As with USCF, the FIDE rule states “An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock”. Effectively this means you can fix an illegal move before you press the clock. Certainly this helps if you accidentally drop a piece on to an illegal square while trying to move it.
An interesting corollary to this is that it’s generally common knowledge that you can’t claim a win by “capturing the king” in a FIDE blitz game. This move would also be an “illegal move” and can be claimed by the opponent. However, since it’s patently obvious a player is not going to hit his clock after capturing the king, what is the correct procedure in handling this scenario?
Is the game over? Does the player who first made the illegal move get to redo his move? This would be true if we revert back to the position before the irregularity.
The following rule seem to be come into play:
Judging from this rule, it seems to me that if the king is “captured” or another move is made (but without pressing the clock yet), then the original illegal position stands. The king capturer gets to put back his piece and make some other move (with touch move in play) and the game continues even with the illegal position in place. The exception to this is that the players may correct the position if both of them agree. In addition it would be wrong to declare the game lost by either player.
If I capture your king but don’t press the clock, I haven’t moved yet. Thus shouldn’t I still be able to call out your illegal move under the rule you cite?
No, because you have made a move (albeit illegal) yourself.
In this case, if the player who captures the king does not press the clock, he is obliged to make a legal move (if possible) with the piece used to capture the opponent’s king. (In this case, it does not matter whether the player touched his own piece first or the opponent’s king first, as it is never legal to capture the king.) If he does make a legal move and presses the clock, there is no penalty.
Don’t forget that the FIDE Laws of Chess does not have the notion of “determining” a move vs. “completing” a move. That is why under the FIDE Laws of Chess the sequence of events “White moves, Black moves, White presses the clock, Black presses the clock” is perfectly legal regardless of time control. Under US Chess rules, this is only legal under blitz rules. (In the US Chess blitz rules, a legal move is determined and completed at the same time, not just if it produces checkmate or stalemate.)
So if White has Qh3, Kg1; Black has Kf8, Ph7, Pc2, Pd2. White plays Qf1+ planning either Qe2+ or Qg2+ followed by taking the d and c pawns. Black plays d1=Q instead. White plays Qxf8?!?! Instead of winding back to Black playing a move to get out of check, White has to play a legal move with the Queen, which results in Black trading Queens and promoting the second pawn, winning. Is that how the FIDE rule would work? It sounds like sucker plays will be on in dead busted positions.
The player (A) who captured the king made an illegal move according to FIDE rules. In FIDE blitz, an illegal move is “game over,” right? Problem is, the opponent (B) left her king en prise on the previous move. Now what? Does A get to correct his move AND make a claim regarding B’s illegal move? Does A lose automatically? Or does A correct his move, hit the clock and they play on?
(IIRC, the arbiter’s ruling was that A did not complete his illegal move – taking the king – because he did not press his clock; therefore B lost due to her illegal move in leaving her king en prise. Bill, correct me if I have that wrong.)
(For all you lurkers, I am not the “Bill” referenced in the immediately preceding post. That “Bill” was the OP.)
Okay, let’s say player (B) leaves her king en prise and presses the clock, then player (A) captures the king and presses the clock. Player (B) doesn’t notice, and plays another move and presses the clock. What happens now? Must the game continue, without (B) having a king, because neither player has called the other’s illegal move in time?
The blitz rules, both FIDE and USCF, are so mushy that absurdity can easily be heaped on absurdity in such a way that no arbiter, regardless of experience or training, could possibly come up with a reasonable ruling that would comply with all the rules.
I don’t quite agree. The terminology is different, but the notion is the same. Under either set of rules, once the hand has released the piece after moving it, the move can no longer be retracted. And, again under either set of rules, the player’s flag must remain up after the clock is pressed, to avoid a time forfeit.
For me there are 3 scenarios here, assuming you are using the unsupervised rule (B4):
Player A makes an illegal move and presses his clock. Player B then captures Player A’s king and…
presses his clock. Player B loses.
stops the clocks. Player B loses as stopping the clocks for no valid reason is now an illegal move.
doesn’t press his clock. Player B has until he presses his clock to correct his illegal move and he can also still claim Player A’s illegal move because he has not made his (legal) move.
Please also remember the side note that the game is drawn if the claimant cannot checkmate the opponent by any series of legal moves.
My ruling in this instance would be the game continues. However, Player A will never be able to win because if Player B makes another illegal move or loses on time then Player A cannot possibly checkmate by any series of legal moves so the game is drawn.
That’s a difference between referring to an illegal move and an illegal position. The standard rules do refer to an illegal position but the rapid/blitz only refer to an illegal move. Maybe after a few technically correct rulings giving a win or draw to a king-less player, FIDE will put some sanity into those rules.
Your example 3 is closest to what happened: A left her king en prise and hit the clock. B took A’s king and declared that A had lost, and did not press his clock. Arbiter said “game over, B wins because he didn’t press his clock and A made an illegal move.”
(As a practical matter it would have been useless for the arbiter to say “B didn’t press his clock, so he gets to correct his illegal move then claim his win.”)
Checkmate would have been possible for either side.
I now know how to apply this rule. Still, to me and to others who were watching, the weird thing about FIDE’s “you can’t take the king” rule is: Normally someone wouldn’t take a king and then hit the clock. When you take the king it’s “game over.” So I wonder a bit at the purpose of the rule.
Anyway, we discussed it for a couple of minutes, then A let it go, B got the win and A and B played the other game in the double round.
That certainly seems correct according to the rule. That’s why I used the word “absurdity” twice in my previous post.
Incidentally, if you remove the passage I displayed in red above, your statement remains equally valid.
Here’s another one:
Black to move.
Scenario 1. Black plays Kb2 and presses her clock. White plays BxK and presses his clock. Black claims “Illegal. I win.” White retorts, “Hold on just a cotton-pickin’ minute. If BxK is illegal, then I have no legal moves. Stalemate.” What is the ruling?
Scenario 2. Black plays Kb2 and presses her clock. White plays BxK but does not press his clock. Black says “Illegal, but you have not yet pressed your clock. Please take back your move and make a legal move.” White responds “OK”, restores the bishop to a1 and the king to b2, then claims “I have no legal moves, and I’m not in check. Stalemate.” What is the ruling?
Example 3 is closest to what happened: A left her king en prise and hit the clock. B took A’s king and declared that A had lost, and did not press his clock. A said “wait, you’re not allowed to take the king in FIDE blitz.” Arbiter comes to board. Arbiter said “game over, B wins because he didn’t press his clock and A made an illegal move.”
But B lost the right to claim an illegal move by touching a piece. I still think the arbiter should have waited for B to restore the king to its previous position and make a legal move with the “capturing piece”, press the clock, or allow his time to expire. In the first case, play on, in either of the latter two, B loses. In no event should A lose.
I await correction and an explanation as to why I am wrong.
Going with the most probable scenario (player A makes illegal move, presses clock, player B “captures” king, player A points out that capturing the king is illegal - player B has not pressed his clock. Why would he?) I see 3 basic possibilities (also for simplicity taking the assumption that checkmate is possible for both sides):
Player A wins
Player B wins
Game continues with illegal position with B to move and touch move possibly in effect.
Option 1 seems to be the common belief. This is what I have commonly heard in the past. Researching this topic a bit on the internet, I find this to be most common answer. But, this is from players, not arbiters. However, I don’t see this as valid since article 7.5.1 explicitly states “an illegal move is completed once a player has pressed his clock.” Although it is not explicitly stated one can infer from this that you can fix an illegal move if you haven’t pressed your clock yet.
On the other hand article 1.4.1 explicitly states “‘capturing’ the opponent’s king is not allowed.” It doesn’t state what the penalty for this is. But, there are other situations (at least as of July 2017) that are now specifically to be treated similarly to an illegal move, but don’t necessarily require pressing the clock, and therefore the game is lost. For example, castling with two hands. Or maybe it does require pressing the clock? If a player castles with two hands, can he reasonably put the pieces back and then castle properly before hitting the clock without penalty?
Option 2 is what Chris Bird proposed. This is certainly not unreasonable and essentially it is the US Chess method. However, it has the side effect of saying that “capturing” the king is a valid method of making an illegal move claim. I happened to find this interesting article on the internet http://arbitri.lombardiascacchi.com/Chesscafe/1998_04.txt. Although it is from 1998, it does mention this (emphasis mine):
It then goes on to explain the proper procedure for making an illegal move claim, which we all know. Although it talks about it, unfortunately it doesn’t properly address how a king capture should actually be handled.
Further possible evidence against option 2 is article 4.8 “A player forfeits his right to claim against his opponent’s violation of Articles 4.1 - 4.7 once the player touches a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it.” Of course, 4.1 - 4.7 isn’t about illegal moves, so is it reasonable to extend the concept of losing the right to make a claim by touching a piece to include making an illegal move claim? Perhaps not.
Perhaps Option 3 is the best answer. Despite playing from an illegal position, it seems to hold up against all of the rules. Whereas neither option 1 nor 2 do. Is there a rule that it breaks? Certainly it can lead to some potential absurdities as Bill Smythe pointed out. But, to be honest, if both sides have made consecutive illegal moves in blitz, awarding a draw seems quite reasonable. Or if it makes sense go back to a reasonable legal position and play on. Both players have made an irregularity. Should one side really benefit over the other?
I believe the Law states that the player has until he makes his move to make the claim, not once he touches a piece. To me this means that once the player has made a move on the board he can no longer claim the illegal move, irrespective of whether he has completed his move by pressing the clock or not. Of course the move has to be legal and until he presses his clock he has the right to change the illegal move to a legal move, with touch move in effect of course.
