The rules state that when an illegal move was made where the king was still in check, then all of the following moves (by both players) are also illegal. This makes perfect sense. My question is if after player A makes the initial illegal move (king still in check), but it is not noticed for a few moves, can player A now claim an illegal move by player B AND win the 2 minute time penalty? Or should player B receive the 2 minutes since player A made the initial error?
From the Blitz rules where it seems that player A can win the game in this same situation I’m guessing that yes, player A receives the 2 minute increase in time. Is this correct?
This situation is much more likely to occur in time pressure, so the players would have to make the claim. But, if we expand this to a non-time pressure situation and the director notices the error, should the director award the standard penalty? If so, to whom?
There was a game at a tournament I was at recently that brings up a related question. In this game both players were in severe time trouble. Both players missed that Player A was in check. Eventually Player A checks Player B. Player B finally notices that Player A was already in check and claims the illegal move, but his clock had run out (pointed out by Player A). The TD was summoned. The TD seeing that Player B’s clock was out, ruled the win for player A. I’m pretty sure this was correct, right?
Interestingly enough, though, let’s say that if Player A did not claim the win on time, should the TD simply add 2 minutes to B’s clock and the game continue with B having exactly 2 minutes left or should he rule the game over? This does not seem likely to happen, but it is possible.
I would rule the same as the TD did. Illegal move claims (and any claims, really) have to be made before flag fall. Before flag fall, I would not award extra time to either player, because they have both been making illegal moves. You just stop the clock, restore the position before the first illegal move (if possible, and assuming fewer than 10 moves have been made since the illegal one), restart the clock, and resume play. No penalties for either player.
No. Player B did not make an illegal move (unless he also left his own king in check). I’m not at all sure why player A would even make a claim in this case, since he would have nothing to gain by so doing. A more sensible course of action (since it is A’s move) would simply be to move his king out of check.
Where do the blitz rules say that player A can win the game in this situation?
The question is who made their claim first. A flag fall does not end the game until the other player claims it (see Rule 13C1), so if player B pointed out A’s illegal move before A pointed out B’s fallen flag, I would rule that B’s claim was valid. But if player A pointed out the fallen flag before B pointed out A’s illegal move, I would rule that B’s claim was invalid because it was not made until the game was over.
What makes this a bit iffy is the fact that digital clocks normally stop when they reach zero, so the TD has no way of knowing how much time passed after the falling of B’s flag. But I would still be inclined to award B 2 more minutes.
Two things, first, as Geurt Gjissen has pointed out, capturing the king is an illegal move. FIDE interprets this as a loss for the player who captures the king. USCF considers it a creative way to claim an illegal move. I strongly recommend that the TD mention this before the first round.
Note that as of January 1st of this year clocks must be set to not halt on end, and clocks that can’t be set that way are less preferred.
This makes sense, but the rules aren’t very clear about this situation and I’m thinking of proposing a clarification in an ADM next year. There is no rule that says that when a king is left in check all the subsequent moves by both players are illegal. There is a TD Tip which says that, but a TD Tip is not a rule.
The blitz rules don’t define the term “illegal move”. A TD might refer to the TD Tip in the regular rules and say that Player B had made an illegal move by leaving Player A’s king in check - another version of the “cheap shot” referred to in blitz rule 16. Preventing this is important enough that, besides submitting an ADM, I will probably also announce my proposed rules changes as a variation at the blitz tournaments that I direct.
As a first draft, my proposed rules changes are:
In rule 11D, add: “However, there is no penalty for completing an illegal move if the opponent’s king is left in check, or both kings are left in check, but the move is otherwise legal.”
In blitz rule 7d, add: “However, there is no penalty for completing an illegal move if the opponent’s king is left in check but the move is otherwise legal. If a move is completed with both kings in check the game is drawn if either player makes an illegal move claim (see rule 8e).”
Add blitz rule 8e: (A game is a draw:) 8e. A move is completed with both kings in check and either player makes an illegal move claim."
The rule about blitz games being drawn if both kings are in check comes from the latest version of the FIDE Laws of Chess. An alternative rule would be that whichever player captures the opponent’s king first or claims an illegal move with the player on move wins.
On second thought, this new FIDE rule about the game being drawn if both kings are in check goes against the USCF tradition that whichever player captures the other player’s king first wins, even if his own king is in check. I’m more inclined to go with these proposed changes:
In rule 11D, add: “However, there is no penalty for completing an illegal move if the opponent’s king is left in check but the move is otherwise legal.”
In blitz rule 7d, add: “However, there is no penalty for completing an illegal move if the opponent’s king is left in check but the move is otherwise legal.”
There is a difference between one clock stopping when it reaches zero and the “halt on end” option where both clocks stop when one reaches zero.
Bob is saying that once Black gets down to zero there is no way of knowing just how long it spent at zero before the illegal move was claimed. In a multiple time control you know how far you are into the second time control before time has to be added, and if a player is more than two minutes into the second time control then the flagging may still have occurred even after the add is done. In the sudden death time control, if there was some way of knowing how far into “overtime” the player went then a more accurate addition of two minutes can be done. With the flagged side of the clock just sitting at zero the 1C2 penalty isn’t merely two minutes, but rather two minutes plus the additional amount of time it spent sitting at zero when it was supposed to be running.
Where is there a TD Tip that says this? The TD Tip for Rule 11A, for example, says that “All moves, not just the first move, in which a player’s king remains in check should be regarded as illegal.” Note that it says “all moves” - not “all half moves”. The point of the TD Tip is that even if Player A makes a move that leaves him in check and this is not noticed by either player for more than 10 moves, the players are not to simply let the check stand uncorrected, since each subsequent move in which Player A left himself in check was also illegal, and therefore there will always have been a move within the last 10 moves in which Player A made an illegal move.
Thinking about this some more, in my opinion the TD Tip to rule 11A is a little confusing and possibly should be clarified. I no longer think there needs to be an ADM, except possibly to change the TD Tip. Here is it:
Given the way the TD Tip is written, it seems to be saying that if Black leaves his king in check and neither player notices, that subsequent moves by both Black and White in which the king is still in check are illegal. Notice that it says “That way, an illegal move will always have occurred within the last half-move” [my emphasis]. But does that make sense? It should be O.K. for Black’s king to be left in check after White’s move. What should be illegal is for Black’s king to be in check after Black’s move.
I would rewrite the first three sentences of the TD Tip as follows, with my changes in bold:
I’m fine with the original TD Tip. If Black is still in check and White makes a move that doesn’t put the White king in check then the phrase (“in which a player’s king remains in check”) doesn’t apply to white. After White’s move an illegal move occurred following the previous half-move (Black’s). After Black’s move and illegal move occurred just then, not in a previous half-move.
I’d argue that a move by White that had the Black king in check is no more illegal than a normal move by White after Black played Bf8-b5 (possibly leaving Black with two light-squared and no dark-squared bishops with no pawns having been promoted). In both cases it is the Black move that is illegal, not the White move.
If you do want to change it then make it “after that player’s move” not “after the player’s move”. Otherwise you have the same torturous-parsing issues as you currently have.
It’s not to clear to me that “in which a player’s king remains in check” doesn’t apply to White, but I agree that White’s move in this situation shouldn’t be considered illegal. If White’s move is to capture Black’s king then contra FIDE I would consider this to be a claim of an illegal move by Black rather than an illegal move by White.
The idea of the Tip, as someone else mentioned earlier, is to avoid the cheap shot of moving the King into check, and a few moves later capturing an undefended attacker. I believe that the claim has to be made before “2 additional moves” are made, or is it that the 10-move rule would apply here?
I don’t believe that the Tip was meant to suggest that player B could “cheap-shot” his way to an advantage. It wouldn’t make sense in view of what the object of the game truly is.
Maybe the TD Tip could be adopted as a rule?
Possible changes/additions could be: “additional moves following the illegal move are not to be considered when determining whether the requisite number of moves have been made in order to deny a claim”.
or, “when considering whether or not the requisite number of moves been made in order to deny a claim, all subsequent moves should be discounted”.
and, if necessary, simply add “that a player who has left his king in check no longer retains the right to make like claims”.
TDs should be able to make sound, objective decisions that aren’t clarified in the book. That is, if it doesn’t sound right, per your understanding of the game, and its objectives, and the rules of fair-play, it probably isn’t.
OK, so after reading my reply, I am thinking that my above suggestions made sense only to me.
my “all subsequent moves …” doesn’t help clear up anything.
Somehow, we have to make it clear that the use of the sentence that states that all of the following moves (by both players) are also illegal doesn’t mean that player A, in this case, gets to make an illegal move claim against player B.
It means only that we are to determine if an illegal move claim is correct, given the number of moves made after the first illegal move. In the case of leaving the king in check, this is a special case, as relates to other types of illegal moves.
My proposed wording is what I suggested earlier, with a slight change suggested by Jeff Wiewel and a further change of “half-move” in the original TD Tip to “move-pair” in the revised version. My changes to the original TD Tip are in bold.
This eliminates the term “half-move” which I don’t think is used anywhere else in the rules. A move consists of either a move by White or a move by Black. A move-pair consists of a move by White and a move by Black, in either order. There is no such thing as a half-move.
The current TD Tip says “That way, an illegal move will always have occurred within the last half-move”, meaning within the last move by White or by Black. If Black makes a move which leaves his king in check and White makes a move that doesn’t put White’s king in check, it is now Black’s move. Black hasn’t moved yet. If, as the current TD Tip says, the illegal move occurred within the last “half-move”, I think that implies that White’s move was illegal - but it shouldn’t be. My proposed change to the TD Tip makes this clear. The illegal move occurred within the last move-pair, not within the last half-move.
If Tim Just is reading this, I’d be interested in his thoughts. Did he intend the TD Tip to say that both White’s and Black’s moves are illegal in this situation or only Black’s? If both White’s and Black’s moves are illegal did he consider the implication that White might be penalized for an illegal move because Black’s king was left in check?
If Tim agrees that the TD Tip needs to be clarified I think he and/or the Rules Committee can do this without the need for an ADM.
That tip came out of the rulebook advisory committee, I believe from a suggestion of Bill Smythe’s. As the editor I simply decided it looked like an interesting perspective that might be considered by the TD. I don’t recall any specific intent beyond that. Perhaps Bill can enlighten us?
Tim is talking about the 5th edition rulebook advisory committee. I do seem to remember expressing concerns about what happens when a player leaves himself in check for several moves. My suggestion to consider all the intervening moves to be illegal was, indeed, designed to give the TD an escape from an impossible situation. Just back the game up as many moves as necessary, to the point before the insanity began.
Admittedly I hadn’t worked out all the details, like half-moves vs moves vs move pairs. Even now, I’m not so sure further detail is necessary. We just wanted to give the TD some reasonable options when dealing with an absurdity.
Thanks. This has been an interesting discussion. From reading this TD tip I did interpret it to mean that ALL subsequent moves (from both players) were illegal after the king was left in check. Since this did leave open the possibility that the non-offending player could be penalized, I asked for clarification from more experienced TDs. Regarding Blitz, I used the above tip plus Blitz rule 16 to mean that either side could claim a win by illegal move. I guess King next to King is really just a special case of the above situation, so it’s not the same.
I take it then that best practice is to only consider the original offending player to have made an illegal move. Therefore Player A (who originally left his king in check) can’t claim an illegal move by B. Correct?
The one exception to this is if Player B actually does make an illegal move, i.e. what would be considered an illegal move even if Player A was not in an illegal situation. Blitz rule 16 suggests that this can still be claimed for Player A with B receiving the penalty. Make sense? If so, in a blitz game, Player A wins, while in a standard game the board is reset to before Player A’s illegal move, but he still is awarded the 2 minutes from the time penalty?
I don’t see a necessity for any rule changes, but perhaps the TD tips can be worded better to improve clarity?
Actually, blitz rule 16 does not say that either side can claim a win by illegal move. Intentionally playing a king next to the opponent’s in order to take the opponent’s king on the next move (if not caught) is a cheap shot and will not be tolerated! Therefore, only the opponent of the player who moved his king next to the other king can claim the win. This rule was clarified at the 2014 Delegates Meeting, but I don’t think the minutes with the revised rule, which takes effect January 1st 2015, have been posted yet.
If a player who left his king in check could claim a win because of an illegal move if his opponent didn’t notice and left the king in check that would be a similar cheap shot and should likewise not be tolerated. Only the player who leaves his own king in check should be penalized for an illegal move.
I think so. I hope the TD Tip to rule 11A will be edited to make this clear.
I think that’s true: if Player B makes an illegal move of his own Player A can claim the win at blitz or a 2 minute penalty under regular or quick rules even if Player A’s king is in check. Blitz rule 16 is an exception to that rule in the particular case of a player moving his king next to the opponent’s king.
I’d be satisfied with rewording the TD Tip, but maybe the rules should be changed to define what is meant by an illegal move.
