think that its creation and further
editions predate her work.

Couldn't say. Probably the main difference between Gorn's book and
the CMOS is that (as her title indicates) Gorn concentrates more on
academic papers: masters' theses, doctoral dissertations etc.

She seems to be shilling for some particular publisher(s). *Do you
know which?

Sorry, I see no "shilling" in her book. It was published by Simon
and Schuster, but putting the publisher's name on a book is customary
and hardly qualifies as shilling.