PDA

View Full Version : Calling/Announcing Check



Phil Bourke
24-07-2007, 11:48 AM
When was the rule about the calling of check changed, or was it ever changed? I recall in my earlier playing days that it was required to announce check whenever you did check the king, even remember that at one point in time it was courteous to announce check to the queen.
When I returned to tournament play, it was the first difference that I noted. That calling of check was not allowed, that it could be construed as distracting your opponent. Is this the scenario, or what is the correct scenario regarding the calling of check in tournament games.

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 12:37 PM
When was the rule about the calling of check changed, or was it ever changed? I recall in my earlier playing days that it was required to announce check whenever you did check the king, even remember that at one point in time it was courteous to announce check to the queen.
When I returned to tournament play, it was the first difference that I noted. That calling of check was not allowed, that it could be construed as distracting your opponent. Is this the scenario, or what is the correct scenario regarding the calling of check in tournament games.

I don't know about the rules changing but in friendly games among weakish players it is the norm. Many stronger coffee house players do it in skittles matches (including so-called queen-checks) to distract their opponents.

In tournament matches it is considered poor etiquette and is almost never done.

WhiteElephant
24-07-2007, 01:10 PM
In tournament matches it is considered poor etiquette and is almost never done.

Really? I always do it in tournament and blitz games as a matter of habit.

Watto
24-07-2007, 02:13 PM
Really? I always do it in tournament and blitz games as a matter of habit.
When I began playing chess I asked about this and was told it's only done in social play. In the tournaments I've played, I've found inexperienced juniors are the main ones who announce check and the occasional older adult so I'm kind of surprised you do it WE. Must confess I find it mildly irritating when an adult announces check. You feel like saying 'Yes, I know- I'm weak but I'm not THAT weak...' :confused: ;)

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 02:34 PM
Really? I always do it in tournament and blitz games as a matter of habit.

It is not required by the Laws of Chess and 12.6 says "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever."

I think anyone announcing check AFTER clocking is in breach of 12.6. Before clocking you might argue habit. If a player was to come to me complaining that a player constantly announcing check was distracting I would warn that player to stop doing so, even if it was before clocking.

Basil
24-07-2007, 02:40 PM
Hi George et al

I too am surprised that you partake! I find the practice to be the 12th most annoying thing in chess. Please desist and don't teach the kiddies to do it :lol:

Carry on everybody, you're all doing very well.

Axiom
24-07-2007, 02:42 PM
Really? I always do it in tournament and blitz games as a matter of habit.
well please desist with this practice forthwith!
I believe the Novos Boys( http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6076 ) had a method for eliminating this behaviour amongst its more stubborn juniors,before it ever had a chance to establish itself as this most horrendous and awful habit.
Just a few games hooked up to high voltage electrical current,seemed to elicit a very rapid cure.

WhiteElephant
24-07-2007, 02:45 PM
It is not required by the Laws of Chess and 12.6 says "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever."

I think anyone announcing check AFTER clocking is in breach of 12.6. Before clocking you might argue habit. If a player was to come to me complaining that a player constantly announcing check was distracting I would warn that player to stop doing so, even if it was before clocking.

I always do it as I make the move, never after pressing the clock. I must admit, I never even gave it a moment's thought and just did it as a courtesy to my opponent. I probably wouldn't do it in a queen endgame where every second move is a check. Now I will have to rethink the practice altogether! :)

WhiteElephant
24-07-2007, 02:50 PM
I remember once I was playing a key game in the Vic Juniors against Tony Davis. In a complicated position, I'd spent half an hour thinking about my move. When I finally decided what move to play and did so, Tony announced very loudly to everyone....'that is an illegal move, you are in check!' Well that was pretty embarrassing! Maybe my habit comes from some sort of subconscious throwback to that game and I want to save my opponents any possibility of the same embarrassment.

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 02:53 PM
I remember once I was playing a key game in the Vic Juniors against Tony Davis. In a complicated position, I'd spent half an hour thinking about my move. When I finally decided what move to play and did so, Tony announced very loudly to everyone....'that is an illegal move, you are in check!' Well that was pretty embarrassing! Maybe my habit comes from some sort of subconscious throwback to that game and I want to save my opponents any possibility of the same embarrassment.

:)

Yes, as a byproduct of not announcing check you sometimes have to point out that an opponent has overlooked the fact that he or she is in check. The advantage is that in blitz, you just win. ;)

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 05:38 PM
Sometimes in tournaments involving extremely weak beginning juniors who are persistently leaving themselves in check I will ask the opponent to quietly announce each check. Otherwise (and sometimes even then) you end up with games which require practically one on one supervision just to maintain legality, and if there are seven of those going in the same room it is a nightmare.

Above about 500 strength the practice is unnecessary and should be eradicated.

WhiteElephant
24-07-2007, 05:47 PM
Above about 500 strength the practice is unnecessary and should be eradicated.

Ok it sounds as if I am in the minority but I disagree.

The human/social interaction between players during a game of chess is already minimised in every way. Why not follow a little harmless tradition and show that we are human beings sitting at a chessboard?

Axiom
24-07-2007, 05:52 PM
Ok it sounds as if I am in the minority but I disagree.

The human/social interaction between players during a game of chess is already minimised in every way. Why not follow a little harmless tradition and show that we are human beings sitting at a chessboard?
OMG!! LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 06:25 PM
When was the rule about the calling of check changed, or was it ever changed?Announcing check was not stated as being required in the rules as far back as 1971.
In fact Article 10 at the time was devoted entirely to 'Check'.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 06:40 PM
The human/social interaction between players during a game of chess is already minimised in every way. Why not follow a little harmless tradition and show that we are human beings sitting at a chessboard?

Because in so doing you may annoy other human beings who can only play their best game when sitting at the chessboard quietly.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 06:51 PM
Even in 1980 Article 10 was still the 'Check' Article, however part of the wording had changed.

With the rewrite of the Laws in 1984, Article 9 was now the 'Check' Article and 9.3 stated 'Declaring a check is not obligatory.'

These words still remained in the laws (althought in an entriely different section) up until the 2005 edition when they were removed.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 07:08 PM
It is not required by the Laws of Chess and 12.6 says "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever."

I think anyone announcing check AFTER clocking is in breach of 12.6. Before clocking you might argue habit. If a player was to come to me complaining that a player constantly announcing check was distracting I would warn that player to stop doing so, even if it was before clocking.The words 'Declaring a check is not obligatory.' have been in the Laws since 1984 up until their removal from the 2005 Laws. From this it could be inferred that declaring check was entirely permissable.

Now all that time what is currently Article 12.6 has existed with its current wording.
As such I dont believe that a player simply declaring check was in breach of Article 12.6.

Even now with the words removed I dont believe you can surmise that simply declaring a check is in breach of Article 12.6.

Certainly as an arbiter I would want clear evidence that the player was doing so to deliberately distract or annoy their opponent before taking any action.

Basil
24-07-2007, 07:13 PM
Because in so doing you may annoy other human beings who can only play their best game when sitting at the chessboard quietly.
Present!

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 07:17 PM
Above about 500 strength the practice is unnecessary and should be eradicated.
Definitely. Announcing check is Hollywood chess not real chess. E.g. it's ridiculous to think that a world class player would announce check in a major match, like the character Kronsteen in From Russia With Love.

Presumably an arbiter could gently tell a check-announcer to leave that practice to the movies, but penalize only if there was bloody-minded repetition or definite distraction.

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 07:24 PM
Even now with the words removed I dont believe you can surmise that simply declaring a check is in breach of Article 12.6.

Certainly as an arbiter I would want clear evidence that the player was doing so to deliberately distract or annoy their opponent before taking any action.

I said I considered it was a breach if they did it after clocking. Players should complete their move before pressing their clock and if they feel they should declare check they should definitely do so beforehand. After clocking the opponent is generally deep in thought and announcing check would be distracting to most people. If I noticed a player doing this I would warn them to desist without waiting for a claim from the opponent.

The only action I stated for a player who declares check before clocking is to warn them to desist should their opponent complain due to distraction. Some people might reasonably be distracted from that behaviour. Therefore if the opponent complained I would warn the opponent to stop it but would not intervene otherwise.

It should be noted that to be in breach of 12.6 there does not have to be the intention to distract. It is simply forbidden to distract regardless of intention. Therefore someone announcing check motived by what they believed to be good chess etiquette could still be in breach of the laws.

Basil
24-07-2007, 07:28 PM
In fact the more I think about it ...

(second day of giving the up the sausages ... AGAIN!!!! - so even more bad tempered than usual)

... why the f*&* don't I announce

-- 1.d4, or
-- 2.Bg5, or
-- beware of discovered attack on your rook, or
-- how about "hey buddy YOU'RE DOWN TO YOUR LAST 5 MINUTES!!!!"

I have to leave the room now. Thank you for your attention. Everybody carry on.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 07:42 PM
I said I considered it was a breach if they did it after clocking.Actually you said:

I think anyone announcing check AFTER clocking is in breach of 12.6. Before clocking you might argue habit. If a player was to come to me complaining that a player constantly announcing check was distracting I would warn that player to stop doing so, even if it was before clocking.The implication is that you are warning them due to a breach of 12.6, otherwise if they were not in breach of anything then why would you be warning them.


Players should complete their move before pressing their clock and if they feel they should declare check they should definitely do so beforehand. After clocking the opponent is generally deep in thought and announcing check would be distracting to most people. If I noticed a player doing this I would warn them to desist without waiting for a claim from the opponent.I dont believe you should be so presumptuous and should wait for a claim from the opponent.


The only action I stated for a player who declares check before clocking is to warn them to desist should their opponent complain due to distraction. Some people might reasonably be distracted from that behaviour. Therefore if the opponent complained I would warn the opponent to stop it but would not intervene otherwise.

It should be noted that to be in breach of 12.6 there does not have to be the intention to distract. It is simply forbidden to distract regardless of intention. Therefore someone announcing check motived by what they believed to be good chess etiquette could still be in breach of the laws.However the decision of whether an act is distracting or not is the decision of the arbiter, not the player making the claim.

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 07:52 PM
Actually you said:
The implication is that you are warning them due to a breach of 12.6, otherwise if they were not in breach of anything then why would you be warning them.

What I meant was if they did so after clocking then most people would find this annoying and it should be prevented. The reason I would intervene in that case is that some players would not complain due to a lack of knowledge of the rules or timidness. I believe in this case the level of distraction to be great enough to warrant intervention.


I dont believe you should be so presumptuous and should wait for a claim from the opponent.

I draw the line at announcing check before clocking and give the benefit of the doubt in this case to the offending player. The distraction would be in most cases minimal however I don't think it unreasonable for a player to complain even in this instance and would act if a complaint was made. I would also act if a complaint came from a neighbouring board.


However the decision of whether an act is distracting or not is the decision of the arbiter, not the player making the claim.

Entirely true. However IMO speaking unnecessarily would be indefensible. So in either case the player would be in breach of 12.6. The only difference is I would intervene in the case of announcing after clocking.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 08:09 PM
What I meant was if they did so after clocking then most people would find this annoying and it should be prevented.But that isnt what you said. You said you would warn them if they said check before clocking.

I draw the line at announcing check before clocking and give the benefit of the doubt in this case to the offending player. The distraction would be in most cases minimal however I don't think it unreasonable for a player to complain even in this instance and would act if a complaint was made.Just because the complaint is made does not make it reasonable. As I noted above it could be argued that FIDE implicitly implied announcing check was permissible.

I would also act if a complaint came from a neighbouring board.I'm not sure that is reasonable.
After all you wouldnt be warning a player for offering a draw or a draw, if a complaint came from a neighbouring board.

Entirely true. However IMO speaking unnecessarily would be indefensible.As I noted above it can be argued that FIDE's stating that saying check is not obligatory in the rules meant that saying check was permissible.
As such warning the player under 12.6 seems excessive on the part of the arbiter to me.

So in either case the player would be in breach of 12.6.I dont agree.

The only difference is I would intervene in the case of announcing after clocking.And in this instance I dont believe you should intervene unless a claim is made.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 08:22 PM
As an arbiter, if there were loud check announcements going on that appeared to be causing a distraction, the first thing I'd do is politely ask the player to stop it. Only if asking failed would I consider moving on to a warning. Even if the arbiter considers there has been an offence, the arbiter is not required to even warn the players, so long as the arbiter's actions are consistent with a good playing environment and disturbance ceasing.

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 08:57 PM
But that isnt what you said. You said you would warn them if they said check before clocking.

Only if their was a complaint of distraction.


Just because the complaint is made does not make it reasonable. As I noted above it could be argued that FIDE implicitly implied announcing check was permissible.

That argument is flawed. The current wording of the laws make no mention of announcing check. Previous wording said it wasn't obligatory. But as that is no longer the case such an argument would be anachronistic.


I'm not sure that is reasonable.

We can disagree on matters of opinion.


After all you wouldnt be warning a player for offering a draw or a draw, if a complaint came from a neighbouring board.

Depends if the manner of the offer was distracting the player unnecessarily. Were it occurring unnecessarily frequently or loudly then I might.

Such an analogy is not valid though as it is necessarily to speak to offer a draw. It is not necessary to announce check and therefore such disturbance as it causes is entirely without purpose.


As I noted above it can be argued that FIDE's stating that saying check is not obligatory in the rules meant that saying check was permissible.

Anachronistic argument. This might mitigate the circumstances of a player who said he thought he was required to do so. However, it would not make saying check permissible under the currently enacted laws.


As such warning the player under 12.6 seems excessive on the part of the arbiter to me.

You are entitled to your opinion.


I dont agree.

That seems clear, you can stop repeating yourself now. Thanks.


And in this instance I dont believe you should intervene unless a claim is made.

Yes, I know that is what you believe. And however much I respect your opinion (and I do) you have not persuaded me in this case.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 09:03 PM
That argument is flawed. The current wording of the laws make no mention of announcing check. Previous wording said it wasn't obligatory. But as that is no longer the case such an argument would be anachronistic.

I'm not sure what to read into its removal. It may have been removed simply because it was considered superfluous.

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 09:12 PM
I'm not sure what to read into its removal. It may have been removed simply because it was considered superfluous.

Whatever the reason for its inclusion and later removal doesn't seem very relevant to arbiting under the present rules. As an anachronism it could mitigate such a penalty that an arbiter might decide to impose, but by the present rules would appear that announcing check is just unnecessary talking.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 09:25 PM
As an anachronism it could mitigate such a penalty that an arbiter might decide to impose, but by the present rules would appear that announcing check is just unnecessary talking.

That's what I suspect too; that they thought "hardly anybody does this anymore and leaving it in the rules might just encourage the few who still do; let's just take it out." But I don't know for sure.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 09:43 PM
Only if their was a complaint of distraction.And my point was that saying check is not against the laws.

That argument is flawed. The current wording of the laws make no mention of announcing check. Previous wording said it wasn't obligatory. But as that is no longer the case such an argument would be anachronistic.Not at all. It may simply have been deemed superfluous.

We can disagree on matters of opinion.Agreed.

Depends if the manner of the offer was distracting the player unnecessarily. Were it occurring unnecessarily frequently or loudly then I might.But how many times a player offers his opponent a draw is up to the opoonent to complain about no some player from a neighbouring board. Similarly a player announcing check and complaints from neighbouring boards.

Such an analogy is not valid though as it is necessarily to speak to offer a draw. It is not necessary to announce check and therefore such disturbance as it causes is entirely without purpose.The analogy is valid as the laws dont outlaw declaring a check and as noted they had implicitly impled it was permitted.

Anachronistic argument.Incorrect. In fact all you are demonstrating is your lack of understanding of the laws and their history.

This might mitigate the circumstances of a player who said he thought he was required to do so. However, it would not make saying check permissible under the currently enacted laws.The currently enacted laws dont prohibit it.

You are entitled to your opinion.Definately.

That seems clear, you can stop repeating yourself now. Thanks.Well it seemed clear you needed reminding.

Yes, I know that is what you believe. And however much I respect your opinion (and I do) you have not persuaded me in this case.Thats fine.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 09:56 PM
That's what I suspect too; that they thought "hardly anybody does this anymore and leaving it in the rules might just encourage the few who still do; let's just take it out." But I don't know for sure.I dont recall seeing any reason stated in anything I had seen for its ommission from the 2005 Laws.

Historically and certainly as far back as 1973 the laws did not state anything about declaring or not declaring a check, however at the time either practice was allowed by the Rules Commission.
FIDE in 1984 explicitly mentioned that declaring a check was not obligatory and implicitly implying that declaring it was permitted.
The fact that the words explicitly declaring a check was not obligatory were removed in the 2005 laws simply reverts the laws back to their pre 1984 condition when declaring or not declaring was permitted.

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 10:00 PM
And my point was that saying check is not against the laws.

Neither is dancing a jig after making a move. However I would warn a player against doing so if it was libel to cause a distraction.


Not at all. It may simply have been deemed superfluous.

I mde no comment as to why it was removed. Just noted that it is no longer a part of the laws as they stand and therefore not relevant to the following of the present laws.


But how many times a player offers his opponent a draw is up to the opoonent to complain about no some player from a neighbouring board.

I disagree. If the actions of a player are unnecessarily leading to another player being disturbed then the arbiter should act.


Similarly a player announcing check and complaints from neighbouring boards.

Exactly and again if there is a disturbance it should be addressed by the arbiter.


The analogy is valid as the laws dont outlaw declaring a check and as noted they had implicitly impled it was permitted.

Well arguing that they implicitly implied it was ok is arguable. The point is they no longer do so.


Incorrect. In fact all you are demonstrating is your lack of understanding of the laws and their history.

No I am aware of the wording it just isn't relevant to the current laws.


The currently enacted laws dont prohibit it.

Neither to they prohibit dancing a jig between moves. However anything which is likely to disturb the other players is prohibited. Talking unnecessarily is such an act and therefore should be warned against. In fact if such announcements were to come after clocking I believe the likelihood of a disturbance so great as to take action without waiting for a complaint.

While we may disagree that that is appropriate. You have not made an argument that it is illegal.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-07-2007, 10:08 PM
I remember once making few checks in a row and announcing them against a grandmaster (without ill intent). He was visibly pissed by that, but being a gentleman just said "You don't have to announce it". I apologized and made couple of more check silently.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 10:12 PM
Neither is dancing a jig after making a move. However I would warn a player against doing so if it was libel to cause a distraction.Not a relevant comparison.

I mde no comment as to why it was removed. Just noted that it is no longer a part of the laws as they stand and therefore not relevant to the following of the present laws.I disagree.

I disagree. If the actions of a player are unnecessarily leading to another player being disturbed then the arbiter should act.But not if the player is doing so in a reasonable manner and not beaking the rules. There is no difference under the rules for offering such a verbal draw or a verbal declaration of check.

Exactly and again if there is a disturbance it should be addressed by the arbiter.Not is done in a reasonable manner.

Well arguing that they implicitly implied it was ok is arguable. The point is they no longer do so.The removal of it does not necessarily make it illegal.

No I am aware of the wording it just isn't relevant to the current laws.In your opinion.
I disagree.

Neither to they prohibit dancing a jig between moves.You seem to have a dancing fetish. ;)

However anything which is likely to disturb the other players is prohibited. Talking unnecessarily is such an act and therefore should be warned against. In fact if such announcements were to come after clocking I believe the likelihood of a disturbance so great as to take action without waiting for a complaint.

While we may disagree that that is appropriate. You have not made an argument that it is illegal.The less interference in a game by an arbiter the better. In this case a presumption by the arbiter that it is distrubinbg the opponent without a claim by the opponent is premature.

Axiom
24-07-2007, 10:12 PM
I remember once making few checks in a row and announcing them against a grandmaster (without ill intent). He was visibly pissed by that, but being a gentleman just said "You don't have to announce it". I apologized and made couple of more check silently.
how old were you then, igor?

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 10:33 PM
Not a relevant comparison.

Neither are explicitly illegal.


But not if the player is doing so in a reasonable manner and not beaking the rules. There is no difference under the rules for offering such a verbal draw or a verbal declaration of check.

Yes there are. Offers of draw are a necessary part of the game and in most cases these are done verbally. Announcing check is not mentioned in the rules.


Not is done in a reasonable manner.

As there is no reason to announce check there is by definition no reasonable manner in which to do this.


The removal of it does not necessarily make it illegal.

No but disturbances are illegal and unnecessary utterances can be disturbing.


The less interference in a game by an arbiter the better. In this case a presumption by the arbiter that it is distrubinbg the opponent without a claim by the opponent is premature.

The arbiter needs to ensure a playing environment free of distraction and so anything deemed disturbing enough as to cause a distraction to most players would qualify in my opinion for intervention. Announcing check before clocking doesn't cross that threshold. But I am happy to disagree as to where the bar is placed.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 11:03 PM
The fact that the words explicitly declaring a check was not obligatory were removed in the 2005 laws simply reverts the laws back to their pre 1984 condition when declaring or not declaring was permitted.

I agree that there is no general statement present or implied about declaring or not declaring.

Since the issue is not mentioned in the current Laws at all, I believe there is no reason to read the Laws any differently in the case of a player declaring/not declaring check as with any other unmentioned thing a player might do.

I therefore reckon that if check declarations are disturbing the players (or even just some players) then the arbiter has an obligation to minimise them under 13.2, since the Laws contain no comment about check declarations otherwise.

Also if a player distracts or annoys an opponent with a check declaration, including unintentionally, then they are in breach of 12.6 and the arbiter should ensure they cease doing so.

If neither of these issues apply (and at weak junior level they may well not) the arbiter is free to let check declarations continue if they wish.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 11:19 PM
I agree that there is no general statement present or implied about declaring or not declaring.

Since the issue is not mentioned in the current Laws at all, I believe there is no reason to read the Laws any differently in the case of a player declaring/not declaring check as with any other unmentioned thing a player might do.Except that they were treated differently to any unmentioned thing a player might do prior to 1984 which is what the current wording has reverted to.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 11:27 PM
Neither are explicitly illegal.Doing a jig has never been mentioned in the laws, not being obliged to declare a check has been.

Yes there are. Offers of draw are a necessary part of the game and in most cases these are done verbally. Announcing check is not mentioned in the rules.Announcing checks were implictly allowed previously and just because reference has been removed from the current laws does not imply doing so is now against the laws.

As there is no reason to announce check there is by definition no reasonable manner in which to do this.The removal of the explict mention of not having to declare checks reverts the laws back to the situation pre 1984 when either declaring or not decalring was permitted. As such it can reasonably be argued that the same situation exists now.

No but disturbances are illegal and unnecessary utterances can be disturbing.Agreed, but I dont put a reasonable declaration of check as falling into that category, especially if no complaint is loged by their opponent.

The arbiter needs to ensure a playing environment free of distraction and so anything deemed disturbing enough as to cause a distraction to most players would qualify in my opinion for intervention. Announcing check before clocking doesn't cross that threshold. But I am happy to disagree as to where the bar is placed.Looks like we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

Rincewind
25-07-2007, 12:13 AM
Doing a jig has never been mentioned in the laws, not being obliged to declare a check has been.

Yes but I would assume most people would believe that they are not obliged to do a jig between moves either.


Announcing checks were implictly allowed previously and just because reference has been removed from the current laws does not imply doing so is now against the laws.

Say that something is not obligatory is not the same a implicitly allowing it. Regardless of that fact however it no longer is a part of the rules.


The removal of the explict mention of not having to declare checks reverts the laws back to the situation pre 1984 when either declaring or not decalring was permitted. As such it can reasonably be argued that the same situation exists now.

I don't think this argument holds water. They were not mentioned prior to 1984 and they are not mentioned again now. It doesn't follow that in either case that declaring check is obligatory. It is just as reasonable to argue that the practice has fallen into such disuse that the explicit mention was considered unnecessary. In short, two decades is a long time and the inclusion and later removal does not imply a comparative treatment post 2005 as prior 1984.


Agreed, but I dont put a reasonable declaration of check as falling into that category, especially if no complaint is loged by their opponent.

Do you consider announcing check after pressing the clocking as reasonable?

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2007, 12:45 AM
Yes but I would assume most people would believe that they are not obliged to do a jig between moves either.the point is one was mentioned in the rules the jig wasnt.

Say that something is not obligatory is not the same a implicitly allowing it.It is implied.

Regardless of that fact however it no longer is a part of the rules.Irrelevant for reasons I stated previously.

I don't think this argument holds water.I dont think yours does.

They were not mentioned prior to 1984 and they are not mentioned again now. It doesn't follow that in either case that declaring check is obligatory.As I stated prior to 1984 although not was not stated one way or the other it was permitted by FIDE, therefore your in either case argument is false.

It is just as reasonable to argue that the practice has fallen into such disuse that the explicit mention was considered unnecessary.Mere speculation on your part.

In short, two decades is a long time and the inclusion and later removal does not imply a comparative treatment post 2005 as prior 1984.However it doesnt mean a comparative treatment is incorrect.

Do you consider announcing check after pressing the clocking as reasonable?No, but I would still wait for a claim by the opponent. I could however imagine an opponent indicating his move to an opponent who had been absent from the board and just returned and announcing check at that time.

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2007, 12:45 AM
The removal of the explict mention of not having to declare checks reverts the laws back to the situation pre 1984 when either declaring or not decalring was permitted. As such it can reasonably be argued that the same situation exists now.

What equivalents of the distraction rule existed then, if any?

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2007, 12:47 AM
What equivalents of the distraction rule existed then, if any?The distraction rule was virtually identical in wording then as now.

Specifically the 1980 wording was 'It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.'.
The 1971 wording was 'It is forbidden to distract or worry the opponent in any way whatsoever.'

Aaron Guthrie
25-07-2007, 09:47 AM
I sometimes call check in rapid games when the opponent is in the process of making an illegal move. I also have a vague recollection of sometimes calling check in serious games, but I can't remember the reason behind that.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-07-2007, 10:14 AM
how old were you then, igor?
It was quite recently

Rincewind
25-07-2007, 11:33 AM
the point is one was mentioned in the rules the jig wasnt.

It is called reductio ad absurdum.


It is implied.

No, it is inferred by you. The difference is significant.


Irrelevant for reasons I stated previously.

I think the present wording of the rules are most relevant. Don't you?


I dont think yours does.

No you don't. And you are entitled to your opinion no matter how unenlightened that may be.


As I stated prior to 1984 although not was not stated one way or the other it was permitted by FIDE, therefore your in either case argument is false.

And I gave a prefectly valid possible argument for that which deos not imply the same treatment now as then.


Mere speculation on your part.

As is your suggestion that the situation is the same now as then. If your speculation is correct then perhaps you have a point however you cannot substantiate your speculation.


However it doesnt mean a comparative treatment is incorrect.

No but it is up to you to show that it is.


No, but I would still wait for a claim by the opponent. I could however imagine an opponent indicating his move to an opponent who had been absent from the board and just returned and announcing check at that time.

I had not thought of that scenario and provided is was done immediately on the player resuming his position at the board I probably wouldn't act in that case. I was more concerned with preventing scurrilous or inconsiderate players from distracting their opponent deep in thought.

What about the scenario when the opponent is announcing check a short time after playing the move? For example, making the move clocking, scoring the move on the scoresheet and then saying "check", say 10 seconds after clocking while their opponent is at the board and concentrating on the game.

Phil Bourke
25-07-2007, 11:40 AM
Been an interesting discussion. I think I will take the views offered by all, especially those players that have had experience with it, and tone down my views a little :) I will now say that "Calling check is not required and that many players consider it to be rude to do so, you may also be upsetting other players around you."
I had previously thought that not only was it rude, but also illegal. I have also been in the position of my opponent calling check and have taken offense to the manner it was done and have responded with an abrupt, "Do you think I am stupid?"
I really think that to avoid possible arguments, it is best not to announce check, as I recall a situation where my opponent and I entered a forcing exchange, and he played Rxf2 announcing check when my king was on g1! Granted that the variation required me recapturing the Rook with my King, but I couldn't resist stopping, looking at the board with the best incredulous look I could muster, and asking in a sardonic manner, "Excuse me, but I can't see what piece you are checking me with?"
To take this discussion to possibly new heights, would announcing check be considered in contravention of explaining the rules of the game to your opponent, something that only a TD or arbiter is meant to do?
Also, high level chess often requires all communication to be done through the arbiter, therefore is telling your opponent that he is in check also breaching that condition?
Personally, I try to play the game with respect to my opponent, so I don't announce check and if they play a move that ignores the check, I simply place the piece they moved back to its original position and point to the piece that is giving check. I have never enforced the touch move rule here compelling them to move the piece they originally moved to prevent the check as I don't believe that is the intention of the touch move rule. It is quite possible, that a player may have to give up a queen or similar if you enforce a combination of touch move and illegally leaving king in check. What do others think of this sort of situation?

Rincewind
25-07-2007, 11:49 AM
It is quite possible, that a player may have to give up a queen or similar if you enforce a combination of touch move and illegally leaving king in check. What do others think of this sort of situation?

Though I don't think this is the intention of the touch-more rule it is certainly an outcome. I believe it is a necessary outcome.

Basil
25-07-2007, 11:58 AM
OK, I'm feeling much better today (Day 03), and I have a different perspective from my withdrawal narky perspective of yesterday.

My attitude is 'W/H/A/T/E/V/E/R D/U/D/E/'

But here's some controversy ...
What about players drillin' and twistin' and grindin' that piece into the square!?

How's that?

Spiny Norman
25-07-2007, 01:46 PM
Personally, I would enforce "touch move" in all scenarios. People simply ought not to touch pieces unless they are sure that they want to move them. My coach drums this into me over and over ... and he literally whacks me on the back of the hand if I start moving pieces around when we are analysing a game, with "don't touch, don't touch, visualise!". Fair enough too!

Capablanca-Fan
25-07-2007, 02:11 PM
Though I don't think this is the intention of the touch-more rule it is certainly an outcome. I believe it is a necessary outcome.
Sure seems to be:


4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard

one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved, or
So if there is an intention to touch the piece without warning of adjustment, then that piece must be moved if it is legal to do so, even if the move is catastrophic.


13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

Presumably the arbiter is duty-bound to enforce this on sight.

Rincewind
25-07-2007, 04:17 PM
Presumably the arbiter is duty-bound to enforce this on sight.

I believe so. Even if the move you intend to make is illegal (due to an unseen check, for example) you still moved the piece with intent and so touch-move applies. I've never seen a scenario played out where a player objected to a touch-move for this reason but as an arbiter I would say the touched piece must be moved if a legal move exists, even if the result is catastrophic.

The same would apply for any illegal move, for example, when the intended move would put the king into check.

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2007, 04:26 PM
It is called reductio ad absurdum.In my opinion it fits your argument perfectly.

No, it is inferred by you. The difference is significant.Only in your opinion. Mine differs.

I think the present wording of the rules are most relevant. Don't you?Of course but one must always take into account the history of the laws. To ignore the history is sheer folly.

No you don't. And you are entitled to your opinion no matter how unenlightened that may be.If anyone needs a light shone on them its you.

And I gave a prefectly valid possible argument for that which deos not imply the same treatment now as then.Just because you gave an argument does not make it valid.

As is your suggestion that the situation is the same now as then. If your speculation is correct then perhaps you have a point however you cannot substantiate your speculation.My speculation is just as valid as yours. After all you cannot substantiate your speculation either.

No but it is up to you to show that it is.I would suggest it is up to you to show that it isnt.

I had not thought of that scenario and provided is was done immediately on the player resuming his position at the board I probably wouldn't act in that case.I can see no reason for acting in that case provided it was done in a reasonable manner.

I was more concerned with preventing scurrilous or inconsiderate players from distracting their opponent deep in thought.I have no problem with acting against scurrilous or inconsiderate players. I'm not convinced a player announcing check in a reasonable manner falls into that category.

What about the scenario when the opponent is announcing check a short time after playing the move? For example, making the move clocking, scoring the move on the scoresheet and then saying "check", say 10 seconds after clocking while their opponent is at the board and concentrating on the game.I would consider that improper. I would however wait for a complaint from the opponent, as intervention by the arbiter without a complaint is quite likely to cause even more of a disturbance to the opponent.

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2007, 04:31 PM
Sure seems to be:


4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard

one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved, or
So if there is an intention to touch the piece without warning of adjustment, then that piece must be moved if it is legal to do so, even if the move is catastrophic.Correct. Touch move should be enforced.



13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

Presumably the arbiter is duty-bound to enforce this on sight.Correct.
Touch move does not require a claim from the player and should be enforced by the arbiter if witnessed.

The only exception occurs in rapid and blitz as Article B5 makes it clear that enforcement of Article 4 requires a claim from the players.

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2007, 07:41 PM
To take this discussion to possibly new heights, would announcing check be considered in contravention of explaining the rules of the game to your opponent, something that only a TD or arbiter is meant to do?

There is no actual rule concerning who can explain the rules.


Also, high level chess often requires all communication to be done through the arbiter, therefore is telling your opponent that he is in check also breaching that condition?

In those tournaments that have that rare condition, yes. But that condition is not a law of chess.

There is actually no explicit prohibition on talking during games in the Laws, except that doing so without good reason will pretty much always breach the rules we have been talking about (distracting the opponent or disturbing other players).


I have never enforced the touch move rule here compelling them to move the piece they originally moved to prevent the check as I don't believe that is the intention of the touch move rule. It is quite possible, that a player may have to give up a queen or similar if you enforce a combination of touch move and illegally leaving king in check. What do others think of this sort of situation?

I practically always enforce touch move since the rule and its consequences are the same for everybody whatever the rule's intentions. If you're not paying enough attention to see that you're in check before picking up a piece then you deserve to be made to move it, even if you lose it in the process. This is much the same as if you're not paying enough attention to see that your queen is attacked, and pick up another piece - you deserve to lose the queen.

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2007, 07:45 PM
But here's some controversy ...
What about players drillin' and twistin' and grindin' that piece into the square!?


If it distracts the opponent it is a breach of the distraction rule, whether it is deliberate or not. You may find 6.4 of the ACF Code of Ethics (http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/ACF_Code_of_Ethics.txt) a useful guide to similar situations.

Axiom
25-07-2007, 08:12 PM
OK, What about players drillin' and twistin' and grindin' that piece into the square!?

How's that?
actually i'm not averse to the odd 180 deg. twist and reverse twist into a square. i find it psychologically satisfying,but i dont over do it.
.........not like one crazy opponent i played once , he kept grinding and twisting the piece into the square for so long, it drew a small bemused audience.After what seemed like a good 90 seconds of this, i had to ask him what he was doing! He just looked up slowly from the board, barely meeting my eyes with a glazed gaze, mutteriing dryly, "drilling for oil , drilling for oil" !

i mean what do you do with people like that??

Phil Bourke
25-07-2007, 09:51 PM
actually i'm not averse to the odd 180 deg. twist and reverse twist into a square. i find it psychologically satisfying,but i dont over do it.
.........not like one crazy opponent i played once , he kept grinding and twisting the piece into the square for so long, it drew a small bemused audience.After what seemed like a good 90 seconds of this, i had to ask him what he was doing! He just looked up slowly from the board, barely meeting my eyes with a glazed gaze, mutteriing dryly, "drilling for oil , drilling for oil" !

i mean what do you do with people like that??
Stake your claim real quick, just in case they are right and start drilling with them ;)

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2007, 09:25 AM
There is a mistaken impression around some that distracting the opponent applies only to his thinking time, so what you do on your own time is your business. IA Gijssen responded (http://arbitri.lombardiascacchi.com/Chesscafe/2000_10.pdf):


It has happened several times in my practice as an arbiter that occasionally some players have acted in away that has disturbed an opponent. And very often when I have told a player not to disturb the opponent, the player has responded, "But my clock is running, I am doing this on my own time." And my reaction is always that a player’s "own time" does not exist. A player may never disturb his opponent.

Rincewind
26-07-2007, 09:42 AM
There is a mistaken impression around some that distracting the opponent applies only to his thinking time, so what you do on your own time is your business. IA Gijssen responded (http://arbitri.lombardiascacchi.com/Chesscafe/2000_10.pdf):


It has happened several times in my practice as an arbiter that occasionally some players have acted in away that has disturbed an opponent. And very often when I have told a player not to disturb the opponent, the player has responded, "But my clock is running, I am doing this on my own time." And my reaction is always that a player’s "own time" does not exist. A player may never disturb his opponent.

I agree with that view.

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2007, 11:58 AM
As much as I dislike the practice of calling "check", it doesn't seem to be forbidden by the rules, even though the express allowance is not there any more. When FIDE has decided to forbid something previously allowed, the Laws have been updated to forbid this expressly. Two examples come to mind (and Bill G could probably find the exact older wording):

In lightning, one way of claiming an illegal move involving placing or leaving the K in check was said to be taking the K "as valid proof" of this type of illegality. Now, the powers that be have decided to disallow this, by Article 1.2. "... also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed", so the person taking the king is the one liable for loss for making an illegal move now. This was IA Gijssen's intention. I protested at the time when he asked for comments, but the rules now seem clear that taking the king can result in loss if the opponent claims.

Once, it was allowable to write down the move before playing. Now 8.1 "... It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3."

WhiteElephant
26-07-2007, 01:19 PM
This may be difficult to believe but 99% of people who call check do not do it to deliberately distract their opponent but because they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way to play a game of chess.

Many books on the basics of chess state that when you attack your opponent's king, you should say 'check'.

Garvinator
26-07-2007, 01:38 PM
This may be difficult to believe but 99% of people who call check do not do it to deliberately distract their opponent but because they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way to play a game of chess.

Many books on the basics of chess state that when you attack your opponent's king, you should say 'check'.
I would even go further and say that quite a few of them believe they are being polite in saying check ie they dont want their opponent not miss that their king is being attacked.

Phil Bourke
26-07-2007, 01:39 PM
This may be difficult to believe but 99% of people who call check do not do it to deliberately distract their opponent but because they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way to play a game of chess.

Many books on the basics of chess state that when you attack your opponent's king, you should say 'check'.
This is why I asked the question in the first place. It seems that what had been a practise as courtesy to your opponent is now regarded as discourteous. Perhaps the issue goes back to how the check is announced, most players announce check in a quiet indistinctive tone, but some, for whatever reason, give the word inflection and volume that really comes across as challenging and insultory.

WhiteElephant
26-07-2007, 01:45 PM
This is why I asked the question in the first place. It seems that what had been a practise as courtesy to your opponent is now regarded as discourteous. Perhaps the issue goes back to how the check is announced, most players announce check in a quiet indistinctive tone, but some, for whatever reason, give the word inflection and volume that really comes across as challenging and insultory.

Yes, good point, and I have to say I have been surprised at the degree of animosity shown to those who say check by some on this thread. I know what you mean though about those who say check in a challenging manner but I would think (hope) that those people are in the minority.

When I say check, I do it quietly and while I play my move so my opponent would be no more distracted by what I am saying than the move itself. If someone was doing it in an annoying manner against me then I would certainly complain to the arbiter.

Ged
26-07-2007, 03:48 PM
I find being told I am In check to be insulting and greatly annoying.

Intuition
26-07-2007, 04:09 PM
I used to play casual games with a guy who not only would call check but would touch my queen whenever it was under attack..he said it was the normal custom where he comes from (somewhere in africa i think)...i thought it was funny...lol

WhiteElephant
26-07-2007, 04:13 PM
I used to play casual games with a guy who not only would call check but would touch my queen whenever it was under attack..he said it was the normal custom where he comes from (somewhere in africa i think)...it thought i was funny...lol

:)

Ged
26-07-2007, 04:28 PM
don't be racist...

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2007, 04:50 PM
It wasn't necessarily racist. Some European countries long had an informal tradition to say something like guardez when they attacked the queen.

Axiom
26-07-2007, 05:03 PM
I used to play casual games with a guy who not only would call check but would touch my queen whenever it was under attack..he said it was the normal custom where he comes from (somewhere in africa i think)...i thought it was funny...lol
i once saw a car bumber sticker that read "You Toucha my Piece, I Breaka your Face", it was on a chessboard background, so obviously referred to chess. But i thought later, what about when your opponent touches a piece upon capturing it? what does this violent individual do then?
Strangely i bumped into him at a convenience store some weeks later, and asked him about this. He stated that before each game he instructs his opponent to wear gloves which he provided, and if they refused this were asked to flick the piece off the table with a book or scoresheet.

Basil
26-07-2007, 06:21 PM
don't be racist...
That's not racist! It's a well-known fact that Africans have a lesser intelligence than caucasians and are more susceptible to to voo-doo customs.

This is not my opinion. This post is deliberately false and inflammatory - in much the same way that calling someone a racist is inflammatory without any good faith basis or certainty of the facts.

Axiom
26-07-2007, 06:24 PM
That's not racist! It's a well-known fact that Africans have a lesser intelligence than caucasians and are more susceptible to to voo-doo customs.

This is not my opinion. This post is deliberately false and inflammatory - in much the same way that calling someone a racist is inflammatory without any good faith basis or certainty of the facts.
..dont be racist.

Ged
26-07-2007, 07:03 PM
I wasn't being serious and it's good to see we are all having fun here

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2007, 08:02 PM
This may be difficult to believe but 99% of people who call check do not do it to deliberately distract their opponent but because they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way to play a game of chess.

I am certain this is true but there is no distinction between intentional and unintentional distraction in the Laws. Obviously the arbiter will deal much more harshly with the former than the latter, but the arbiter needs to control both should a complaint be made and deemed valid.

I once had to referee a rather nasty incident in which a player, apparently involuntarily, grunted after each move, and the opponent complained about it.

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2007, 08:05 PM
Actually this thread has just reminded me that when representing my school in a matric interschool I was almost thumped after assuming that my rather burly opponent (a borderline club level player) could figure out for himself that he was in check.

Bill Gletsos
26-07-2007, 09:03 PM
As much as I dislike the practice of calling "check", it doesn't seem to be forbidden by the rules, even though the express allowance is not there any more. When FIDE has decided to forbid something previously allowed, the Laws have been updated to forbid this expressly. Two examples come to mind (and Bill G could probably find the exact older wording):

In lightning, one way of claiming an illegal move involving placing or leaving the K in check was said to be taking the K "as valid proof" of this type of illegality. Now, the powers that be have decided to disallow this, by Article 1.2. "... also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed", so the person taking the king is the one liable for loss for making an illegal move now. This was IA Gijssen's intention. I protested at the time when he asked for comments, but the rules now seem clear that taking the king can result in loss if the opponent claims.

Once, it was allowable to write down the move before playing. Now 8.1 "... It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3."
Another example of expressly forbidding something concerned the rules regarding castling and touching the rook first.

Back in 1980 (and previously) the rule regarding the move of the King stated:

Castling is a move of the king and either rook, countiing as a single move(of the king), executed as follows: the king is transferred, from its original square, two squares toward either rook on the same rank, then that rook toward which the king has been moved is transferred over the king to the square immediately adjacent to the king.At this time the FIDE Rules Commission used to also issue FIDE Interpretations on the Laws of Chess that were just as binding as if they were actually part of the Laws of Chess.

FIDE Interpretation Art. 6.1 (1971). If a player in castling starts by touching the rook, he should receive a warning from the arbiter, but rhe castling shall be considered valid.
If a player, intending to castle, touches the king and rook at the same time and it then appears that castling is illegal, the player has to move the king. If the king has no legal move, the fault has no consequences.
FIDE Interpretation Art. 6.1 (1974). The Commission reagards the warning by the arbiter an adequate means of dealing with those who castle in the wrong manner.
The Commission disagrees with the principle that if the king has no legal move, then a move with the rook shall be made, which would apply if the move was initially one with the rook alone.
FIDE Interpretation Art 6.1 (1975). Question: If a player moves his king two sqaures, intending to castle with the king's rook, and it then appears that castling is illegal, can the player castle on the other side (provided, of course, that castling on that side is legal)?
Answer: The answer is yes. The player has to make any legal move he chooses with his king, from its original square. There is no reason why that legal move should not be castling on the queen's side.However in 1984 FIDE rewrote the rules and incorporated the FIDE interpretations into the rewritten laws and now castling after touching the rook first was clearly forbidden.

Castling is a move of the king and either rook, countiing as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred, from its original square two squares toward either rook on the same rank, then that rook is transferred over the king to the square immediately adjacent to the king on the same rank.
If a player touches a rookand then his king he may not castle with that rook asnd the situation will be governed by Articles 7.2. and 7.3.
If a player, intending to castle, touches the king first or king and rook at the same time, and it then appears that castling is illegal, the player may choose either to move his king or to castle on the other side, provided that castling on that side is legal. If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any other move he chooses.Note that in the 1984 rules Article 7.2 and 7.3 were part of the touch move Articles.