ColonelCrockett: Hmmm, yes. That was what I said four posting ago.

Justaminute: Only if you consider "any language" to be languages that use the Western alphabet. "b1-c3" isn't easy to understand if you're used Arabic or Chinese.

Nothingness: e4 is too vague what moved to E4?

A pawn. If in algebraic notation the piece that moved isn't indicated (either using a symbol, or a capital letter), a pawn was moved.

Now, you say "P-Q4" tells you exactly what was moved and where to, but I challenge that. "e4" in unambiguous. It's the white square, three square straight ahead of the starting square to the white King. But "P-Q4"? That could either be white moving to "d4" (the black square three square ahead of the starting square of the white Queen), or black moving to "d5" (the white square four squares ahead of the starting square of the white Queen).

Not to mention that descriptive notation allows moves like "KxP" or "Q-B4", which require knowledgement of the current position to know which move was actually performed. OTOH, using long algebraic notation, the move is always unambiguous, and never needs the current position to determine which piece moved from what square to what other square. "e2-e4" cannot be any other move than a pawn moving from "e2" (which is always the same square - regardless whose move it is) to "e4" (which is also always the same square - regardless whose move it is).

There's a reason descriptive notation only ever caught on in a few countries, and is even considered obsolete there. Virtual all modern chess literature from the past decades uses algebraic notation. Chess literature from many countries have done so for over 150 years.

Nothingness: That's known as "Descriptive chess notation"; once popular in Britain and the USA. Considered to be obsolete since the late 20th century. (Abbreviated) algebraic chess notation (used in BK) uses less characters, and isn't as ambiguous as Descriptive chess notation. Algebraic notation was developed by Philipp Stamma in the first half of the 18th century (and actually predates Descriptive chess notation).

wellywales: In the official chess rules, no. However, the official chess rules say that if a position is repeated, or to be repeated, three times (including same player to move, castling and en passant rights), the player whose move it is may claim a draw. Also, if no pawn has moved and no piece has been captured for 50 moves, the player whose move it is may claim a draw.
<p>
I don't think Brainking actually tests these conditions - if not, and one of the above situation arises, and your oponent doesn't accept a draw, you might want to mail Fencer, and he may decide the game is a draw.

Walter Montego: The whole idea of two players being able to know the outcome and so don't need to play it out is something I find wrong with Chess

Does that mean you refuse to resign in a lost position, but keep playing till you're mated?

I fail to see why playing on when both players agree the position is draw should be required. Who benefits from that? Furthermore, in modern chess, time control is limited. To reach a position that is drawn by the rules, one might have to play an extra 100 moves. Which might mean ending the game with rapid or blitz.

Of course, if both players agree on a draw, but it's forbidden to "agree on a draw", they could just repeat the position three times, and claim a draw.

chessmec: Many, many moons ago, when I was a clubplayer, we always played with the rules that you weren't allowed to offer a draw twice, without a draw offer from the opponent in between.

But I can't find that rule in the FIDE laws of chess. However, I did find the following rule:

12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any matter whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw.

Failure to comply with this rule can be punished by anything from a warning to expulsion from the event. (Articles 12.7 and 13.4).

Chess Laws