These new rules took effect on January 1, 2018. Yes, 2018, not 2019. As of February 2019, they have been in effect for just over a year.
The full rules can be viewed at the FIDE website here. The material from the FIDE Arbiters Magazine, volume 7, is here.
From the Arbiters Magazine:
… the new Laws of Chess include one of the most significant changes in YEARS! Specifically, in the absence of sufficient “Arbiter supervision” AN ILLEGAL MOVE NO LONGER MEANS IMMEDIATE LOSS! This change attempts to bring closer to each other, how illegal moves are treated within classical chess, and within Rapid-Blitz chess. In addition, it eliminates the unusually catastrophic immediate loss for a single mistake.
The rule used to be that in classical chess (G/60 or slower), an illegal move would result in an immediate loss only if it was the third illegal move (by the same player in the same game), but in Rapid (G/11 through G/59) or Blitz (G/10 or faster), an immediate loss would be declared even on the first illegal move.
With the new rules, a second illegal move results in an immediate loss in all forms of chess, but a first illegal move results in a reconstruction and a time penalty (2 minutes Rapid, or 1 minute Blitz, added to the opponent’s time).
So far, IMHO this is a Good Thing.
It’s another story, though, if an illegal move goes unnoticed by the arbiter and both players. Then the illegal move stands! If the move is illegal because it leaves the king in check, it gets peculiar indeed. The Arbiters Notebook gives a couple of examples:
Black has just played Bb5 (let’s say Bd7-b5), an illegal move (leaving the black king in check). However, no Arbiter notices, nor does white claim an illegal move. Instead, white plays Re8 claiming checkmate. The result of the game is 1-0!
Black has just played Ka8, an illegal move. However, no Arbiter notices, nor does white claim an illegal move. Instead, white plays a7, claiming checkmate. The result of the game is 1-0!
These examples bother me. They’re just too un-chess-like! If a position arises where the player not on the move is in check, there ought to be a reconstruction from an earlier position, in addition to whatever penalties might be appropriate.
Finally, here are two more examples. In these two cases I do agree with the stated results:
White plays Nxg5, his second illegal move. The ONLY legal move is Nxf4 mate, therefore DRAW. White cannot win due to two illegal moves, and black cannot win by any possible series of legal moves.
Black plays Qc5, and then white’s flag falls. The ONLY legal move is Kxc5 stalemate, therefore DRAW. White cannot win due to being out of time, and black cannot win by any possible series of legal moves.
In this last example, an even more straightforward explanation would be that, as soon as black removes his hand from the queen after Qc5, he has created a dead position so the game is already over.
Thoughts on any of these?
Bill Smythe