okay, kevin, i get what you’re sayin’. guess i should’ve read your whole reply before shooting off my riposte.
i’ve always looked upon “the official rules” though as a “the official rules to tournament chess”. i don’t know of a single person that learned the game by reading the tome.
cheers, …scot…
The player DID get out of check. That’s the point. Since the rulebook didn’t specify the valid ways to get out of check, it wouldn’t be illegal. That’s also the point.
It didn’t have to. Obviously, parrying a check means playing a move such that, after the move, your king is no longer under attack from any enemy piece. Your …Rd1 doesn’t parry the check.
I agree with your last sentence, and I’ve understood your “unintended consequences” point from the beginning, as well as the reasons for your actions of 30 years ago. In this case, however, your “some people” is one person, a person obsessed with finding cracks in a rule that nobody else has had a problem with.
The changes made in response to your appeal are basically harmless, and may even help beginners realize that “parrying a check” doesn’t necessarily mean moving the king.
The other side of the coin is that any “improvement” or “explanation” can lead to extra clutter. In this case, clauses were added to explain capturing and interposing. Were the extra clauses worth it? Maybe, maybe not. It seems to me in this case that nobody was confused anyway, so why bother?
Bill Smythe
I don’t have a copy of that rulebook. Did it specify that you can’t parry the check by picking up the checking piece, tossing it off the board and then moving one of your pieces in a way that followed the normal rules of movement? Or, since parry is a term used in fencing, taking an epee and using it to flick the checking piece off the board?
In some clubs, people doing that (particularly when a group of people are watching) are deemed to just be opting for a somewhat humorous way of resigning.
Yes it did. Refer to the touch move rule and other rules that define a legal move when touching an opponent’s piece.
Yes, that was covered. See above.
May I suggest a moratorium on this discussion? It is obvious that:
I’m not saying the thread ought to be locked, since discussions on illegal positions might be useful. But Dowd-Bachler is not worthy of further debate.
In the 2nd edition (published 1978) there are these items, first from Article 10.2:
Check must be parried by the move immediately following. If the check cannot be parried, it is said to be “mate.” (See Article 11.1)
and Article 11 – The Won Game:
11.1 The game is won by the player who has mated his opponent’s king.
Taken together, these rules were (and are) perfectly adequate because nobody expected some [AUG Violation] to try to create an exception to what everyone knew to be true.
Many rules were sparsely worded back then because it was understood that they were backed by a culture and knowledge base shared by all experienced TDs. Acquiring that knowledge was part of the educational process for all beginning TDs. Rule 1A was a big deal back then. Those who wanted to become TDs were expected to have some common sense.
The insistence that everything has to spelled out in “the plain language” is ridiculous, in my view. This kind of thing has been a contributing factor to the Rulebook getting so much larger over the years.
In the 3rd edition (published 1987), Section 1.11 (B) states:
Check must be parried by the move immediately following. If the check cannot be parried, the king is said to be “checkmated” (see 1.12).
And Section 1.12 (A):
The game is won by the player who has mated his opponent’s king, provided that the mating move was legal. This immediately ends the game.
So, the (completely unnecessary) correction Kevin refers to was made. There were no further substantive changes to these rules in the 4th edition.
– Hal Terrie
In that case the final move in Bachler-Dowd was not a check that cannot be parried since it gets parried by citing the illegal move. That seems to be a lot stronger parry than leaving your king in check while “mating” the opponent.
I own all the rulebooks from the Harkness Handbook through the 6th edition, so we won’t have to wait “a few weeks”. The relevant passages are as follows.
Bill Smythe
Official Chess Handbook (Harkness), 1967:
CHECK
10.1 The King is in check when the square on which it stands is attacked by an enemy man; the latter is then said to give check to the King.
10.2 Check must be parried by the move immediately following. If check cannot be parried, it is said to be “mate.” (See Article 11.1.)
10.3 A man intercepting a check to the King of its own color can itself give check to the enemy King.
WON GAME
11.1 The game is won by the player who has mated the enemy King. (See Article 10.2.)
(There follows an extensive discussion, with diagrams, of the various ways to get out of check – moving, capturing, or interposing).
Official Chess Rulebook (Harkness), 1970 (a skinny update of some sections of the above):
CHECK
10.1 The King is in check when the square on which it stands is attacked by an enemy man; in this case the latter is said be “checking the King.”
10.2 Check must be parried by the move immediately following. If the check cannot be parried, it is said to be “mate.” (See Article 11.1.)
10.3 A man intercepting a check to the King of its own color can itself give check to the enemy King.
WON GAME
11.1 The game is won by the player who has mated the enemy King. (See Article 10.2.)
(There follows an extensive discussion, with diagrams, of the various ways to get out of check – moving, capturing, or interposing).
Official Rules of Chess, 1st edition (Morrison), 1974:
CHECK
10.1 The King is in check when the square on which it stands is attacked by an enemy piece; in this case the latter is said be “checking the King.”
10.2 Check must be parried by the move immediately following. If the check cannot be parried, it is said to be “mate.” (See Article 11.1.)
10.3 A man blocking a check to the King of its own color can itself give check to the enemy King.
WON GAME
11.1 The game is won by the player who has mated his opponent’s King.
(There is no discussion of the various ways to get out of check).
Official Rules of Chess, 2nd edition (Morrison), 1977:
CHECK
10.1 The King is in check when the square on which it stands is attacked by an enemy piece; in this case the latter is said be “checking the King.”
10.2 Check must be parried by the move immediately following. If the check cannot be parried, it is said to be “mate.” (See Article 11.1.)
10.3 A man blocking a check to the King of its own color can itself give check to the enemy King.
WON GAME
11.1 The game is won by the player who has mated his opponent’s King.
(There is no discussion of the various ways to get out of check).
Official Rules of Chess, 3rd edition (Redman), 1987:
1.11 CHECK
A. The king is in check when the square on which it stands is attacked by one or two of the opponent’s pieces; in this case the latter is or are said to be “checking the king.” Check is parried by capturing the opposing piece, interposing one of the player’s own pieces between the checking piece and the king (as long as the checking piece isn’t a knight), or by a king move.
B. Check must be parried by the move immediately following. If the check cannot be parried, the king is said to be “checkmated” (See 1.12).
C. A piece blocking a check to the king of its own color can itself give check to the enemy King.
D. Declaring a check is not obligatory.
1.12 THE COMPLETED GAME
A. The game is won by the player who has mated his opponent’s king, provided that the mating move was legal. This immediately ends the game.
Official Rules of Chess, 4th edition (Goichberg et al), 1994:
12. CHECK
12A. Definition. The king is “in check” when the square it occupies is attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces; such pieces are said to be “checking the king.” Check is parried by capturing the opposing piece, interposing one of the player’s own pieces between the checking piece and the king (not possible if checking piece is a knight), or moving the king.
12B. Double check. If the square the king occupies is attacked by two opposing pieces, this is also known as “double check,” and may be parried only by moving the king.
12C. Responding to check. Check must be parried on the move immediately following. If a player’s king is unable to escape check, it is “checkmated” and the player loses the game (see 13A).
13. THE DECISIVE GAME
13A. Checkmate. The game is won by the player who checkmates the opponent’s king, providing the mating move is legal. This immediately ends the game.
Official Rules of Chess, 5th edition (Just et al), 2003:
12. CHECK
12A. Definition. The king is “in check” when the square it occupies is attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces; such pieces are said to be checking the king. Check is parried (a player gets out of check) by capturing a sole checking opposing piece, interposing one of the player’s own pieces between a sole checking piece and the king (not possible if checking piece is a knight or a pawn), or moving the king. The king cannot parry check by castling.
12B. Double check. The square occupied by the king being attacked by two opposing pieces is known as “double check,” and may be parried only by moving the king. The king cannot parry double check by castling.
12C. Responding to check. Check must be parried on the move immediately following. If a player’s king is unable to escape check, it is “checkmated” and the player loses the game (13A).
13. THE DECISIVE GAME
13A. Checkmate. The player who checkmates the opponent’s king, providing the mating move is legal, wins the game.
Official Rules of Chess, 6th edition (Just), 2014:
(Identical to 5th edition in all of the above areas.)
I notice those rules do not mention that checkmate immediately ends the game until after the requirement that the meting move be legal was added. Therefore when Kevin delivered the game did not end immediately and he was still in check. Therefore the check was not parried.
“Coffeehouse” tricks were always heavily penalized during tournament play during the era when the Harkness “Bluebook” and the “Official Chess Handbook” as well as the first two editions of the Rulebook were used. Even “coffeehouse” players knew that they would lose the stake or pot, get thrown out of the venue, or worse if they were caught by opponents. There were rules about those sort of things, even if they were not written down. When norms and traditions are ignored or twisted, institutions and value systems are undermined. Statutes and black letter rules provide only a skeleton.
One thing I noticed when compiling the above historical chess rules is that some clauses stated as rules are actually just mathematical facts derived as consequences of the rules.
One example is the “rule” against getting out of double check by interposition. That doesn’t need to be a rule. By the nature of chess, there can never be a position where an interposition will parry both checks.
Ditto with getting out of double check by capturing the checking piece. That one is worse yet, because it’s not even correct. If the capturing piece is the king, then it can be possible for a capture to parry both checks.
I once had a player ask me, in a position like the following, whether after 1.Bxd7 it was legal for black to play 1…Kxd7. “My rulebook says it’s illegal to get out of double check by capturing a piece.”
In the interests of simplicity, and in order to avoid confusions like this, I would actually prefer that all discussion of the methods of getting out of check be stricken from the rules altogether, and relegated to a side discussion (perhaps a TD Tip) instead.
In recent years FIDE has adopted the philosophy of “simplicity is best” in the way its rules are rewritten. As a result, FIDE rules now have greater clarity and readability than the U.S. Chess versions. It’s about time to make the switch. If there are a few FIDE rules that we just can’t live with, we can always state some “U.S. Chess variations”.
Bill Smythe
And this entire discussion is important why?
The Secret Handshake attitude strikes again.
If “…everyone knew” what was “true.” – then why is a rulebook needed at all, Hal?
I believe there were additional changes made in either the 3rd or 4th edition (I think the latter). Specifically the methods to parry were reinstated (they were in the 1st IIRC, and were also in Harness’ books.)
Good fences make good neighbors, Hal. Assumed fences make an ass-u-me.
If you had read my summary post of earlier this morning you would see that the discussion of the various ways of parrying a check were included in the Harkness edition, omitted from the 1st and 2nd editions (Morrison), restored in the 3rd edition (Redman), and retained with a few modifications in all subsequent editions.
Bill Smythe
This is incorrect; Other rulings on the use of a clock concluded that a mating move ended the game, hence there was already precedent.
Not only is your grammar “incorrectly”, so is your logic. Stating that checkmate ends the game in the context of it negating a flagfall claim cannot reasonably be considered applicable to all other situations. If it was meant to apply to all other situations, it would have been there. Indeed, if the rulemakers desired to have your interpretation in Dowd-Bachler to be valid, one could reasonably argue they would have put it there.
Yes it can be, because the ruling is that upon letting go the piece, the opponent is mated, and hence what the clock does is irrelevant. That isn’t situational except for the clock reference, it is always the case that letting go the piece instantly executes mate.
Does Rule 12B even need to exist? The world “sole” (referring to capture of checking piece) already exists in 12A. But it does no harm.
Since Checkmate is simply the move before the King can be unavoidably captured, one could just play capture the King and open up a different can of worms. 