It is interesting and historically important to note that at one time, this was the case for all illegal moves/positions, until practical concerns forced a changing of the rule. However, there was no way to legitimately view leaving a King in check move-after-move.
When the rules were made more practical, the focus was shifted toward illegal moves and penalties for making them, and less so on illegal positions.
Understanding such precedents can be important when unusual situations arise - i.e. - when an illegal position arises or continues but not necessarily with an illegal move occurring.
Understanding such precedents outline the general principles for rules, such that when odd situations arise we have a starting point for rules analysis.
Since others don’t see it the same way you do, it’s not self-evident. Even the validity of the concept is one not everyone agrees with. If it is in fact self-evident you ought to be able to define it, unless you are a Supreme Court justice trying to define pornography.
IIf you are going to constantly say something is self-evident even though others can’t see it, it is equally self-evident that you consider your views vastly superior to everyone else’s. It violates the AUG to use the terms that describe a person with those attributes, but it is perfectly permissible to call out such behavior.
Since the prefix “il-” means “not”, that “definition” is a circular definition. In Excel, for example, it would be called a circular reference.
You need to be more specific. Here are a couple of possibilities:
An illegal position is a position that cannot be arrived at from the starting position through any sequence of legal moves.
An illegal position is a position that was arrived at through a sequence of moves, at least one of which was an illegal move.
Which do you prefer? Note that they are not the same thing. If, for example, the game begins 1.d2-d4 Ng8-c5 2.e2-e4 Nc5-g8, the resulting position is legal by the first definition but illegal by the second.
Your second statement above isexactly the sameas my second proposed definition of illegal position:
…
An illegal position is a position that was arrived at through a sequence of moves, at least one of which was an illegal move.
I’m so glad you have accepted my second definition. And I agree with you that, in the context of how to handle illegal moves in a tournament game, my second definition is preferable to my first.
But now, having accepted my second definition – or, if you prefer, having accepted your second statement above, which is exactly the same thing – you are now faced with the inconvenient truth that your first statement above contradicts your second statement above.
Even though your version of the second statement avoids the direct phrases “legal move” and “illegal move”, it does refer to “the laws of chess”, which is basically a compliation of definitions of “legal move” (how the knight moves, how pawns promote, staying out of check, etc). Therefore, your second statement does indeed “define an illegal position in terms of legal/illegal moves”, which is precisely what your first statement says there is no reason to do.
So, it’s time for you to quit claiming that “there is no reason to define an illegal position in terms of legal/illegal moves”. You’re stuck with defining an illegal position in terms of legal/illegal moves, whether you like it or not.
No, it’s not the same, and I don’t accept your definition.
I. Consider the opening position:
N magically materializes on e4.
The result is an illegal position. No moves have been played, and therefore no illegal moves have been made.
II. Consider the opening position - and Black’s QB and QN are swapped - set up incorrectly: An illegal position has occurred, and no moves have been played.
So no, Bill, I’m not stuck with determining an illegal position based on moves.
The first example is just a “random variable instance”. I don’t literally mean a piece magically appears there, of course. Perhaps in resetting piece for the round the player on the next board places an extra night from his board onto the next board. Or in a more real example, consider two games next to each other in time pressure - and as player A in game one captures the piece and sets it to the side, he inadvertently places it on board two. Again, an illegal position has occurred - but no illegal move was made.
Heck, just go back to your Harkness books - its easy to see that the rules were less focused on illegal moves as a way to define an illegal position than the rules are today.
As far as goes, rule 11F says that after black’s 10th move the game continues with that position. So there is a limited amount of time that some illegal positions can be corrected. Also, any moves made during those first 10 moves (following the rules of piece movement) are considered legal, so the existence of an illegal position does not automatically make every move illegal. That is fortunate since otherwise in blitz black could claim an illegal move win after white’s first move (even if black was the one that set up the board).
As far as goes, any subsequent move (following the rules of piece movement) is considered legal, but the 10 move deadline is only explicitly for illegal moves and an incorrect starting position, so the TD can use discretion for how to handle it. Considering such moves illegal could result in a blitz tournament with one player reaching across the board to promote a pawn, a participant on the next board accidentally shifting a piece onto the board on a square that the player’s extended arm is screening from vision, the player completing the move and the opponent then claiming an illegal move win.
Returning to the “players unaware of check” issue, if you can confidently go back to the initial failure to escape the current check then do so (touch move would apply and that might trigger being within 10 moves of an earlier illegal move). If you cannot go back to that initial point then determine a reasonable place to continue from with the player needing to make a legal move to get out of check (touch move would not apply - thus avoiding somebody trying to game the system, or accidentally benefiting, by waiting until a disastrous piece was touched before calling the check).
Of course it is; his definition is contained within the laws of chess. An illegal move is sufficient for an illegal position - it is however, not necessary for one.
I’ve noted, even within the last several posts ,that for practical reasons the rules were changed to look at a 10 move window of illegal moves. Initially, that was not the case. The principle underlying the rule is a bit different than the current rule for good, pragmatic reasons. But I think you’re missing the point. The rule change simply DEEMS the position as legal after a specified time as measured in moves.
This “deeming” makes no sense in the situation where a King is in check, and so does not occur in that situation.
My contention is that it also makes no sense where the illegal position creates an unnatural and illegal imbalance (which is, for example - what a King that is immune to check would be.)
I didn’t go back and review today - but IIRC the rules on illegal moves deem the position legal unless the illegal move is found within 10 moves. In the case where an extra, inadvertent material is on the board, there is no illegal move (or at least not necessarily one)but the mere existence of the extra material creates an illegal position, just as a King in check does. A piece that comes to be on the board in a non-legal way makes the position illegal, and there is no rule currently to deem the position as legal.
I disagree. Each and every following position is illegal, since there are elements of the position that occurred outside the laws of chess. Further, if the position isn’t considered illegal, there appears to be no potential for remedy.
I do think that we need to look at the rule, and perhaps add something that says something like “In the event that an illegal position or a succession of illegal positions occur without an illegal move per se, the position from the first illegal position in the succession will be treated as though an illegal move occurred in arriving at that position.”
I would think that something like this would clear up the issue.
It is very simple. Assume a pawn arrives by helicopter on e5. At some point one of the players will make a move. After ten moves if neither player has objected to the mysterious pawn, we assume it has arrived legally. If White has a king on e1 and Black has a queen on e2, every move White makes until the queen is captured, moves away, or the king moves outside the rectangle described by d1, d3, f1, and f3 is illegal. Why is this difference difficult to grasp?
Alex, if you had read my post prior to commenting, you would have found in the very same post that you quoted:
In other words, I had already suggested the idea that you asked about.
The difference isn’t difficult to grasp, but of what there is, you’re the one failing to grasp it. “Assume a pawn arrives by helicopter on e5. At some point one of the players will make a move. After ten moves if neither player has objected to the mysterious pawn, we assume it has arrived legally.” – This is all well and good except that currently there is no rule allowing this to be done. That is why I proposed adding such a rule.
As noted previously, the rules used to not have a 10 move limit - because as a principle every position containing an illegal move is, in fact, an illegal position (although that is not the only way to arrive at an illegal position.) Yes, we can deem the position to be legal after 10 moves, but the current rule counts ONLY FROM an illegal move (or a position deemed to be treated as though there were an illegal move), and thus fails as a corrective device if an illegal position occurs without the occurrence an illegal move.
As a LOGICAL PRINCIPLE, a position that has an illegal piece is illegal and continues to be illegal every move thereafter by the mere existence of the piece. This was, in fact, originally the underlying principle of the rule regarding illegal positions.
We, as a group, made a pragmatic adjustment to that to set a 10 move correction-limit. In order to correct the situation per the current wording of the rules, we first need to deem the first such position (assuming there are a series of positions) as the one to be treated as though an illegal move occurred whether an actually illegal move did or not occur. We can then count moves from that initial position.
But that limit only works within the parameters given. Currently, if one has an illegal position without an illegal move it is unclear how to correct it within that 10 move limit.
I’m not sayin I prefer the rule that way, I’m saying that’s how it currently reads.
What I find difficult to understand is that an NTD has difficulty with this long established principle in chess - one that has a foundation in our rules of at least 60 years or more.
That is, that a position that has illegal elements is an illegal position unless we take corrective action, which is what the rules have generally done (but in a flawed way.) What part of that is so difficult to grasp? Why do you find it problematic that one would want to correct the flaw?
for what it’s worth, i’m of the same opinion. any game in which an illegal move has incurred, makes the whole game illegal. guess that’s the purist in me. i can understand the need of caveats for tournament play though. i’d probably call the game a draw since neither player noticed the illegality of it.
First, the phrase “treated as though an illegal move occurred whether an actually illegal move did or not occur” seems to indicate a recognition that there is a difference between an illegal move and a move from an illegal position. Labeling every such move as an illegal move allows actions of questionable fairness, such as a blitz tournament with white putting black in check, black moving to a different square also in check, white not noticing the new check and making another move, and black then claiming a win because white made an illegal move.
Second, the 10 move limit is defined as a limit for an illegal move. Automatically treating strange occurrences (such as pieces appearing or disappearing) officially as illegal moves locks you into that 10 move limit (along with other ramifications that can force imposition of penalties).
Third, if you consider strange occurrences as something other than illegal moves you have more options available on how to handle them.
That is why I have consistently stated that strange occurrences should not be treated by automatically using the bludgeon of the illegal move label, but rather the TD should use the discretion 1A allows to handle the situation fairly. Not every weird situation can be covered by the rulebook and two apparently similar weird situations may best be handled very differently.
I absolutely do not mean to pick on Mr. Henderson, but in my opinion, far too many relatively inexperienced TDs are too eager to adjudicate a game as drawn. A TD I’m mentoring insists that this is the correct solution in the original post because the players weren’t serious enough to either keep score or recognize absolute pins. A friend who runs a popular club has HS students frequently approach him to do community service as TDs at the club. He invariably asks them to list the ways a game can be drawn. They can rarely come up with more than two or three, and one is always “Director Declares a Draw”.
If the strange occurrence is a piece appearing, disappearing or being adjusted off its proper square, then even with absolutely spot on exact scoresheets recording the moves actually made by both players, it might not be clear when exactly the problem arose.
