Thank you for the corrections. The corrected version is certainly more interesting than the version I had, and of course it puts you in a better light as well.
OK. I guess you could have suggested the even milder ruling of awarding the game to white based on black’s failure to comply with the arbiter’s ruling, but it comes out about the same I guess.
I think the word “legal” was added, so that the rule became “a legal checkmating move ends the game” or some such.
As I’ve said elsewhere, it now needs to be made clear, either through a rules change or at least through a more liberal application of rule 1A, that even a legal checkmating move does not necessarily end the game if one of the last 10 move-pairs was illegal.
I’m not familiar with that one. I assume it’s from Star Trek.
In the case outlined in the story, 11A alone would have been insufficient. Per the rules at the time there was nothing making mating the opponent an illegal method of getting out of check. (The rules specified that check must be parried, but didn’t specify how.) Hence, there was no “proof” that the move (giving mate to parry check) was illegal, and hence the current 11A tip doesn’t work. The current rule 12A specifies how check must be parried, and does not include mating the opponent as a way of parrying check. That solved the issue.
The rulebook didn’t specify any ways to parry the check. That was the issue; it only stated that the check had to be parried.
Are you under the misapprehension that the rulebook must specify all things that CAN be done? That is not the case. The rulebook likely did not say that a player could sit at the board in a metal chair, but one could still do it. It did not say that the clock button may be pressed with any finger or the palm or the back of a hand, one could still do it.
It is impossible to list all things that may be done, which is why systems are defined based on restriction. Definitions based on inclusion are typically used only for increased clarity or specificity. Even when it might first appear that its inclusive, its generally restriction: Defining a peice’s allowable moves is a restrictive process, not an inclusive one.
That’s ridiculous. To “parry a check” obviously means to “get out of check”. That’s self-evident. Black’s … Rd1 “mate” in your story doesn’t get black’s king out of check – it’s still attacked by white’s rook. Ergo, it’s illegal. Q.E.D.
So your appeal was completely unnecessary. The rules in effect at the time were already sufficient. Since you once suggested I read Harkness, I’ll quote Harkness here:
Article 10.2. Check must be parried by the move immediately following. …
Your appeal 30 years ago, and the current discussions, have served a useful purpose, though. It has become apparent that arbiters must be cautious about assuming that checkmate (or stalemate, or agreement, or resignation) immediately ends the game, if there has been an illegal move within the last 10 move-pairs. Whether this caution is achieved via 11A (as jwiewel suggests) or 1A, or common sense, or an improvement in the wording, is another issue.
In the position given earlier, 1…Rd1 is theoretically legal under the rules at the time. It parries the check by mating the opponent.
Imagine a position where your Knight moves to attack my Queen. I could defend my Queen in various ways. I could capture your Knight. I could move my Queen. Or I could mate you, as the Queen is no longer under attack since the game is over.
If the methods by which check may be parried are not specified, mate is a defence to check, since the game ends with mate - and thus the check is parried.
My initial argument under the rules at the time was that the move was legal. However, I pointed out that the rules were also faulty if the move was illegal, for the reasons previously given.
That’s a flawed analysis. You are not required, by the rules, to defend your queen. You are required by the rules to parry a check. From the Harkness quote it appears, as any reasonable person not out to prove a point, that you were also required to parry a check back then. Ignoring it and delivering checkmate was not legal then either.
You missed the point of the analogy. Whether one is required to defend the Queen or not is immaterial. When the game ends, the Queen is no longer under attack, so IT HAS been defended.
Likewise, under the rules at that time, if a King was in check, mating the opponent ends the game and stops the attack. It’s a completely legal interpretation under the rules at the time.
However, although the logic is correct, one realizes that the concept is so radical, that a person might still insist that the mating move is illegal - so we also showed - as has been previously discussed in this thread, that under the rules at the time, even if the mating move were illegal, it still ended the game and resulted in a win.
I agree that this was an undesirable result, and that’s why I raised the issue to get the rule corrected.
Sorry, Bill. Simply making a claim is insufficient. The game is over. Are you claiming that piece are still under attack after the game ends? If so, how, since the opponent is unable to execute any further moves?
Well, that’s not true, since US Chess agreed and changed the rules. It’s also not true since the TD at the time agreed and couldn’t see any way to rule “what was right”.
You’re throwing around words like “Nonsense” - but not actually offering any reason for your claim. If, after giving mate, Black is still in check as you claim, even though the game is over, please state how given that White has no remaining moves with which to execute a threat?
We all understand what we WANT to happen, and what the former rules allowed under that circumstance was not it. I agree the result is undersirable - but it IS the result.
Additionally, even if the mating move is illegal (which it isn’t) - it doesn’t matter - since White has no recourse under the rules (at the time.)
The rules at that time had inadvertently removed the rules that prevent PMC, Bill.
I’ll be able to in a few weeks. I don’t recall that aspect off the top of my head from 30-ish years gone by, and don’t currently own the past rulebooks. However, I recently arranged to have all past rulebooks destructively scanned to PDF for a donation to US Chess, including the Official Chess Handbook and Official Chess Blue Book, so that US Chess will have a permanent electronic copy going forward.
I’m fairly certain that this error occurred in the 3rd edition which I believe was Redman’s, but I’ll have to double check. It may have been the 2nd. I believe it was corrected in the 4th edition. I would assume that the rule was similar to 4A of today (attacked by one or more of opponent’s pieces with no move to escape such attack) but without the clarifying information of the current 12A.
This part I’ll have to research to verify, my recollection simply isn’t good on these points.
They probably simply wanted to get you off their backs, along with any other potential cave dwellers in various states who might come up with similar concerns.
The game is not over, because black has not made a legal move. An illegal move never ends a game, it just requires that the position revert to an earlier state.
not sure i understand this whole discourse. i was under the impression the rules of chess have been around for centuries with few modifications. if one is in check, you have to get out of check. how is making an illegal move getting out of check?
Not true, based on the changes and comments at the time.
This is not true in the 2nd Ed of the US Chess rules. There was no requirement that the mating move be legal. I also believe that in those rules, there was no 10 move lookback - if an illegal move was found during the game, one could go all the way back to move 1 if necessary (though I need to check this.)
Hence, one could argue that if there were any illegal move in any game that the mating move was not legal.
Again Bill, as I have noted for several times, I am NOT ADVOCATING for this, I’m simply pointing out that the rules had significant shortcomings in this area, which have generally since been remedied.
Yes, but not one that we wish shows up by accident in tournaments.
The rules for castling weren’t standardized across countries until the late 1800’s. Clocks also came into use in the late 1800’s and further changed the rules. Swiss pairings started to appear essentially post WWII. Digital clocks in the 1970’s and 1980’s. All of these events changed the rules.
Organizations have their own written variants of rules. FIDE rules and US Chess rules are not the same.
What’s being pointed out is that in the 2nd (and possibly) 3rd edition of the Official Rules of Chess by USCF, there were problems in the wording of some of the rules that allowed UNINTENDED results.
That happens even today - there are rules where the plain language wording has caused disputes.
In the second edition of the rulebook, it said the check must be parried - but it didn’t say how. Historically, we understand that to be capture of the checking piece, interposition, or moving the King. But in that edition of the rulebook - these options were removed and not enumerated along with some other issues.
It is clear from the rules that mate ends the game. It is also clear that if the opponent is mated, then the game is over, and my pieces are no longer under attack. Hence, if we do not enumerate the three ways to get out of check, and just asked a random person who was learning the game and the rules, would someone new say that the rules require interposition, capture, or moving the king? (No.) Mate wouldn’t be illegal - because it ends the game and thus parries the check.
This was not a desired result, and was unintended. But we can’t have sloppy rules where “everyone knows what they mean” because at some point people will disagree on the meaning. Hence, rigorous rules and rules corrections are necessary over time.
and just because the rulebook didn’t say specifically how to get out of check doesn’t mean ya can make your own rules. i thought you made that argument yourself in other circumstances?
