It suffices when used within the general principles of the rules. It doesn’t suffice if the TD exclaims “I’ve finally figured out this pairing, everyone move one seat to the left.”
Which is perfectly OK, in a situation where sticking to the letter of the law would result in an outrage or an absurdity. In fact, that’s what 1A is for.
Bill Smythe
I have consistently said that you should learn everything you can about a situation before making a ruling. I have consistently said that [b]automatically[/b] treating EVERY move as an illegal move after an unusual occurrence is incorrect and can have horrendous consequences. Unusual occurrences can be handled without needing an illegal move bludgeon that can penalize the opponent of a player that caused the occurrence (or penalize the next player to move if a non-player altered the board).
The situation needs to be considered when making a ruling and people who think that a standard ruling can be made regardless of the situation are risking doing a grave disservice to the players. If you somehow think that a single exact ruling can be applied in every situation that is somewhat similar then please provide that single exact ruling in the following two cases.
-
A player received advice, the opponent protested and the receiving of advice is confirmed. Based solely on that information what specific ruling should always be made in each and every case?
-
A player’s flag fell and the opponent claimed it. Based solely on that information what specific ruling should be made in each and every case?
If you can’t make a definitive response based solely on that information (if you need more information) then please accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting to know more information before making a ruling.
PS This group of posts might end up getting pulled as an irreconcilable continuation of the locked thread cited by Kevin.
The application of 1A should still fall within the principles of the rules; to my mind it is NEVER appropriate to adjust the ruling based on the outcome. That’s simply undermining the rules.
“1A. Scope. Most problems concerning rules that may arise during a chess game are covered in this book. However, the rules of chess cannot and should not regulate all possible situations. In situations not explicitly covered, the tournament director can usually reach a fair decision by considering similar cases and applying their principles analogously. The United States Chess Federation (USCF) presumes that its tournament directors have the competence, sound judgment, and absolute objectivity needed to arrive at fair and logical solutions to problems not specifically treated by these rules.”
1A even points out that principles should be applied. Historical precedent is important. If one doesn’t like the penalty, make the principle-based and precedentially important correct ruling and then adjust the penalty. Rule correctly in BOTH cases (rule and penalty) – don’t pervert the rule due to a potential penalty.
There are a few points here - first the point I made is correct. Decisions were being made based on emotionally preferred outcomes, not based on correct rulings. Second, even according to 1A - that’s inappropriate. Third, if one knows the history of the rules on illegal positions, one would simply use the principles from that history. None of those three key points support NTD Wiewel’s approach. The ump blew the call.
And you’ve been consistently wrong. The historical precedent of illegal moves is contrary to your approach. There is no requirement or need for horrendous consequences, this is a fiction you use to justify a ruling error. There is no bludgeon, this is another fiction to justify an error. Yes, facts and circumstances are relevant to a ruling; but so is the fundamental logic, consistency and precedent of the rules. Ad hoc decisions such as you advocate wreak havoc over time because they cause the principled-based approach to be lost. TDs should not be WRITING the rules through 1A, they should be applying the principles of the rules logically when the situation is unusual. Looking first at the outcome undermines that.
This is fundamental, and SHOULD BE a CORE of what our TDs learn. If it isn’t, then TDCC IS NOT doing a good job.
Actually I was looking at the rules logically. An illegal move is moving a piece contrary to the rules for piece movement. I said that multiple times in the locked thread. You simply refused to accept that.
I was not looking at the outcome before making a ruling. I was making a ruling about illegal moves and using counter-examples to emphasize what bad things could happen if people use incorrect reasoning to make a ruling.
PS Based on your interpretation of the history and precedent of illegal moves, rule 11B is null and void.
Certainly.
There may be, however, certain rules that could be improved with minor wording changes, so that 1A would be necessary less often.
Here is an example:
Both players are in a time scramble. It is white to move.
White plays Be2-c3 (illegal). Black, seeing white pick up the bishop, knows that since it’s a light-square bishop white won’t be able to generate any mate threats with it. So black instantly plays the developing move …Nb8-c6. White now plays Qd4xg7 “mate”, and all hall breaks loose.
In the similar situation that began this thread, with black promoting to a white queen, kbachler goes through all sorts of logical contortions, arguing for example that the mating move is illegal because the white queen never really existed.
That argument, however, would not work in the position diagrammed above, since the bishop did in fact exist. I wonder what sort of pretzel logic kbachler would go through to allow the arbiter to disallow white’s outrageous checkmate claim.
The simplest idea would be simply to allow the 10-move rule to apply even after a game-ending occurrence. In other words, even after a “legal” (i.e. legal-looking) checkmate has occurred – or, for that matter, even after a stalemate, a draw agreement, or a resignation (etc), the arbiter should still be empowered to revert to an earlier position reached within the last 10 move-pairs, and continue from there.
Who knows, maybe that can already be done under 1A. Or there could be a TD Tip to that effect. It shouldn’t be necessary to stumble through a cave of dubious logic to arrive at the simple conclusion that, in both of the above cases and many others, a legal-looking “checkmating” move does not necessarily end the game.
Bill Smythe
Rule 11A already has the TD tip verbiage “no player should gain an unfair advantage for deliberate illegal moves, or for inadvertent ones, which were deliberately not pointed out.”
There is no reason to go all the way back to 1A for that. 11A was also enough for the original issue without going to 1A and without declaring as illegal moves even the subsequent moves that were made following the rules of piece movement.
TDs make rulings based on the available facts and evidence for a particular situation. Rules may be in conflict, which requires determining the most equitable solution. The most allegedly “logical” application of the rules when there is a rules conflict may lead to an egregiously absurd result which satisfies no one, not even the TD. Therefore, the TD may back up the situation to a point where the parties agree on a position, dispensing with the notion that individual moves or positions are “legal” or “illegal”. There seems to be a major hang up on these terms. Arguing about them in a meta-chess way is beside the point when a TD has to make a ruling in real time. A petulant attack on the TDCC is illogical and undermines further argument.
Making a tough ruling takes patience, real logic, an equitable and empathetic thought process, and sometimes even imagination because “black letter law” and precedents do not always provide a correct path to a decision for the particular case at hand. In most cases they work, but not in all. Hypotheticals and “what ifs” can sow confusion because it adds “facts” over and above what is already there. Stick to the provided facts and evidence. Otherwise, the argument goes in circles with each side talking past each other. This is another thread where being argumentative for its own sake leads into a morass.
One can only hope so… 
Of course it is possible to be right and wrong at the same time. Precedents say that the use of meticulous logic in an argument with a wife or girl friend can lead to going hungry and sleeping alone for a long time. Not the result that one wants, but that is what can happen for not paying attention to the real “rules”. Logic works fine in math, but has a more spotty results in real world applications as many other interests are involved.
Halting problem: who knows?
False statement. I agree with the above. However, the above is insufficient. I explained this to you when I outlined that the historical rules change failed to take the following into account.
What I noted is that illegal moves do not define ALL illegal positions.
Another false statement. You considered the potential penalty (AN OUTCOME) in your consideration of the ruling.
None of the reasoning was incorrect. What you were using was your personal preference. None of the “bad things” you stated are required outcomes.
Also false. It appears you either did not read, or did not understand, what I wrote on the topic.
I’ve already dealt with this - decades ago. (Bachler vs. Dowd). Unfortunately, the rules weren’t sufficiently fixed then, although they were improved. (I believe this was the 3rd ed, may have been second).
But there’s no pretzel logic, if Black acts immediately. This mating position is illegal because the Bishop move occurred within the last 10 and thus can be pointed out as illegal. Hence, the position is not legal and therefore not mate. Hence it didn’t end the game. Hence, we don’t have to worry about the phrase (“If, during a game,…”)
It gets fuzzier if Black waits. What happens if Black notices 5 minutes later? A half hour? 5 minutes before the next round? After the next round started? Three days later? And Black’s actions may matter in those situations - did he acquiesce and thereby effectively resign?
I agree the wording could be better.
Bachler vs Dowd established that a checkmating move ends the game only if the checkmating move is legal. A better fix would have been to declare that a checkmating move ends the game only if all of the previous 10 move pairs were legal. That would be consistent with the existing 10-move rule, which provides for a correction only if the illegal move is caught within 10 moves.
For that matter, the same should apply to any (normally) game-ending action – stalemate, agreement, resignation, or just about any type of claim.
It should be up to the arbiter to decide, case by case, whether a delayed observation should result in reverting to an earlier position, or whether to say “too late, game is over”.
Yes, the opponent’s actions might matter. I wouldn’t automatically regard an acquiescence as a resignation, though. He might simply be confused, and deserving of an opportunity to retract the acquiescence. Again, the arbiter should decide, case by case.
Bill Smythe
Read.
Understood.
Rejected.
So far the only citation is to some amorphous and unquoted history. Also, when Bill Smythe asked for a specific definition of an illegal position he included the following that you have yet to clarify to be anything other than the third definition (all you said was that it was “self evident” - reminds me of my ninth grade algebra classes where I’d be helping some friends and when they’d ask how an algebraic transformation could be justified I would sometimes jokingly say it was covered by the theorem of obviosity 
).
Interestingly enough, in the issue the OP raised, using either solely 11A (using the definition of an illegal move as one that violated the movement rules of the piece or left the moving player’s king in check - the point I started at before looking at anything else and your accusatory statements to the contrary are quite false with your subsequent condemnations being quite wrong) or your logic (defining an illegal move as anything you felt was illegal - or at least that is all I can determine from your statements so far) both result in going back to the point of the initial strange move and correcting it. Using 11A would apply illegal move penalties only to the player that committed that initial strange move while your logic could be used to penalize either player.
I am not saying your logic is wrong because it could penalize both players. I am saying your logic is wrong because it uses a bizarre way of defining an illegal move (to automatically include any move made in an illegal position - which is yet to be clearly defined by you) and testing the usability of that logic pointed out that it failed, shown by demonstrating that if your incorrect logic was used then it could also be used to erroneously penalize either player. With some people, pointing out the undesirable side effects is the most effective way to more clearly demonstrate the underlying problem with erroneous logic.
That is coming from my programming background where a good way to see whether or not alternative programming logic is usable is to first make sure it can properly handle both the common cases and the boundary cases properly in the same way that proven programming logic has already shown itself as being able to do. If it can handle them properly then even an inefficient alternative might be usable as a different and potentially bizarre way to get to the same destination. If it can’t handle things properly then the alternative logic is clearly incorrect.
A mathematical example of usable different logic is to multiply 49 x 39. The standard way would to add 9x9 + 9x30 + 40x9 + 40x30 <81+270+360+1200=1911>. The alternative would be 50x40 - 50x1 - 40x1 + 1x1 <2000-50-40+1=1911> (recognizing that 49=50-1 and 39=40-1 and thus 49x39 = [50-1]x[40-1] 
). If both ways are truly equivalent then either could be used depending on which was easier in a particular case.
A mathematical example of unusable different logic is to say that the (x-y) squared is the same as x squared minus xy minus y squared and only testing it when x is twice as much as y.
PS As a further clarification, deciding how to deal with the OP’s issue first involved working within the constraint of an illegal move being a move that either did not follow the movement rules of the piece or a move leaving the moving player’s king in check. The idea that 1. d4 e5, 2. de Bb4, 3. Nf3 Nc6 could be cited as BLACK having made an illegal move (because white left the king in check) was truly bizarre and never considered.
That left rule 11A as a way of handling the situation and it turned out to have a bonus that you are not required to limit yourself to the 10-move rule for making corrections while only penalizing the player that made the incorrect promotion.
Once you brought up the idea that black’s third move in the sample game above might be considered illegal I didn’t consider it correct and subsequently went on to take a look at the ramifications of such a concept and saw how easy it could be mis-used or abused.
For those who have no idea what Bachler vs Dowd is, I can shed some light, because I’m pretty sure I was playing in the same tournament. It was at Shimer College, if I recall correctly.
The game consisted of three moves. Something like:
1.e4 e5
2.Bc4 Nf6
3.Qd1xf7 mate
- Opponent: “That’s not mate. It’s not even legal.”
- Bachler: “Doesn’t matter. A checkmating move ends the game. It’s in the rulebook.”
- Opponent: “That’s ridiculous.”
- Bachler: “It’s in the rulebook. I’m sticking by my move.”
- Opponent: “ARBITER !!!”
- Arbiter: “That’s illegal. Please take back that move and replace it with a legal move.”
- Bachler: “Nope. It’s in the rulebook. A checkmating move ends the game, whether it is legal or not.”
- Arbiter: “If you refuse to abide by the rules of chess, or by a ruling by the arbiter, I’m going to have to forfeit you.”
- Bachler: “Fine. I’m sticking by my move. It’s in the rulebook.”
After the forfeiture, Bachler informed the arbiter of his intent to file an appeal with U.S. Chess. He also calmly explained to his opponent, and to the arbiter, and to anyone else who might be listening, that his actions were not designed to garner a cheap victory, but rather to call attention to U.S. Chess that the rule needed to be changed.
Of course, U.S. Chess overruled Bachler and upheld the arbiter’s ruling. But the rule eventually was changed, to say that a legal checkmating move ends the game.
My thoughts at the time were:
- “How childish. He makes a ridiculously illegal move in order to point out that an absurd interpretation of the rule is possible. In the process, he damages the rating system by giving his opponent some free rating points, and taking some points away from himself, for a game that was never actually played in any real sense. AND he has deprived his opponent of an actual game that he paid an entry fee to play. Sheesh.”
Of course, Kevin can step in here with any corrections to my decades-old recollections. Specifically, I don’t know whether the result was submitted to U.S. Chess as a rated game, or as a forfeit. I also don’t know whether the arbiter attempted to arrange for a replacement game for the opponent, who was apparently named Dowd.
Bill Smythe
This is exactly why, whether on “illegal positions” or “second scoresheets”, the only correct answer is no.
No.
If the Bachler vs. Dowd game details occurred as cited, the TD/Arbiter would have been well within bounds to forfeit and withdraw him from the tournament for his egregiously poor behavior. The TD could then file an ethics complaint at his discretion. That is the polite, official way of doing it.
When I started to play back in the early 1970’s, an opponent who would have tried to do that to one of the crusty, cigar smoking old guys would have been punched in the head by the aggrieved party for violating the unwritten rules of propriety in playing a game of tournament chess. We were just barely using Rulebook I after years of use of the Bluebook and the Official Chess Handbook. So, the rules of player conduct were based on tradition. The rest of the players, seeing the incident, would have nodded that justice was served and gone on with their games as if nothing happened. I have seen knock down fights over a touch move violation; someone continually bumping a table leg with his foot after being told by the TD to stop it; and for throwing an opponent’s newly promoted Queen across the room before a TD could step in. I have also seen two GMs rolling around on a carpet at a hotel resolving a dispute concerning how respectful one GM was to the other for banging pieces on the board. Their peers shrugged as if this was normal. There are all sorts of unintended consequences for playing fast and loose with the rules just to make a point or for just being a jerk. A major consideration should always be how fast you can run. Many TDs are old and cannot save you from your iniquities even if they are inclined to do so.
Chess Mates chess club in Evanston.
The above story is incorrect. My opponent and I played a real game, and I tried to make clear to my opponent at the time that I had no desire to actually win what was a losing position or cause him any harm.
A position arose in a real game that I was losing that allowed the possibility of creating a test case for a change to the rules that I had been advocating to the then Rulebook editor, who had been indifferent. When the test case arose, I decided to take advantage of the opportunity - no harm to the opponent or the event.
Here is a quote of the correct story:
Think of it as akin to Kirk’s solution for the Kobayashi Maru.