user15989: Question: In general, is noting a check/checkmate sufficient to disambiguate moves in descriptive notation?
If for example two of the same type of piece could move to the same square, but one giving check and one not giving check while doing so, is it necessary to further distinguish between the moves when recording in descriptive notation?
Take for instance the following position:
r2k3r/pbp1bppp/1p3n2/2p3B1/3N4/2N5/PPP2PPP/2KR3R w - - 0 1

In algebraic notation, according to the FIDE Laws of Chess (Appendix C), we would write 1.Ndb5+ (or just 1.Ndb5) and 1.Ncb5. The '+' to mark checks is optional.
However in descriptive notation, what do we need to write? Is writing 1.N-N5ch for 1.Ndb5+ and 1.N-N5 for 1.Ncb5 sufficiently clear, or do we need to specify 1.N(Q)-N5ch and 1.N(B)-N5?
Further test cases to justify responses with:
1.Bb5+ and 1.Bg5: 1.B-N5ch and 1.B-N5, or 1.B-QN5ch and 1.B-KN5?
rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/3ppn2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1

1.Qa8+ and 1.Qh8#: 1.Q-R8ch and 1.Q-R8 mate, or 1.Q-QR8ch and 1.Q-KR8 mate?
5k2/8/4K3/8/8/8/8/7Q w - - 0 1

1.Bxf7+ and 1.Bxc5: 1.BxPch and 1.BxP, or 1.BxKBPch and 1.BxQBP?
r1bq1rk1/p1bn1pp1/3p1n1p/1pp3N1/4P3/1BNPBR2/PPP1Q1PP/R5K1 w - - 0 1

Citations from sources (style guides for writing descriptive notation/actual books notating such a situation) to support answers would be appreciated.

user20721: The general rule back then was to disambiguate first rather than with the result of the move when two or more of the same pieces could have been moved to the square in question. 
In your example n/4-n5+ [or n/3-n5] would have been used to show that  the horsie on Q4 was the one that moved.  The person moving the pieces while playing over the game needs to know which one to move as they only later will then look at the entire board to see if there was check or other things that might have otherwise disambiguated the pieces. 

user2299: My understanding is that it's OK to use "ch" to disambiguate a move, but it's not OK to use the absence of "ch" to disambiguate. For example, in your first diagram, Ndb5 could be written as N-N5ch, but Ncb5 could not be written as simply N-N5.
I don't have a source stating that explicitly as a rule, but there is some support in Kenneth Harkness's Official Chess Handbook, "Approved by THE United States Chess Federation", David McKay Company, Inc., New York, 1967. One of the games illustrating descriptive notation goes 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 N-KB3, P-Q3; 3 B-B4, P-KB4; 4 P-Q4, PxKP; 5 NxP, PxN; 6 Q-R5ch, K-Q2; 7 Q-B5ch, K-B3; 8 QxP(5), P-QR3; 9 P-Q5ch, K-B4; 10 B-K3ch, KxB; 11 Q-Q4ch, K-N4; 12 N-B3ch, K-R4; 13 Q-R4 mate. The caption to the third diagram on p. 94 reads (emphasis added) as follows:

Position after 7 ...K-B3; 8 QxP(5). It is not advisable to write QxP, relying on the omission of check. QxP(5) shows that the Queen captures the Pawn on White's fifth rank.


15989: <p><strong>Question: In general, is noting a check/checkmate sufficient to disambiguate moves in descriptive notation?</strong></p>

<p>If for example two of the same type of piece could move to the same square, but one giving check and one not giving check while doing so, is it necessary to further distinguish between the moves when recording in descriptive notation?</p>

<p>Take for instance the following position:</p>

<pre><code>r2k3r/pbp1bppp/1p3n2/2p3B1/3N4/2N5/PPP2PPP/2KR3R w - - 0 1
</code></pre>

<p>In algebraic notation, according to the <a href="https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&amp;view=article" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FIDE Laws of Chess</a> (Appendix C), we would write 1.Ndb5+ (or just 1.Ndb5) and 1.Ncb5. The '+' to mark checks is optional.</p>

<p>However in descriptive notation, what do we need to write? Is writing <strong>1.N-N5ch</strong> for 1.Ndb5+ and <strong>1.N-N5</strong> for 1.Ncb5 sufficiently clear, or do we need to specify <strong>1.N(Q)-N5ch and 1.N(B)-N5</strong>?</p>

<p>Further test cases to justify responses with:</p>

<p>1.Bb5+ and 1.Bg5: <strong>1.B-N5ch and 1.B-N5</strong>, or <strong>1.B-QN5ch and 1.B-KN5</strong>?</p>

<pre><code>rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/3ppn2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1
</code></pre>

<p>1.Qa8+ and 1.Qh8#: <strong>1.Q-R8ch and 1.Q-R8 mate</strong>, or <strong>1.Q-QR8ch and 1.Q-KR8 mate</strong>?</p>

<pre><code>5k2/8/4K3/8/8/8/8/7Q w - - 0 1
</code></pre>

<p>1.Bxf7+ and 1.Bxc5: <strong>1.BxPch and 1.BxP</strong>, or <strong>1.BxKBPch and 1.BxQBP</strong>?</p>

<pre><code>r1bq1rk1/p1bn1pp1/3p1n1p/1pp3N1/4P3/1BNPBR2/PPP1Q1PP/R5K1 w - - 0 1
</code></pre>

<p>Citations from sources (style guides for writing descriptive notation/actual books notating such a situation) to support answers would be appreciated.</p>
 20721: <p>The general rule back then was to disambiguate first rather than with the result of the move when two or more of the same pieces could have been moved to the square in question. </p>

<p>In your example n/4-n5+ [or n/3-n5] would have been used to show that  the horsie on Q4 was the one that moved.  The person moving the pieces while playing over the game needs to know which one to move as they only later will then look at the entire board to see if there was check or other things that might have otherwise disambiguated the pieces. </p>
 2299: <p>My understanding is that it's OK to use "ch" to disambiguate a move, but it's not OK to use the <strong>absence</strong> of "ch" to disambiguate. For example, in your first diagram, Ndb5 could be written as N-N5ch, but Ncb5 could not be written as simply N-N5.</p>

<p>I don't have a source stating that explicitly as a rule, but there is some support in Kenneth Harkness's <em>Official Chess Handbook</em>, "Approved by THE United States Chess Federation", David McKay Company, Inc., New York, 1967. One of the games illustrating descriptive notation goes 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 N-KB3, P-Q3; 3 B-B4, P-KB4; 4 P-Q4, PxKP; 5 NxP, PxN; 6 Q-R5ch, K-Q2; 7 Q-B5ch, K-B3; 8 QxP(5), P-QR3; 9 P-Q5ch, K-B4; 10 B-K3ch, KxB; 11 Q-Q4ch, K-N4; 12 N-B3ch, K-R4; 13 Q-R4 mate. The caption to the third diagram on p. 94 reads (emphasis added) as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Position after 7 ...K-B3; 8 QxP(5). <strong>It is not advisable to write QxP, relying on the <em>omission</em> of check.</strong> QxP(5) shows that the Queen captures the Pawn on <em>White's</em> fifth rank.</p>
</blockquote>
