09 Oct 06
Originally posted by nmc987The problem is that the king take is a representation of an ilegal move, it is suposed that after moving the king on an ilegal square you have to touch your clock, if you touch your clock, then you lost, so your opponent takes the king to tell you:YOU MADE AN ILEGAL MOVE.
I would have to disagree.
I have recently played in a rapid play match (in england) where it was illegal to take the king and was clearly stated by both captains before the game.
Therefore if you were following these rules then the person taking the king has made the illegal move and the oppenent should recieve the 2 minute bonus.
Instead of captur ...[text shortened]... e reinstated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, the right procedure to my knowledge is as follows:
after the ilegal move has been spotted by your opponent, he has to stop the clock and claim the win by ilegal move, then call the TD and after it is sure that you have enough time and the ilegal move is real, then you win.
This is an interpretation of the FIDE rules I read a few years ago in spanish.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by Superman7.4 If during a game it is found by the arbiter or one of the players that an illegal move, including not exchanging a pawn who reached the last rank for a queen rook, bishop or knight and capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.
The problem is that the king take is a representation of an ilegal move, it is suposed that after moving the king on an ilegal square you have to touch your clock, if you touch your clock, then you lost, so your opponent takes the king to tell you:YOU MADE AN ILEGAL MOVE.
Of course, the right procedure to my knowledge is as follows:
after the ilegal mov ...[text shortened]... then you win.
This is an interpretation of the FIDE rules I read a few years ago in spanish.
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by SupermanSo basically you have disagreed with me and then agreed with me in the same post - congrats.
The problem is that the king take is a representation of an ilegal move, it is suposed that after moving the king on an ilegal square you have to touch your clock, if you touch your clock, then you lost, so your opponent takes the king to tell you:YOU MADE AN ILEGAL MOVE.
Of course, the right procedure to my knowledge is as follows:
after the ilegal mov ...[text shortened]... then you win.
This is an interpretation of the FIDE rules I read a few years ago in spanish.
All im saying is that in some places (like britain) that follow FIDE rules that taking the king is definately illegal, and the rule is useful to know if you claim it against someone or visa versa its claimed against you.
Also (arrakis) why'd you say this is FIDE forcing their rules on america, i wasn't at all implying they were or should. I thought i made it clear that i understood there is a difference between FIDE and american rules and that it may be worth checking that if they correspond or not. If they do, its worth knowing !!
09 Oct 06
1 edit
The rule bedlam has posted is different to that found on
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisation/fide/lawsofchess2005.htm
EDIT : Sorry im a moron, it is the same just a few different words. I apologise. Will say no more on the subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.4a
If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent`s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by nmc987Taking the king is just a convention for claiming the win by illegal move.
It is true that the person before hand has made an illegal move. But the rules say you must claim the illegal move straight away without making a move yourself. Once you have made a move you have lost the right to claim the illegal move.
So in this case if a person moves while his king is still in check it must immediately be claimed by the opponent. ...[text shortened]... to capture the king instead he has made a move and lost his right to claim the illegal move.
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by mtthwFINE DO WHAT YOU WANT !!!
Taking the king is just a convention for claiming the win by illegal move.
Did you actually read my posts! As i have just said for you benefit, you do so at the risk of losing the game or giving you opponent a 2 minute bonus as stated by the rules. If you take the king in tournament situation and some one claims it against you have no right to complain.
09 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasYour move was not legal. The move should have been taken back and you were to play a legal move. P.S. So blitz rules are different. You stated that his time was expired before he captured. Seems to me you should get the win.
This happened in a blitz game.
My opponent was far superior than me but I managed to hold the game. He was low on time, the flag was about to fall.
When I made the last move with only a king left I saw the flag fall, I let the king go from my fingers and said "Clock!" But at the same time he took my king with his rook and said "Win!"
He claimed a w part.
But what would happened if a tournament prize was at stake? (No answers needed.)
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by arrakisFor the last 2 years, our local Chess Club has been plagued by a Phantom Pooper. Someone has been stalking tournaments, club social events and informal Chess gatherings... lurking if you will and just waiting for an opportunity to pinch a loaf somewhere inappropriate. Despite attempts to beef up security (including 2 cameras) the Phantom Pooper remains at large.
I used to write an article called "Strange But True" for a chess magazine years ago. It was a compilation of strange things that happened at chess tournaments. Well, today I'd like to share something with my chess friends that would've been a candidate for that theme.
I was playing in a tournament in Warren, Michigan today when there was some commotion by ...[text shortened]... but ya-know somehow I can't feel sorry for the guy.
Just in the last three months he has pooped in someone's work boots that were left in a the common area, pooped in the Treasurer's coffee mug and pooped in a large envelope that was left in the President's mail box.
I'm at a loss to explain why this unidentified Poop Terrorist has launched his disgusting campaign against the club, but, membership is down and all events are filled with tension... anybody could be the Mad Pooper and anyone could be his next victim.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI read about that guy on Chess Base! Amazing!
For the last 2 years, our local Chess Club has been plagued by a Phantom Pooper. Someone has been stalking tournaments, club social events and informal Chess gatherings... lurking if you will and just waiting for an opportunity to pinch a loaf somewhere inappropriate. Despite attempts to beef up security (including 2 cameras) the Phantom Pooper rema filled with tension... anybody could be the Mad Pooper and anyone could be his next victim.
Once when I was in a tournament, I got paired up against this guy who had kind of a reputation for bad sportsmanship. He seemed like a decent enough guy though, and I try to keep my emotions in check (no pun intended) during a chess match.
Anyway, he was a pretty strong player and I was obviously out of my league (I was playing in the open section and he was rated a couple hundred points above me). We played through the opening fairly quickly. It was the French Defense, an opening I'm pretty familiar with. By about move 15 though, the position became totally unfamiliar. He'd taken us out of the book and had several threats developing.
Fortunately, I recognized this and took precautions. I managed to save a knight which I was sure would soon be a goner, but by about 5 moves later , he was up by 2 pawns and had several pieces bearing down on my inadequately defended rook.
At that point, I started to feel desperate! After several moves of highly aggressive play, I'd managed to back his queen into a corner. It wasn't quite trapped, but it was threatened, and only had one escape square. At that point, my opponent adavanced his pawn, forking my knight and bishop. He completely missed the queen threat!
Well, needless to say, I took the queen and he was furious! He slammed his fist down on the table and stormed out of the room with his clock running. I just sat there dumbfounded until finally, he returned to the table, now sweating profusely.
He made the obvious next move, taking my knight, and I sat and pondered my move in a game that was surely won. While I sat there, concentrating on the board, I noticed that my opponent was fondling himself. At first, I thought that maybe he was just taking care of an itch, but soon I realized it was much more. As the game went on, the fondling became more and more aggressive and was soon accompanied by heavy breathing and soft moans.
Needless to say, it was very distracting! A few moves later, my opponent left the board for what I assumed was a restroom break and didn't come back for 10 minutes or so. Then he returned and resumed his disturbing behavior while he sat and thought about his next move. At that point, I'd had enough! I decided to get up and notify the tournament director. When I found him, he seemed preoccupied, settling another matter, so I decided to pay a visit to the men's room. The light was off when I opened the door, and as I groped about for the lightswitch, I noticed an awful stench. As soon as the lights came on, I noticed that my opponent had "fingerpainted" every move of our game on the bathroom wall. The game included his own annotation peppered with all sorts of expletives.
When I returned to the tournament hall, my opponent was gone and I was informed that he'd resigned the game and walked out. At the end of the day, when I walked out to my car, I noticed a small booger on the car door handle.
To this day, I'm still not sure whose it was, but I have my suspicions.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by arrakisVestor deserved it.
I used to write an article called "Strange But True" for a chess magazine years ago. It was a compilation of strange things that happened at chess tournaments. Well, today I'd like to share something with my chess friends that would've been a candidate for that theme.
I was playing in a tournament in Warren, Michigan today when there was some commotion by ...[text shortened]... but ya-know somehow I can't feel sorry for the guy.
11 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by arrakisI think he was referring to a situation where the player doesn't notice at first, but later in the game (while they are still playing), he does notice - in which case, yes, he could still claim a win on time. You don't have to claim it immediately as your opponent runs out of time or anything like that. In that Tal story, chances are that they were one move away from the next time control. 🙂 In general, if both players run out of time in a sudden death time control, the game is a draw; in non-sudden death, they move on to the next time control and continue playing.
No, and I've seen players who resign a game then look and see that their opponent's flag is down, but they lose anyway because they didn't call the flag drop before the game concluded. Once the game is concluded, such as resigning or agreeing to a draw, the clock means nothing.
As for the queening/bishoping story, that was definitely the right call. The USCF rulebook does make mention of the "upside-down rook" as a popular substitute for the queen, but that's about the only thing you can get away with. A bishop will definitely not suffice. 🙂
Edit: As for the blitz game, that's a somewhat complex situation. If he ran out of time as he was taking your king, I'd be likely to rule that when it's that close, I'm going with the situation on the board - not to mention that you technically lost for your illegal move, which happened when he still had time on the clock.
As you said you only had a king remaining, the game would be drawn anyway if he runs out of time - you have insufficient mating material and cannot claim a win.
12 Oct 06
Originally posted by Hand of HecateOMG!!!
For the last 2 years, our local Chess Club has been plagued by a Phantom Pooper. Someone has been stalking tournaments, club social events and informal Chess gatherings... lurking if you will and just waiting for an opportunity to pinch a loaf somewhere inappropriate. Despite attempts to beef up security (including 2 cameras) the Phantom Pooper rema ...[text shortened]... filled with tension... anybody could be the Mad Pooper and anyone could be his next victim.
Do you have a url for us where we can read more on this?
I was playing in the C section at the National Open a couple years ago and saw a really embarrassing thing go down that made me realize just how cruel some chess players can be.
There was this real arrogant, aggressive type middle-aged man playing this poor meek kid, probably about 10 years old. They had a pretty even endgame position and the kid had gotten really short on time, with only a couple minutes left on his clock. He made his move, offered his hand and started to propose a draw.
I don't know if this poor kid had a physical or neurological defect, or if he was just extremely nervous to be playing such an intimidating man, but he stuttered terribly. It took him about a minute to get out the words "Do you want to draw?"
The whole time, the man just sat there smirking at him. When the kid finally spit it out, the man said, "What did you say? I can't understand you. You're stuttering." Of course that just made it worse. The kid took about another minute trying to get the words out again.
The game ended like this:
Kid: "Ddddddo yyyyou wawawawant...Ddddo yyo...Dddo yyyou wwwaaant a dr..dra..ddd.ddddr..."
Man: "Flag."
That bastard got up and wrote a 1 for himself on the scoresheet. I'd be surprised if the kid ever played again.