Illegal Positions

[jwiewel]

@wintdoan

@jwiewel

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).

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.

I guess that could be resolved by requiring every game to use a DGT board. I wonder of somebody will mandate that as a rule change to be ready for such situations.

[wintdoan]

@jwiewel

@wintdoan

@jwiewel

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).

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.

I guess that could be resolved by requiring every game to use a DGT board. I wonder of somebody will mandate that as a rule change to be ready for such situations.

Didn’t someone who shall remain nameless suggest that we do that so we could evaluate the level of play demonstrated by each player since simply using W,L,D to rate games is so 20th Century?

[Mulfish]

Since more than one thread has morphed from the topic posed by the initiator into a discussion of Kevin’s concept of “illegal position”, perhaps that discussion should be in its own thread. If it needs to be be discussed at all, that is. I am not enamored with the concept of making up a term not used in the rules, asserting the definition is obvious, failing to define it and rejecting other attempted definitions. It seems everyone but Kevin recognizes the concept itself is at best unclear and not clearly necessary. I’d just as soon leave him to discuss it with himself. But if others wish to participate, let’s do it in its own thread.

[kevin_bachler]

@jwiewel

@kbachler

@relyea

@kbachler

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.

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 Relyea

Alex, if you had read my post prior to commenting, you would have found in the very same post that you quoted:

@kbachler

@jwiewel

As far as goes, any subsequent move (following the rules of piece movement) is considered 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.

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?

A few points.

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.

Generally, illegal positions, of which illegal moves are a part, should be treated consistently. Part of the issue here was the fundamental change in how illegal positions were dealt with, with the focus on moves, rather than positions.

I would submit that it makes more sense to treat the positions consistently and apply 1A to the 1C2a penalty only, than it makes to treat the positions inconsistently in order to treat the penalty consistently.

[nolan]

IMHO illegal positions cannot exist if all the moves were legal. Disagree with that? Please make your case.

[Mulfish]

@nolan

IMHO illegal positions cannot exist if all the moves were legal. Disagree with that? Please make your case.

How about an incorrect starting position?

[kevin_bachler]

@nolan

IMHO illegal positions cannot exist if all the moves were legal. Disagree with that? Please make your case.

Its’ already been done, in this thread, multiple times.

How about the board next to you captures a piece and inadvertently places it on your h-file? No move has been made, an illegal position has occurred.

[kevin_bachler]

@Mulfish

@nolan

IMHO illegal positions cannot exist if all the moves were legal. Disagree with that? Please make your case.

How about an incorrect starting position?

Or another traditional one - incorrect resetting of an adjournment.

[BobMessenger]

This topic is a spin-off from Players unaware of a check: How to handle?.

[10mostwanted]

@relyea

@10mostwanted

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.

…scot…

Scot L Henderson

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”.

In my opinion, that should be a very last resort.

Alex Relyea

no offence taken, Alex! thanks for the input. I’m not a TD (yet) but coach a high school team.

…scot…

[nolan]

Starting with an illegal position is covered by a separate rule, isn’t it?

As to some third party placing a piece on a board, there’s got to be some rule covering that. And surely there has to be a rule about a player placing a piece on the board.

[kevin_bachler]

@nolan

Starting with an illegal position is covered by a separate rule, isn’t it?

As to some third party placing a piece on a board, there’s got to be some rule covering that. And surely there has to be a rule about a player placing a piece on the board.

One would have thought.

[jwiewel]

@nolan

Starting with an illegal position is covered by a separate rule, isn’t it?

As to some third party placing a piece on a board, there’s got to be some rule covering that. And surely there has to be a rule about a player placing a piece on the board.

There is already a rule about an illegal starting position.
There is already a rule about a displaced piece (one that is supposed to be on the board, just not on the particular square it is occupying).

Would a rule about a piece added to the board need sections for:
A player putting it on?
A friend/teammate/confederate putting it on?
An adjacent board accidentally putting it on?
A spectator seeing a piece on the floor and “helpfully” putting it “back” on the board?
A spectator accidentally bumping a board, knocking off some pieces, and then not restoring it correctly?
A player that just finished a game walking by with a set packed away in a tube and having a piece drop out of the end and land on the board?
A little green man either using a tractor beam or wearing a cloaking device that wants to create confusion by putting a piece on a random board?

In 35 years of directing I’ve seen one case of cheating by putting pieces on the board (and heard of two others) that were handled by ejecting the players. I’ve seen multiple incorrect initial position setups that were handled according to the rules. I’ve seen one case of a player accidentally dropping a just-captured piece in a time scramble and the piece landing on the board (the game was restored to the correct position). I don’t remember ever seeing any of the other situations described. If somebody really want to submit an ADM for a rule change then go ahead.
Otherwise, at some point you emulate the FIDE preface saying “The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game” and you leave such highly unlikely situations to be covered by 1A.

PS When you say “there’s got to be some rule covering that”, there is. It is 1A.

[billbrock]

@jwiewel

Would a rule about a piece added to the board need sections for:
A player putting it on?
A friend/teammate/confederate putting it on?
An adjacent board accidentally putting it on?
A spectator seeing a piece on the floor and “helpfully” putting it “back” on the board?
A spectator accidentally bumping a board, knocking off some pieces, and then not restoring it correctly?
A player that just finished a game walking by with a set packed away in a tube and having a piece drop out of the end and land on the board?
A little green man either using a tractor beam or wearing a cloaking device that wants to create confusion by putting a piece on a random board?

QM suggests that the new piece could also appear as a macroscopic wave function. This is particularly frightening, as the odds of the new piece being of Staunton design are low.

In unrelated news, I am a Tic-Tac-Toe arbiter. Do I score the following game as one win for the “X” player, or five?

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgRbAGacBAtX5FLz0H1agCSlbkiY

[Smythe_Dakota]

@billbrock

… I am a Tic-Tac-Toe arbiter. Do I score the following game as one win for the “X” player, or five?

Illegal position. The number of X’s must be equal to the number of O’s, or one greater.

Put X’s on all the white squares (white square in lower right corner) and O’s on all the black squares, and ask whether the resulting position is one win for the X player or four.

Bill Smythe

[billbrock]

@Smythe Dakota

@billbrock

… I am a Tic-Tac-Toe arbiter. Do I score the following game as one win for the “X” player, or five?

Illegal position. The number of X’s must be equal to the number of O’s, or one greater.

Put X’s on all the white squares (white square in lower right corner) and O’s on all the black squares, and ask whether the resulting position is one win for the X player or four.

Bill Smythe

Oh you tournament directors and your rules-based mindset. (Wouldn’t your counterexample be two wins? The chess equivalent would be the opposite of an ideal mate: double check & mate, and every flight square is attacked twice.)

More seriously: chess is a game, a competition. The rules work. That they don’t account for a 4.5 tremor shaking a recently-captured piece back onto the a4 square is just fine. A knight on the Pacific Rim is dim.

[kevin_bachler]

@billbrock

@Smythe Dakota

@billbrock

… I am a Tic-Tac-Toe arbiter. Do I score the following game as one win for the “X” player, or five?

Illegal position. The number of X’s must be equal to the number of O’s, or one greater.

Put X’s on all the white squares (white square in lower right corner) and O’s on all the black squares, and ask whether the resulting position is one win for the X player or four.

Bill Smythe

Oh you tournament directors and your rules-based mindset. (Wouldn’t your counterexample be two wins? The chess equivalent would be the opposite of an ideal mate: double check & mate, and every flight square is attacked twice.)

More seriously: chess is a game, a competition. The rules work. That they don’t account for a 4.5 tremor shaking a recently-captured piece back onto the a4 square is just fine. A knight on the Pacific Rim is dim.

Until they don’t work, resulting in a disagreement about how to proceed. Some directors prefer an approach in the history and principles-based foundation of the rules. Others appear to prefer to make their decision based on the outcome they prefer.

It is this fundamental disagreement that led to the discussion in the first place.

[Mulfish]

@kbachler

Others appear to prefer to make their decision based on the outcome they prefer.

Does anyone else find this assertion offensive? Or unsupported except by the fact that their decision is different from the one Kevin would make?

[billbrock]

@Mulfish

@kbachler

Others appear to prefer to make their decision based on the outcome they prefer.

Does anyone else find this assertion offensive? Or unsupported except by the fact that their decision is different from the one Kevin would make?

I have lost sleep pondering the ontology of mathematics. I have never lost sleep pondering the ontology of chess. Chess is a social construct. We don’t need the chess equivalent of ZFC. Even the engines don’t need it. Rule 1A is a good rule. It suffices.

[kevin_bachler]

@Mulfish

@kbachler

Others appear to prefer to make their decision based on the outcome they prefer.

Does anyone else find this assertion offensive? Or unsupported except by the fact that their decision is different from the one Kevin would make?

In the thread TD ruling situation viewtopic.php?p=329033#p329033 Jeff Wiewel argues several times that he would make a ruling based in part not on the determination of a rule within a set of facts and circumstances, but whether that determination had (in his view) the undesired outcome of potentially penalizing the player. Thus, Jeff was making the decision based on the outcome he preferred.