The point of capturing the king, in events which allow it (such as some blitz events), is to easily point out that your opponent has made an illegal move and pressed his clock, thus unfairly depriving you of your clock time. Leaving the king in check is simply an illegal move, just as (for example) moving a rook diagonally. Either way, once your opponent presses his clock, he loses instantly, if you call it (and if it’s that kind of event, i.e. blitz).
With “online and chess software” (as far as I know, I don’t follow it much), the software simply won’t allow your opponent to press the clock (figuratively, i.e. your time will not start running) until he makes a legal move, so there’s no need for this capture-the-king nonsense.
The old WBCA rules handled this one beautifully: “This cheap shot will not be tolerated!”
The current scholastic blitz rule 18 is (including the exclamation point):
Moving the King next to another King is illegal, and neither player can play King takes King!
I appreciate the spirit of this, but it seems there are some technical difficulties.
Suppose white plays Ka7 here. It’s illegal, but black doesn’t call it, so game continues. Black plays Nf6. Is that illegal, too? White then plays Bg2+. Is that illegal, too? Black plays Nd5. Is that illegal, too? White plays Bxd5. Is that illegal, too? If not (or maybe even if so), is it checkmate? It seems Kxa7 is illegal (“neither player can play King takes King!”) as are Kb8 and Kb7 (“Moving the King next to another King is illegal”), so it’s mate, right? :mrgreen:
A key point in having blitz tournaments is to have very quick events,
and plenty of games. This spirit is ruined with countless adjudications,
adding time for illegal moves, etc. A far better answer to this is to
simply have the variation that if you make an illegal move you lose.
And this rule is personally a source of consternation for me. It has no business being in a rule book.
Here is the entire text of the rule:
This “rule” adds absolutely zero value to the blitz rules. The first sentence is redundant; rules 8 (how the pieces move) and 12 (check) of the Official Rules of Chess already define this as an illegal move. The second sentence provides no factual information and is simply a statement of opinion. (Note that I make no judgment regarding the stated opinion.) The third sentence is also redundant in view of blitz rule 7d.
This language is (in my view) unacceptable in a rules document.
I can see your point from the TD / administrative perspective.
As an experienced tournament player who routinely watches other (supposedly experienced) players get “bright ideas” about how the rules work…I’m glad it’s in there. Blitz is a different animal. K vs K and the consequences need to be spelled out. Thankfully it’s in there, so it’ll take 10 years or more to remove it. If it wasn’t…it would take 20+ years to be included.
Well, given that capturing the king is legal in blitz (as long as the capturing piece is something other than the king), I guess it’s just as well that there is language about KxK being an intolerated cheap shot.
Better yet, however, would be to simply handle it the way it is in regular or quick. An illegal move (whether leaving the king in check, moving a knight like a bishop, etc) should simply result in a time adjustment.
For blitz, a sensible time adjustment would be one minute (instead of two) added to the opponent’s time. For a second offense by the same player in the same game, one minute could be taken off the offender’s time, possibly resulting in a time forfeit.
That way, a single inadvertent illegal move would not spoil a beautiful game.
Is it actually a requirement that it be another piece? If my opponent moves his/her King to a square controlled by my King, can’t I capture it with my King?
Another pet peeve, sigh … While most players will never play blitz under the FIDE rules, capturing the king is not allowed under the Laws of Chess. Capturing the king is an illegal move, and if the player who does so presses the clock, the player whose king was illegally captured has the right to claim the win (assuming there is not one arbiter per game [“adequate supervision”]).
Not to mention that Blitz “rules” vary from club to club and place to place.
Ummm, am I the only one who has a hard time taking rated Blitz seriously? Capture-the-King? King captures King? Are we really talking about this seriously? Then there is no ILC by default and limited ILC even if announced as a variant. This plus a default of zero delay/increment, even if a digital clock is used. Plus keeping the King and Queen “switched” if not noticed on the first move—with “hybrid” castling allowed if that happens. Not to mention the clock-move variant—not found in the Rules updates.
I am sure I missed a gem or two from the Blitz rules that Boyd cited. (In the Rules Update doc linked to the home page.) Blitz has its place. I play online blitz games; also play blitz—sometimes on analog clocks for old times’ sake—at a local club. There you learn quickly who are the tools who won’t agree a draw in K+RP+B of wrong color vs. K. You learn who gets upset and acts out over losing a “fun” five-minute game…but you also really have fun sometimes.
The razzing and camaraderie are part of the charm of Blitz. (“Hey, Fats, you left your King in check. No jelly beans for you.”) That is the main part of its charm, I would say. I have noticed in QC games that the faster the time control, the more likely that normally well-behaved players will make a comment, or slam a piece, etc. It’s not that they turn ‘bad’ when they play QC----it just seems natural to act that way with that little time on the clock to start. Ingrained reflex. I expect this will be much more true of rated Blitz.
I don’t get the attraction…but seeing so many smart guys who have been around rated chess forever take this seriously makes me wonder what I am missing.
Unless it is really and truly for fun—in which case it also should not be rated. Pretty sure I am out-voted here; looking forward to the refutations from the majority. (Really)
I don’t care much if I’m in the majority but I’ll take my shot at supporting the blitz rating.
Top reason: players have been asking and talking about it for decades, and it has taken the nameless/faceless chess politicians (generic term for the slowpokes who voted against it) way too long to enact it.
In the immortal words of Animal House (paraphrased): “We need the rating fees.”
Like it or not, G/3 inc/2 is the world standard for blitz so the “zero increment” issue isn’t much of an issue for the majority of the rated chess world.
FIDE instituted a blitz rating and honestly, it’s sad that FIDE moved faster than USCF did.
In a world of delay and increment, ILC/14H is as useful as t.eets on a boar hog; it doesn’t apply to blitz, and any organizer nuts enough to run a Quick or Regular tournament without it should also be (wo)man enough to announce that 14H is not in effect.
Just because I want to pile it on…it might be one man’s opinion, but 14H should die a spectacular and painful death.
My pleasure. So, where are the 3.2 USCF-rated Blitz events? Granted it’s early days, but I see G/5, d/0 advertised; not G/3, Inc-2. BTW, if we want to follow FIDE as much as possible, note that the DGT line of clocks do not meet USCF standards for either Blitz or other rated games played with increment. They cannot be set to keep running after one player has flagged, when set to increment mode.
It might be time to abolish 14H/ILC for SD games with standard delay/increment—especially with the rule (variation?) that a late-arriving player can substitute a delay clock before making a move.
For SD games with no increment/delay, we need some form of relief—else we will see K+B chasing K+N in a mad frenzy with seconds left. Note that the defaults in USCF Blitz rules call for G/5, d/0 and no ILC. I hope you are right that Inc-2 or d/2 will be used often. We shall see.
This is already the longstanding status quo. By its explicit language, and since its inclusion in the rulebook, 14H is inapplicable when a delay or increment is being used. If one really has insufficient losing chances, an increment or delay is sufficient not to lose.
The idea of Steve Immitt’s rules change was to make sure no player was forced to play with a non-delay clock, as long as that player furnished a delay clock of his/her own.
That was a key argument against abolishing 14H when that discussion arose 2-3 years ago: i.e. if we abolish ILC and a player shows up one minute late to find a ticking analog clock, he is stuck. (The ‘old’ rule stated that if one player is on time and the opponent is late, the prompt player—whether White or Black—gets to choose which clock to use, even an analog.)
In fact, I think the reason Steve proposed the “delay clock substitution” rule was as insurance in case the Delegates abolished 14H in 2010—give or take a year—when there was an ADM to do just that.
Now that the rule—or variation; really should clarify that—is on the books, I would not oppose doing away with 14H, since it’s hardly ever seen any more that I know of…but only for games with a delay or increment.
Why it makes sense to rate G/5 games with defaults of no delay/increment and no ILC—with claimed illegal move loses, even if it’s capture-the-King; illegal starting position stands as of move 2; widely used unofficial variant of clock-move…plus the nonsense claimed illegal move wins at the scholastic event a few years ago…sharp veteran chess dudes talking seriously about how to handle K takes K…??? Come on.
:mrgreen: