I think I would treat it the same way, but what got me thinking about it was the idea that the move has been determined. In most cases where a person makes an illegal move, they have determined a move, but it wasn’t legal. They are obligated to take the move back, and make a legal move, if possible, subject to touch move constraints if they apply.
In the case of a flawed en passant capture, they are obligated to go back and make the move that they determined, but get it right this time. At least, that’s the way I see it. I think that the diagonal move in a situation where en passant is legal determines the move with no possibility of change, just as moving the king two squares determines the move with no possibility of change.
It just seems strange to say that they determined a legal move, but executed an illegal move, but I think that’s the way I would treat it.
This simple template highlights issues with the original post. In the original post black made an illegal pawn move. Further, the post claims that white made a move quickly in response. Finally, the post claims that black was confused but continued playing without removing the pawn from a4.
The big question here is not why white quickly responded, often in games (especially at fast time controls or in time pressure) all sorts of stuff happens. The question is, What was black confused about? Was he confused that he saw the pawn he “mentally removed” still sitting on the board? It really is beyond knowing. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that neither player recognized the illegality of the position that they continued to play. And the role of spectators has been well-addressed in other responses in this thread.
Yeah, the blog post I referenced is kind of unclear. Both players were around 1800 and it doesn’t seem that either was in time trouble at the time. It seemed like Black was momentarily surprised to see the pawn still on a4 after White’s move but figured that White would have “done the right thing” if the position was wrong, so never even commenced the process of thinking about whether something was wrong.
Black also seemed to have the impression that 1) White knew at the time that the pawn should have been removed, and 2) was effectively cheating by not removing it himself. That’s why I wondered in my original question whether a player’s opponent is required to point out an illegal move if it favors him.
Then both players must play the board as it stands since white made a move in response. It’s up to white to take issue with it immediately. If they don’t and make a move, then it’s too late. Now of course this can’t be done in cases where the king is in check, so with those you have to I guess refer to the game score. In blitz, an illegal king move into check is simply taken on the spot to win the game.
I suppose the only real issue is whether white gets an unfair advantage by not reporting the illegal pawn move. That would really have to be something addressed in the rule book. If it isn’t, then I presume the TD would use their best judgement on what to do.
My apologies, I thought this was a philosophical debate. It wasn’t something I read, but rather my philosophy (i.e. what I think should be the case). I don’t have a rule book, so I can’t speak from knowledge of it. If indeed corrections can be made 10 moves after the fact according to the rules, then that’s not something I agree with (philosophically speaking).
In practice, illegal moves are almost always spotted very quickly, usually when they are made. The underlying philosophy matches yours, more or less. When your opponent makes an illegal move, call attention to it immediately, and fix it.
There are a couple of exceptions. The 10 move rule almost always occurs in a scholastic tournament. One of the youngsters makes a claim of some sort, the TD looks at the scoresheet, and discovers that the black king has been in check for the last several turns. The other exception occurs in extreme time pressure, blitz-like play. The white player makes an illegal move. Black immediately moves because he has 3 seconds on his clock and was planning a particular move anyway, but while he is moving, he realizes white’s move was illegal. White keeps on going, making another move, and black says “Hey wait. Your last move was illegal.”
Having specific rules on how many moves have passed gives TDs exact guidelines on when they can reset the board to the position before the illegal move. When someone inevitably claims that things are unfair and the TD should have done something else, the TD can point to the rulebook as justification for what he did, and not be accused of bias against a player. (Or, if he really is biased, it can force the TD to ignore his own bias and make an unbiased ruling.)
I have yet to see a biased TD forced by the rulebook to ignore his own bias. I recall one (since deceased) TD who paired his wife against a player (rated 400 points higher) who had withdrawn after the previous round, and then reported the result as a ratable game.
What made me quit OTB rated chess was when the TD tried to rule a win for his daughter when I beat her. I caught it on his laptop and demanded he change it. He stalled for several minutes, but when I refused to leave until he corrected it, he finally caved. The guy has run thousands of tournaments and is respected in that regard, but not by me.
I would think events like this would have happened in the dark, distant, past before the era of laptops. I would also expect the event not to be so blatantly wrong as this one. I played in a tournament where the top players were paired with the top players (boards) out of “fairness” for one set of trophies.
I was one of the first boards and managed to score 3.5 out of 4 against the other first boards. I wound up with third prize. The first board from another school wound up with second on tiebreak over me. Who won first? That would be the eighth board from my school for going 4-0 vs. his fellow eighth boards! I even remember getting a letter for this “great feat.” I wonder what my brother did with the thing?
Something like this could have caused me to pitch the game for good but it didn’t because I had lots of great experiences to outweigh this one. Events vary, directors vary, participants do as well. Don’t let a singularly bad experience potentially end what could be lots of great memories.
Man, generally speaking, has only those rights he can defend. The USCF rulebook, in and of itself, can’t force a player (or a TD/organizer) to do anything, as Mr. Relyea’s example (along with others in this thread) shows. It’s the people behind the rulebook (of whom one would expect the TD/organizer to be the first line of defense) that give it teeth.
I have heard many allegations of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in chess tournaments. I can imagine this was more prevalent back when it took weeks to get an event rated and people would have to exert a good deal of effort - and not a little bit of money, in many cases - to contact USCF and demand redress. In the Internet Age, it seems silly to even consider it.
This, of course, does not mean it doesn’t still happen. However, it should be much easier and faster to identify and comprehensively address such behavior - provided, of course, that it is reported.
This is far and away from different or “biased” interpretation of the rules. This is pure and simple abuse of authority (If I am interpreting this correctly, and the higher rated player did not return),
for personal gain. if such can be proved, the plank is the answer. TDs have for a fact played “games”
in this regard in the past, and suffered justly. I think the key punishment is enforced by quite a few
players who no longer attend when word gets out.
Above, someone said: “That’s why I wondered in my original question whether a player’s opponent is required to point out an illegal move if it favors him.”
Has anyone ever encountered something like this?
Is it required for a player to point out an illegal move?
I don’t have my rulebook in front of me to check, sorry.
Now that I think about it, you’re right – it seems nearly impossible to enforce. How would you prove that the person noticed the illegal move but didn’t point it out? Polygraph?
Nevertheless, it is required by the rules to point it out?
Of course that is true. I meant more like “Is it considered an ethical violation?” For example, it seems like failing to point out that the opponent has not hit his clock is commonly (but unanimously) regarded as acceptable behavior.
My reading of the rulebook yesterday indicated to me that you are not bound by the Laws of Chess to point out an illegal move. Therefore, if your opponent plays an illegal move, but doesn’t notice it, then you have the option of accepting that move, or pointing out the illegality, retracting the move, and getting your two extra minutes.
Not very sporting, but that’s the letter of the law.