I was reading Guert Gjissen’s column yesterday and saw something that was strange to me.
http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt178.htm
Please read the Russian question about the “Checkmate” in blitz and let me know if the answer makes any sense to you. It doesn’t to me, or to another experienced NTD that I have consulted.
Alex Relyea
I am not a director but lets see…Checkmate stops the clock but there was no checkmate because the opponent’s king was in check! The proper response would be for the “checkmated party” to capture the checkmater’s king and claim the game. Anyone who plays a ga.e under such circumstances deserves this finish. Of course, if the person who was checkmated agreed that he lost it should stand. But this being Russia and not America, I guess the arbiters could just decide. Strange stuff!
Doesn’t make any sense to me, either. Either Black wins because an illegal move was completed (Black’s clock started) or, if Black’s clock was not started, White must retract the checkmating move and get out of check.
ANY move that leaves one’s King is in check is illegal, not just the first one.
As far as I can tell, the focus was on the illegal MOVE, and not the illegal POSITION. In the USCF rulebook Tim Just emphasized the illegality of the position and explicitly said that subsequent moves that left a king in check are all illegal (and I think that was carried over into the blitz rules). It looks like Guert’s answer focused on a blitz rule that said illegal moves cannot be corrected (without mutual agreement and the absence of an arbiter) and thus he felt that the illegal position cannot be claimed.
This looks like just one more example where, at least to me, the USCF rule is superior to the FIDE blitz rule.