Illegal Positions

Running Chess Tournaments
101 
In the 1967, 1970, 1974 and 1977 rulebooks, per 10.2 mate only occurs if check cannot be parried and the definition of "parried" was not given.  Thus an illegal move delivering check is easily parried by citing the illegal move, which must then be retracted and replaced with a legal move.
If the Bachler-Dowd game occurred at that time then the TD was blindsided by a carefully prepared unusual parsing of rules and apparent logic for which the TD had not yet had enough time to find a correct rebuttal.  It could have been readily denied under the rules as then written.


In the 1987 rulebook the requirement that the mating move be legal was added to 1.12A, so the Bachler-Dowd game must have occurred prior to that.  The rule about mate immediately ending the game was also added to 1.12A at that time.  That rulebook also described HOW to parry a check in 1.11A and did not include citing an illegal move as one of the methods.

The 1994, 2003 and later rulebooks use a different rules numbering sequence, with 12A defining check.  The 2003 and later editions include the TD tip in 11A that can handle an illegal move shortly prior to a mate with a legal move.

That would mean that the 1987 and 1994 rulebooks might have bowed to pressure to more fully define getting out of check, and in doing so may have opened a door for the type of tortuous logic used before "parried" was given a limited definition.  The door was partially closed with the "legal move" addendum for the mating move but it wasn't fully closed until the 11A TD tip was added (no later than 2003).

The 1987-2003 window is an example of how trying to more fully define every nuance in a way that closes the door to misinterpretations often ends up opening new misinterpretations that are harder to refute after the revisions were made.  The rule was fine with using "parried" without a further definition.  I am guessing it was added to explicitly refute people trying to say that a king couldn't capture a checking piece (or one of the two pieces giving double-check).  The immediate end of the game was likely added to state that a flag could not be called after a checkmating move was determined, though it reinforced 18G2 so that a TD could justify calling a checkmate (or stalemate in that rule) because there was no longer an active game to be interfered with.  It might have also been added to avoid people trying to annul a checkmate by delivering a counter-checkmate.

It may have been better to

A> make 12A simpler, possibly also copying in the final sentence of 12C and eliminating the rest.
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) if the player’s next legal move ends with no piece of the opponent’s attacking the square the king is on. The king cannot parry check by castling.
B> not say that checkmate immediately ends the game (thus allowing illegal moves to be cited)
C> leave the mate superseding flag rules only in the sections dealing with the clock
D> let TDs use just 18G2 if they need to intervene after an unnoticed checkmate/stalemate
E> possibly also copy the TD tip (about not gaining an unfair advantage from an illegal move) more cleanly into 11A

102

Not actually true for the Harkeness books, since they provide examples.

This analysis is incorrect and has already been demonstrated as such.

  1. If there is no definition of parry, and mate ends the game, then mate parries the check. Thus, a mating move while in check under an appropriately stated rule set is not implicitly illegal.

We can agree that it SHOULD have been illegal, but it wasn’t.

  1. Under the rules at the time, a requirement to deal with an illegal move was that the illegal move must be found during the game. Mate ends the game. Therefore the illegal move cannot be found during the game, because move completion and the end of the game are simultaneous.

Again, we can agree that the rules shouldn’t have said this - but that is what they actually said.

Rules should be clear, consistent and complete. Completeness does not imply that they are long or tortuous - those are signs of poor rule writing.

103

I’m curious - why is it a badge of honor for TDs to argue against quality rules?

104

Ah, I see we have a candidate applying to be the next rulebook editor.

105

The definition of quality is what appears to generate the difference.

106

Heaven forbid.

Bill Smythe

107

It appears to me that the word “sole” was added to 12A to prevent anybody from claiming that you could get out of double check by interposing against, or capturing, just one of the two pieces delivering check. But that left a hole in the rules regarding double check, so 12B was added.

That wasn’t exactly the spiffiest way to get around the double check dilemma, but it’s probably what happened.

Bill Smythe

108

The rules stated
10.2 Check must be parried by the move immediately following.

There were examples given of how to parry a check

Were the rules were silent about claiming an illegal move to parry a check and about delivering a checkmate while leaving your king in check?

If so then you are stating that because the rules were silent on delivering checkmate while in check then that allowed your “check” even though you violated 10.2 by leaving your king in check. and you are stating that because the rules were silent on claiming an illegal move while in check then that prohibited making such a claim to parry the “check” and that meant it was a “checkmate”.
A paraphrase of that would be that your chess actions are allowed unless explicitly prohibited and others’ chess actions are prohibited unless explicitly allowed.

The rules explicitly stated that a check that cannot be parried is a checkmate. Thus the checking move in and of itself did not deliver checkmate until it was determined that it could not be parried and stating that it was checkmate would only occur if you did prohibit the illegal move claim (which you said was prohibited because it wasn’t explicitly allowed) to parry the illegal move (which you said was allowed because it was not explicitly prohibited).

I am guessing you do not think that the proposed revision of mine, which you included in your quote, is not a quality rule.

Before trying to clean up a rule I try to figure out a lot of the diabolical ways people will try to misuse such a rewrite.  Attempting to be complete by going into unnecessary details is generally an invitation for abuse.  One example is a billionaire <A> noticing that uninhabitable properties have a lower appraisal than habitable properties and that toilets are necessary for a property to be habitable, <B> removing toilets from a large house (that he isn't using but wants to still retain ownership of) so that it is listed as uninhabitable and thus <C> getting a new and lower appraisal that allows property tax savings well in excess of the cost of the removal and eventual replacement (this is NOT a hypothetical example and has been prominently documented in the Chicago newspapers).
That is why my suggested rewrite doesn't go into exact details on how to get out of check, bur rather just states the player's next move must be legal and what conditions are needed before a player can be considered to be out of check (with the redundant proviso about not castling out of check so that people don't overlook that proviso already existing in rule 8A4a on castling).
109

I will lay odds that if you were trying to clean up a rule about getting out of check you would never have come up with such a diabolical technique as arguing that ignoring the check by delivering checkmate. Such an idea would not occur to anyone but a rules lawyer.

110

That means you must anticipate anything Kevin Bachler might cook up. That’s a pretty tall order.

Edit: Mulfish and I crossed in the ether with our essentially identical posts. Great minds think alike.

Bill Smythe

111

FIDE rule 11.1 says “The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.” I trust that would render any analogous claims moot, preferably with harsh sanctions.

Alex Relyea

112

I have no idea what you are trying to say in the above.

In the Dowd game situation, the point is that under the rules at the time, no illegal. 10.2 is not violated because the King is not left in check.

Simple analogy, Jeff: Your Queen is attacked by your opponent. If you mate your opponent, is your Queen still under attack? Answer: No, since there is no possibility of capture. Mate ends the game.

Why would the King act differently when it is under attack if there is no rule to the contrary?

You seem confused here. “The rules explicitly stated that a check that cannot be parried is a checkmate.” – ok, agreed.

“Thus the checking move in and of itself did not deliver checkmate until it was determined that it could not be parried and stating that it was checkmate would only occur if you did prohibit the illegal move claim (which you said was prohibited because it wasn’t explicitly allowed) to parry the illegal move (which you said was allowed because it was not explicitly prohibited).”

The “checking move” was never checkmate. It was check. Black responded to check by a mating move. The rules of chess don’t define a “parrying determination period” - the move is determined when the piece is released. At that point it is mate and the game is over. Hence your analysis is incorrect. You are inventing things that do not fall within the rules, nor within the rules of the time.

(Note to moderators - the above is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of faulty analysis which is being copied to EB members. I suggest you do not remove the example to defend the TDCC. Many of these people are NTDs who are supposed to be knowledgeable. They should be capable of defending their own positions without the moderators putting their thumb on the scale.)

“Legal” is determined based on the rules - not based on what we want, or desire. This is why simply saying a move is legal may be insufficient. If how a check may be parried is undefined, then mating the opponent to parry check may well be legal. Essentially you’re arguing for a circular rule.

Yes, well-defining things can open up unintended loopholes. But in the case of parrying check, there is a roster of three ways to parry. It’s not onerous to include that roster.

Hence, we should simply write rules well. We’ve seen many - many - situations in the past year where rules are either poorly written or interpretations are poor - depending upon perspective. The plain language of a rule and its interpretation should not be polar opposites as we have seen in examples in the past year.

113

Can we end this? It will not die a natural death.

114

+1

115

When I started directing tournaments back in 1972 during the Harkness rulebook era, the TDs at the time related the tricks, coffeehouse tactics, and arguments that they had to deal with over the years. Some of them knew Kenneth Harkness and were familiar with his aversion to twisting rules, “rules lawyers” and the coffeehouse tricks that rules before 1952 addressed. His “Blue Book” and the later Official Chess Handbook compiled what these TDs deemed as best practices for running tournaments and managing a club. One of the tricks was almost identical to the Bachler-Dowd fiasco, of trying to confuse the other player and the TD that it was permissible to get out of check by merely making a checkmating move of the opponent. The way they handled it and other problems was the following:

  1. Determine whether the move made was an accident or a deliberate attempt to cause a disruption through the use of a trick. Rule against the action taken by the player who made the illegal checkmate move. Replace the pieces back to where they were before the absurd checkmate move was made. The player was required to parry the check to his own King with the known options to do so, the so-called TIM “rule” that we use today when dealing with this issue with young scholastic players, that everyone knew from the first days they learned to play chess. That is, either take the checking piece, interpose another piece to block the check, or move the King. No time penalty would accrue for accidents

  2. If the player refused to comply, this was clear evidence that he was not following the rules, which meant he could be penalized with the loss of the game. One TD referred to this as “inimical conduct” which required a severe penalty, not just a warning. TD discretion required telling the player what would occur if he did not obey the rules and the ruling of the TD. This was not specifically written in the rules, as TD discretion and authority as well as general norms of conduct were known to the players. Now some might not like that degree of discretion, but running tournaments with 100+ players requires a firm hand and a no nonsense approach to deliberate player foolishness.

  3. If the player continued to frivolously argue that the rules were wrong, not explicit, or some other specious attempt to roil the game, his name would be removed from the pairing cards. He was out of the tournament. The rest of the rounds would be marked with a “U” as unplayed. He would not get his entry fee back. He would be asked to leave the playing area and the club. There were a few players who would argue endlessly, distracting and annoying other players in the skittles room. Usually, the other players would tell them to shut up and have some respect for the game. That self-policing by the players was a norm that was not in the rules, nor in later rule books, but was a powerful force in eliminating the type of coffeehouse play and tricks used by gamblers that were shunned by serious players in tournaments.

  4. If the player failed to leave, building management would be called. They would take steps to remove the player, up to calling the police and filing charges. It rarely ever had to get that far, as even the most obtuse, cantankerous, and obsessive did not want to get cracked on the head with a night stick. The police then were less than sensitive to arguments over how to parry a check.

  5. The player’s name would be given to the club directors to decide what to do about present and future misconduct. If the player was a club member, he could have his membership revoked. Players who created disturbances would no longer be allowed to enter future tournaments. There were not many who went through this, but it was well known that the club would cut them off.

  6. If the player was prepared to challenge the club and bring the matter up with the USCF claiming that the club was not permitted to deny him entry to tournaments, the directors were equally prepared to defend their position concerning player conduct and support the TD in his ruling.

The slim new Rulebooks, 1 and 2, came out soon after, clarifying discrepancies in USCF and FIDE rules. It was clear to all how a check might be parried. One of the biggest issues in the early official rulebooks concerned procedures for draws, how they were to be offered, and the number of moves before one could offer a draw. Since these rulebooks focused on professional player conduct of a game, there was, as yet, little time spent on mucking up the rules with unnecessary clarification and limits on TD discretion which quadrupled the size of the later rulebooks. It was expected that tournament organizers, clubs and TDs would have the common sense to address hard cases and alleged contradictions in the rules.

116

bravo, tmagchesspgh, bravo.

…scot…

117 
Under the rules at that time it is not a checkmate unless a check can be parried.

There were two different checks that needed to be parried.  You have been focusing just on how the Dowd check on Bachler was "brilliantly" parried.  You have been ignoring how the Bachler check on Dowd can readily be parried and are totally denying Dowd that ability to parry a check (by citing the illegal move exactly as he did during the game and was upheld by the TD).
For some reason you find it reasonable to have a double standard (you are allowed to do something unless it is explicitly prohibited while Dowd is prohibited from doing something unless it is explicitly allowed).  Please explain why the double standard is correct.  Why is Bachler allowed to violate the illegal move rule (which is not explicitly listed as a way to parry a check and which no reasonable person would do) while Dowd is NOT allowed to cite that rule violation (which is not explicitly allowed as a way to parry a check and which no reasonable person would contest).
That flawed argument helped change the 1987 rulebook to explicitly define how to parry checks (removing an illegal checkmate as an option).  In the process the ability to cite an illegal move was eliminated.  It wasn't until the 2003 rulebook that 11A was expanded on and could thus be used to nullify a checkmate when the penultimate move was illegal.
That reaction to a rule change created a 16 year window where a player could illegally move a bishop from e2 to c3 and on the following move support a legal mate on g7 (Bill Smythe's example earlier in this thread).  That is a legacy of the Bachler-Dowd game.

I will always be able to cite Bachler-Dowd as one very good reason for why I am very hesitant to endorse a reactive rule change, particularly when it is in reaction to a very bizarre type of reasoning.
Explicitly listing the different ways to parry a check retains the illegal-penultimate-move argument that would actually have a chance of swaying a TD that hasn't closely read 11A.  Saying that including the three standard ways is "not onerous" would be faint comfort for a TD facing somebody arguing that the penultimate illegal move does not nullify a checkmate.
118

Note to moderators: If you want to lock this thread, please do not let kbachler have the last word. Lock it immediately after one of jwiewel’s more brilliant posts, like the one to which the above was a response.

Better yet, just block kbachler from contributing further to this thread. Put him in the moderation queue, if necessary. I, for one, am more than a little tired of his ridiculous “logic” that nobody else in the world agrees with, and with his insistence on always having the last word.

Bill Smythe

119

We should strive to have rules that are clear, but they’re never going to be perfect or able to cover every situation. In the example that Bill Smythe gave, a technical reading of rule 11D1 could result in the director upholding the checkmate (there was time pressure and the illegal move wasn’t corrected before checkmate). However, the TD tip for 11A rightly points out that a player shouldn’t gain an advantage from an illegal move that was intentionally not pointed out. The director has to use his/her best judgment in order to determine what is more equitable. Kevin may disagree, but a good TD sometimes has to look beyond the letter of the law and discern the spirit of the law. That doesn’t mean he is disregarding the rules or making stuff up. Going back to the example that Bill Smythe gave; if the bishop had already been in a supporting position and the illegal move was irrelevant to the mate, the equation changes. The rules can’t cover every possible permutation. Wordsmithing rules can help clarify some gray areas, but it will never replace the need for good judgment.

120

Note that in some cases it is necessary to go over the scoresheets on another board to make sure that the moves are correct and no sneaky slip of a piece to a square has occurred to set up an illegal checkmate. Coffeehouse players when playing in tournaments were notorious for furtively moving a piece with a little finger or a sleeve to another square setting up a checkmate. These “penultimate” moves created arguments, especially when players were in time pressure and scorekeeping fell apart. As a player you had to beware if you left the table and came back to find a pawn, rook, or other piece missing, too. Another favorite trick was to change the time on a player’s clock when he was away from the board. One player I knew used to take and hide the pen of his opponent when the guy went to the loo. The guy would then waste time and be upset about the lost pen. These childish tricks were a pain to deal with.

If some TDs seemed harsh, suspicious, and unforgiving, it was because of the few jerks that they had to deal with who spoiled the game for others. Every TD had a list of players to watch for some kind of hanky panky or for being argumentative over a variety of things just for the sake of arguing. Young TDs were warned to scan the field and be in the playing area as much as possible to anticipate problems. When a player looked up and was looking at the TD, the director immediately was on the alert for something happening.