Here’s a situation that just came up in one of my games. Late in the game (G/90 with 30 sec increment), we both had about 2 minutes left. It was a winning position for me but still required some thought. I played a knight check and assumed he would play a certain king move. He took a few extra seconds and moved a pawn! By this time, I had forgotten I had checked him in the first place and took the pawn with the knight. Then he resigned. The tournament director, who had been watching on the monitors in the next room, came in and told us of the illegal move but my opponent said he had resigned anyway and wasn’t interested in replaying that position. But what’s the official ruling in the situation where one person resigns before the illegal move has been discovered?
resignation ends the game.
Mr. Priest is correct, but was this played under US Chess rules or FIDE rules?
Alex Relyea
Would it matter? I’m thinking not, unless it was under FIDE rules? Even assuming the FIDE arbiter can call the illegal move and declare the game lost for the person who made it, could he do so after the resignation if he failed to do so before (as the question assumes)?
The result of the game is the same. The actions of the TD are relevant.
Alex Relyea
Is that because under USCF rules the TD should not have acted while under FIDE the arbiter should have declared the game lost by the player who made the first illegal move?
The entire question is moot, since the same player resigned who had just made a prior illegal move. I’m curious, though, as to whether the player resigned because he now realized he had made an illegal move, or whether he resigned because he knew his position was hopeless, never having noticed that he had moved illegally.
Of course, that question, like the original, is moot, but let’s have some fun with this anyway!
A third moot question: When NxP was played, was it played with the same knight that had just given check, thus removing the check, or was it with the other knight, so that the check remained on the board?
Or, for that matter, was the original knight check also a double (discovered) check, so that NxP removed only one of the checks? Or, going still further, when the pawn moved, did it remove the second check (by interposition), and then NxP removed the first check? (In that case, the knight would now be pinned, I guess.)
WHEEEEEE !!!
Going back to the situation originally described, where both players and all arbiters agreed on the result peacefully, what if a spectator (having finished his own game) now steps in, and says to the player who had resigned, “Hey, wait a minute. You have some rights here. Don’t resign yet! Mr./Ms. Arbiter, I object!! There are some serious questions that need to be answered”, etc etc etc.
I just know somebody is going to take me up on some of these.
Bill Smythe
Spectator have no rights.
I should probably put this in a new thread, but hoping the wisdom of the group will “idiot check” something for me.
Inexperienced player attempts to make an illegal move claim but fails to pause the clock. Said player’s time expires (only had 7 seconds). Opponent makes a time forfeit claim. We all agree that inexperienced player loses on time, correct?
Yep.
Not so sure about that. And this forum has many who are better fact-checkers than I, since I tend to concern myself with what a rule ought to be rather than with what it is. So I’ll leave that part to others.
As far as I’m concerned, an illegal move (or even an illegal move claim) should be regarded as suspending the game until an arbiter resolves the situation. Therefore, a subsequent time expiration should not be considered relevant.
If the arbiter determines that the opponent’s move was in fact illegal, he should restore the clock times (as well as can be determined) and treat the claim as though the claimant had paused the clock. Depending on the rule set in use (which may FIDE or USCF, or it may be dependent on regular-vs-quick-vs-blitz), this may mean that the opponent has lost the game, or it may mean that the illegal move must be replaced by a legal move, possibly with some kind of time adjustment.
If, on the other hand, the arbiter determines that the opponent’s move was actually legal (for example, it was a promotion to a second queen, and the claimant thought it was illegal to have two queens on the board), then the game should continue – which in this case might mean that the claimant’s time has expired, depending on whether and how the arbiter decides to adjust the clock times.
Well, there’s the world according to me. Now it’s time for the experts to check in.
Bill Smythe
He resigned because it was a hopeless position (I was just about to queen on the h-file, he had a remaining a-pawn that was still too far away). And yes, it was the same knight (only piece left on the board). I had intentionally checked him to pick up a tempo, then forgot about it when he pushed a pawn! Senior moment.