Today both players (quite inexperienced) called for my assistance during an unrated tournament game.
When I arrived at the board, I was told that Black’s last move was Qa2-a1+, which the players (incorrectly) thought was checkmate. However, in discussing the situation, the players observed, apparently for the first time, that the White King (on e1) was also in check from a Bishop on a5. The players agreed that this check occurred because White had illegally moved a Knight from d2. Despite close questioning, the players were unable to provide any insight into the moves that had occurred after the Knight had moved. The players could not even agree about whether or not that specific Knight was still on the board.
I assume there are no scoresheets that would assist in going back to the last legal position. If the players can’t even reconstruct the most recent moves, your best option is probably to continue the game with White making a move that gets the king out of check (if possible). Otherwise, the game ends in checkmate.
The beauty of an unrated tournament is that you have creative options.
If it’s possible to recreate the position before the illegal move, play continues from that position (in all cases under the FLC, and if discovered within the appropriate number of moves under the US Chess code).
If it’s not possible (and it sounds like it wasn’t here), you use your best judgment. What Mr. Ballou has suggested is as best as anything I can think of.
I would also suggest that you encourage recording all games. —
It’s good practice for when they participate in a “real” tournament - so they will be used to the required recording of games
It’s like making a movie of the game, so that the game can be reviewed and they can improve by learning from their mistakes
It’s not hard (Don’t ever say it’s hard! No “I know its hard but…”). It IS something that may require a little practice, but even pre-K students can learn to keep score.
Learning to approach chess as a methodical process will help to improve their play. Many things in chess are a process, and learning the importance of a process will help them to be better players.
When we first ran a chess club at my son’s elementary school in the 1990’s (nearly all the 100+ players were complete novices) we required every student to learn some key fundamentals (and show a very low proficiency) before they could play in the weekly club tournament - and they had to do that before they could accompany the team to a tournament. Among those requirements (with a bit higher proficiency) was keeping score and using a chess clock. When we went to our first interscholastic tournament, I was very surprised by all the parents asking us “How did you get them to keep notation?” We explained that we never told them it was hard, we explained that it was necessary, and required them to do it. So they did.
As others have said, if the tournament isn’t rated, you can do anything you think is fair. But if you want to run the tournament in as kosher a fashion as possible, the main thing to keep in mind (as you’ll see in the TD Tip for Rule 11A) is that when a player who is in check makes a move that doesn’t get him out of check, it is considered an illegal move as many times as it occurs. So even if you only know the last move that White made before Black’s Qa1+, you can back up to that move and direct White to make a different move. And if you don’t know even that last move, then treat it as White being in double check and require him to move his king.
Be aware, though, that the USCF has a very well-written write-up on how to keep score that is available for free from this site:
At the last tournament a ran in June, I had a stack of these sheets available, and at least one boy who didn’t know how to keep score read it over between his first and second games and kept score in his subsequent games.
I am disappointed that nobody has mentioned that this scenario is possible even in a US Chess rated tournament. Who keeps a complete scoresheet in a quick rated G/10 or G/15 event?
Ideally, the players and TD can agree on a legal position before the first illegal move. The bigger question is what happens if no such agreement is possible? Assume most of the other games have already finished. Surely the TD will not make everyone else wait 20-30 minutes while two players start a new game from scratch. Should the game be marked as 0-1, or 1/2-1/2, or a forfeit win for black, or a double forfeit, or perhaps even an unrated draw?
I’ve seen TDs award both players a win, or one a win and the other a draw. Personally, I’ve never had to deal with a situation where that made sense to me. It could also impact prizes for other players.
If one player has been in check for several consecutive moves, it might make sense to revert to a position where the player not on the move is not in check – preferably the position just before the original illegal move, or 10 moves back from the current position, whichever occurred later.
Have seen situations in scholastic events where both players are in check by multiple pieces. Of course, in none of the games did either player have a scoresheet. In one game, in an unrated tournament, we were able to go back a few moves to a position that both players agreed on. That only eliminated one check from each side; the Kings were still in check by two different pieces. We were not able to backtrack any further. I called the game a draw. After the event, the whole group of players was shown the original position, projected on a wall, to demonstrate the value of writing down their moves to avoid getting caught in a similar situation. The coach/teachers were given materials to teach notation taking and sample scoresheet masters to use to make copies for their school clubs.
We usually tell players that they do not have to say “check” when a direct attack is made on the King. Given the circumstances, maybe it is better to allow announcing “check” to make the other player aware of the move. This is not to suggest that the rules fussbudgets add another couple of pages to the Rulebook. I know of a couple of players who say “check” when they attack the Queen, too. That is real “old school”.
I recall one older gentleman saying, “Check. Check to the Queen, sir”, in casual games. His usual opponent would reply, “Her majesty can take of herself.” Then they would settle back into their hours long game wreathed in pipe smoke. Other players in the club room would chuckle or shush them.
Something similar happened to me in a rated beginners’ event recently. My recollection is approximate, and the facts may have been slightly different.
Mild time scramble…correction, no time scramble is mild to beginners! White plays 1.Bf8-g7+. The Black king stood on b2, and there were no other pieces on the long dark diagonal.
Neither player notices the check, and the White king remains in check after several moves. Eventually, Black plays 4…Re8-e1+, which would have been a back-rank mate except that the poor Black king is still in check. White sizes up the situation and offers his hand in resignation, which Black accepts.
A couple seconds after, at least one player recognizes that something is wrong; my memory fails me as to which player noticed first. I explained what had happened and ruled that Black had won (despite the illegal moves and the nonexistent “checkmate”) due solely to White’s resignation. Black, playing her first tournament game and being a good sport, wanted to have the game ruled a draw. Having learned “no takebacks” on the playground of life, I ruled that no, resignation had already ended the game. Both players accepted my decision.
Both players acted in good faith. I am not very happy with my ruling.