I did no such thing.
There is, however, wording so clear as to avoid debate.
I didn’t address Bill’s second comment because it’s wrong, and I saw no reason to, just as your analogy is faulty. In neither the actual case nor in the analogy is there any way to lose. There IS no downside.
$1 is a minor profit. $2 is twice as much, and is still minor. In fact, any1 day investment on only $250, or a small rule is, is minor.
I have companies deal with such minor issues every day, Jeff. I’ve been working with a Chicago company for several months trying to get them to take a no risk action because it will save them $1.2MM a month. They haven’t been able to focus on it because the amount is minor.
But like Steinitz, I believe in accumulating small advantages - especially when the “cost” is essentially $0.
Talmudic and biblical scholars have been proving otherwise for millennia.
Indeed, and as previously mentioned:
Correction - my memory was faulty. I believe it was responding to a check with a move that didn’t get you out of check. Same principle (although you did have a reason for doing it, specifically to point out a rules flaw).
Hi Mike, it was not a 3-move mate. Here is Kevin’s post about what he did in the Bachler-Dowd game. He left his king in check while playing checkmate. He then kept appealing every ruling as it went against him.
uschess.org/forums/viewtopi … wd#p330361
Here is my summation on how Bachler inspired a 12A rule “improvement” that left a 16-year window where the explicitly defined ways of getting out of check (move, block, capture) did not include pointing out an illegal move. And at the end of the window it was only an 11A TD tip (not a rule) that was all that could be cited to allow an illegal move claim (well, other than 1A). A weak TD might still be able to be led astray by somebody arguing that pointing out an illegal move was not one of the three ways of getting out of check (the pre-1987 rule only said that the check must be parried and didn’t put any limitations on how to do it).
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24241&p=330467&hilit=Bachler+Dowd#p330467
I will always be hesitant to make rules changes just to potentially avoid strange linguistic misinterpretations, and that is because such changes have a realistic chance of making things worse.
Even now we could have the following game (time control G60;d5 and the lower rated White arrives after 51 minutes): 1 e4 d6 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng5 h6 (materially an even game) and White spends 5 minutes calculating to officially reach the time pressure that precludes the TD from pointing out illegal moves before continuing with 4 Qxf7+ Kd7 5 Qe6+ Ke8 and a forced draw in an even game so it can be argued that 11A doesn’t even apply since White did not gain any unfair advantage by failing to point out an illegal move. The only thing left is the same 1A that Kevin did not want TDs to have to rely on.
There is an a-hole in every crowd. That’s where TD discretion comes into play…
Maybe we ought to add a rule for palyers - “Don’t be an ass.” 
Most won’t struggle with that. A few, however,…
How about a TD tip - “Don’t give in to asses” 
OK. It’s very simple. Assume you’re dealing with a person who can see one-ply. This is the assumption you refuse to accept even though as TDs we see it all the time, especially among parents. The nice and honest ones will chuckle at themselves when they hear an explanation. Those who are less honest or less nice may become agitated or grumpy instead.
A one ply participant doesn’t grasp context – that is, in fact, a big part of what makes them one ply.
Now - I utter the phrase - “the last ten moves”.
Do I mean the “last ten moves of the game” or do I mean “the prior ten moves”?
Incorrect interpretation. Every ruling did not go against me, because every ruling against me was shown to be false due to a rules flaw. The rulings “went against me” only if you don’t follow the argument for each to its end. (Note how you are guilty of the same offense as a “rules lawyer” who stops before the end of the argument due to a lack of understanding? In your case you claim it as a virtue, undermining the fact that you are right. But in the case of the newbie misinterpreting you claim it as something obvious, something sinful, that only a rules lawyer would try to do. As an NTD you should be stopping this destructive attitude, not contributing to it.)
The point here in one way was the same. A novice getting into chess could have made the same conclusion reasonably. Such a person would be highly confused when then told that this is not what the rules intended, even though the clear language is otherwise.
This is a secret handshake trap. We know so much that many of us have the unfortunate tendency - as Allen does - to designate a person asking such a question as an asshole, when in fact the fault is in ourselves. And then we get pissed off when someone suggests that we should clean up the language.
Gentlemen. GROW UP. It’s time to act like adults. Who in their right mind defends wording which is easily shown to be poor because everyone knows what it means?
If everyone knows what is meant, we wouldn’t need a rule to begin with. Start acting like professionals, not jerks, to new players.
A one-ply person fitting your description would not even be able to formulate, let alone articulate, your “last ten moves of the game” versus “the prior ten moves” dichotomy.
Case closed.
Bill Smythe
At the time of the Bachler-Dowd game checkmate was being in check and not being able to parry the check (parry was not explicitly defined in the rule because other rules stated how the pieces could legally move and remaining in check was not a legal option).
The argument made was:
A> Bachler could parry Dowd’s check by remaining in check and delivering checkmate (depending on checkmate ending the game to avoid having to parry the check)
and
B> Dowd could not claim an illegal move to parry the check because checkmate ends the game (taking away Dowd’s option to parry the check and thus saying it was a checkmate that ended the game because it was a checkmate that ended the game - kind of circular reasoning).
Thus Bachler could ignore the rules about illegal moves to “parry” Dowd’s check and Dowd could not follow the illegal move rules to parry Bachler’s check (and thus negate the checkmate because Dowd really could get out of check).
All of the appeals and the Rules committee ruled against Bachler. Then they opted for an explicit rule change (in the 1987 rulebook) to 13A to explicitly say that an illegal move checkmate did not end the game and I’m guessing they did that just to avoid having to go through the same rigamarole in case somebody else tried doing it. It only seems necessary for handling somebody trying to tortuously parse the rules, but understandable.
Unfortunately they closed the loop by also making a change to 12A to explicitly state how to get out of check and not only did they not include the option of playing an illegal checkmate, but they also overlooked including the option of claiming the opponent made an illegal move. That problem still exists, albeit partially mitigated by the TD Tip in 11A.
I don’t have a problem with the 13A change to handle anybody trying to tortuously parse the rules to their advantage. I do have a problem with the 12A change. Because of that I am hesitant to propose any off-the-cuff changes to one rule without thoroughly considered the impact on other rules.
Getting back to Bill’s point. I do not see “immediately prior” being any better than “last” with both having one-ply alternate definitions (one of the features of the English language) and the more complicated language may make it worse. So making a rule change that doesn’t improve anything simply adds the risk of confusing other rules with no real benefit. I wouldn’t support this change (I see it as unnecessary and potentially more confusing) but if a change does get made I made a suggestion for how to try to do it in a way that really does clarify the situation.
I don’t have a problem with making rule changes that make things easier to understand (such as the recent group of clarifications in the TD Certification Rules) but I do have a problem with making rule changes that do not make things either easier to understand or better. If a lengthy complicated explanation is needed to even try to explain how something is easier - it isn’t.
This is, of course, not an example. If I’m standing on a street corner waiting for a bus and Mr. Bachler wanders by and mumbles something about “the last ten moves” I, of course, have no idea what he’s talking about, but it doesn’t matter. For all I know he’s talking about the last ten times the bus I’m waiting for has had to stop. Do we include traffic lights or only when the bus stops to take on or discharge passengers? Why is this an issue for The Official Rules of Chess?
I assert that an example must have context to be an example. I don’t know what is meant by a “one ply participant” but suspect that the concept of “last ten” would be well beyond them.
If you are referring to someone who is incapable of evaluating the possible responses to a (chess) move, that is one who responds to 1.e4 with 1…f5 and is genuinely surprised when White plays 2.exf5, I can’t see how that has any bearing on this point. One who has extremely limited ability to assess the responses on the chessboard may be able to parse a simple English sentence. Yes, I’ve seen many players who play that way, and have done it myself on occasion.
To be a valid example, you need to explain when you utter your phrase, otherwise we can assume that your assert that the meaning is unclear when you mumble one at the bus stop but not the other.
Alex Relyea
Sticking to the rule in which you want to make this change, the relevant situation can only occur during a game – and during a game, “last ten moves” can only mean “prior ten moves”. It can’t mean “last ten moves of the game”, because the end of the game hasn’t happened yet. There is no ambiguity, and can be no ambiguity, except in your imagination.
I’m not really familiar with the case in question. Is Mr. Bachler arguing that the TD and all of the various appeals committees up to and including Rules didn’t really rule against him because they were wrong? I mean is that his argument, or am I missing something?
Alex Relyea
No, Kevin knew it was wrong all along, and he knew he would be overruled. He was trying to make a point that the rule needed to be changed.
It was a dumb point, but that’s all it was about.
Bill Smythe
You’re missing something.
The point was that the rules were logically flawed at one time. My point was to get them corrected. I don’t consider logically flawed rules to be a dumb argument to correct them. Rules must be consistent and logical to avoid problems.
It is an example. It is simply an example you don’t like. For you, if the rules are clear once one has knowledge of the game, that is sufficient. For me, it isn’t. To my mind the rules should be reasonably clear when one only has a highly rudimentary knowledge of the game - or perhaps only the ability to follow the rules as stated.
It’s the difference between secret handshakes and clarity.
If one already knows all the rules and what is intended, then indeed, no written rules are necessary, and we can do without the entire rulebook. But clearly, not everyone knows this, and clearly, there are sometimes disputes about what rules mean (and their history) such that we’ve seen even NTDs make gross errors in these very forums.
Hence, written rules are necessary, and therefore should have clarity even if one is only following the rules or even if one has only a rudimentary knowledge.
To you, and many others, secret handshake world is acceptable. To me, and many others, secret handshake world is not acceptable. To get us to stop, you’ll name call and insinuate to insult us with terms like “rules lawyers.” We just want simple and clear rules.
Given that, the example is sufficient. It has context. The context is one who knows very little about chess, perhaps even nothing. It’s the same as the other example you’re already complaining about.
While I mostly agree with the above it lacks clarity around 2 key points.
Both US Chess and FIDE had also determined through standard rulings that mate ends the game - the specific example being if mate is given before a clock button is pressed and the flag falls, it does not matter, since the game has already ended with mate.
Thus, it’s not just a matter of the opponent (in this case Dowd) not being able to dispute the illegal move, it becomes a real question if, under the rules as stated at that time, using mate to parry a check is in fact illegal. Mate ends the game (not the capture of the King.) Thus the check has been parried, and the side mating, although in check, has won.
I realized then (and now) that this was not the desired result, but it was in fact the result if the rules were allowed to stand as worded.
The point that Dowd could not appeal was an extra layer. Even if, we would allow that for some reason not specified in the (then) rules that the check had not been parried, Dowd would still have not had any right of appeal under the rules at that time, since the illegal move must be found during the game and the game was over.
So Jeff, and Bill, the problem is more than just a gap in the rules allowing a trick. The rules, as then worded, actually did allow one to parry a check via mating the opponent.
Again, anyone understanding chess would understand what was meant, but that isn’t what was actually written as the rules. Thus, a correction was needed.