Tournament Instructions

[Bill Gletsos]

Yep, on this issue....Gijssen and youse two - gray and Kevo are insane.

Do you always agree with Gijssen?

AR

In my opinion Gijssen's view is flawed.
He is trying to use the fact the fact the Rules Commission ruled in 1998 that king captures in blitz are not permitted. As was noted they did not specify a penalty.
However there is no actual Article that states king captures are illegal.
The reason being is that in normal games the situation can never occur, because all illegal moves are retracted back to the position prior to the illegal move.
On top of that in Blitz many strange positions can occur and Blitz rules already allow other things that are not permitted in normal games to take plac., e.g. illegal moves not claimed stand and the play continues.

It is clear that if player A has a queen checking player B and player B leaves his King in check then according to the rules regarding piece movement and captures it is entirely valid to move the Queen to the square occupied by the King and remove it.
Allowing this explicitly in the rules as was the case for at least 15 years would be the sensible thing to do.

[jenni]

Haha

It's only because it's a tournament involving a lot of players who have never played a tournament before - for some clocks and touch piece will be new experiences, so I'm really not going to be an ogre when it comes to king taking.

We run our Junior Lightning Championships with a reserves division. All the little inexperienced players go in the Reserves. The first couple of years we ran with two sets of rules. Kids in the reserves could king capture, kids in the championships division couldn't. Aus juniors lightning you can't King capture, so we viwed it as training the better kids for the conditions they would have to play in, while still allowing the little ones the fun of seizing a king.

I tend to think you should announce one way or the other at the beginning of the tournament. Doesn't matter which, as long as everyone knows (of course they have to listen as well and that's the hard bit....)

[jenni]

OK I've read all the other posts now - as usual in chess it is a matter of arguement and debate. Are other sports like this? I mean are the rules in tennis and Footie so fuzzy that everyone spends years arguing on interpretation?

I suppose you have line calls and things like that to allow people to fight about the result.....

[Garvinator]

Footie so fuzzy that everyone spends years arguing on interpretation?

I suppose you have line calls and things like that to allow people to fight about the result.....

havent been reading the papers or watching the news lately about the outcry over referees in both league and aussie rules

[jenni]

havent been reading the papers or watching the news lately about the outcry over referees in both league and aussie rules

Never read the sports pages - too too boring... As for sport on TV

However do they debate it for 10 years, or does it actually get resolved?

[Garvinator]

However do they debate it for 10 years, or does it actually get resolved?

some things do get continually debated. Mainly it is due to changes to interpretations of rules and how they are applied, instead of the rule itself. Can you tell me a sport you follow or at least understand(chess doesnt count ) and ill try and come up with an example.

[Libby]

some things do get continually debated. Mainly it is due to changes to interpretations of rules and how they are applied, instead of the rule itself. Can you tell me a sport you follow or at least understand(chess doesnt count ) and ill try and come up with an example.

Classic example - holding the ball in Aussie Rules, but don't expect Jenni to be relating to that either.

[Garvinator]

Classic example - holding the ball in Aussie Rules, but don't expect Jenni to be relating to that either.

hence why i asked about what sport jenni will understand i could have given paragraphs on prior opportunity and it would have been a waste of time for jenni

[jenni]

some things do get continually debated. Mainly it is due to changes to interpretations of rules and how they are applied, instead of the rule itself. Can you tell me a sport you follow or at least understand(chess doesnt count ) and ill try and come up with an example.

umm sport....hmmm. Ok - basketball - I do go and watch that every week, as Gareth plays and I am vaguely starting to understand the rules.

[jenni]

Classic example - holding the ball in Aussie Rules, but don't expect Jenni to be relating to that either.

I've never come to grips with all your Australian codes. There is the sort of game where you pick up the ball and run - that's rugby and then there is the one where you don't pick up the ball and that is football. Never have gone much further than that.

[Kevin Bonham]

Yep, on this issue....Gijssen and youse two - gray and Kevo are insane.

Do you always agree with Gijssen?

I sometimes disagree with Gijssen strongly. For instance:

I thought part of his response to my question about illegal move/legal position was simply total nonsense.

I disagree with his claim that the arbiter should not judge the final position, only the subsequent play, in Art 10.2 draw claims where play on is called and a flag later falls. There is nothing in the rules to support such an interpretation at all.

This is more procedural but I don't agree with his "wait until it happens" principle in response to unusual hypothetical positions. I think good risk management involves anticipating such positions before they occur. Even if you only stop one incident in the entire history of chess it's worth it - what if that incident happens in a World Champs final or something? The consequences for the game could be very severe.

Bill - if the Rules Committee ruled that king captures are illegal in 1998 then isn't that the last word from FIDE on the matter and shouldn't we accept that, but each decide for ourselves what the penalty should be (if any)? Or are you arguing that the Rules Committee decision is actually either invalid or not binding?

Also:

It is clear that if player A has a queen checking player B and player B leaves his King in check then according to the rules regarding piece movement and captures it is entirely valid to move the Queen to the square occupied by the King and remove it.

But what if player A is himself in check? Take this example from the Tassie Lightning this year. I played Qd1-e2+ and my opponent extremely kindly responded ...Qh4xh2#, so I claimed a win by illegal move. But if I had, instead of claiming the win by illegal move, played QxKe8 (in a comp where king captures were allowed) then my move QxKe8 would have clearly been illegal under the Laws. (Art 3.9: No piece can be moved that will expose its own king to check or leave its own king in check.)

Therefore it does not follow that all king captures in blitz are legal moves.

[arosar]

Don't be silly Kevo mate. I've had this situation many, many times. What's the matter you don't know how to express yourself or what?

After he plays Qh4xh2#, you just play your own move QxKe8. That's what we do. By proceeding with your move, you prove that it was your opponent who had made the first illegal move. What's wrong you with you? This doesn't require any kind of logical hocus-pocus.

AR

[Alan Shore]

Don't be silly Kevo mate. I've had this situation many, many times. What's the matter you don't know how to express yourself or what?

After he plays Qh4xh2#, you just play your own move QxKe8. That's what we do. By proceeding with your move, you prove that it was your opponent who had made the first illegal move. What's wrong you with you? This doesn't require any kind of logical hocus-pocus.

AR

True, capturing the king should make it a finality. Once in a very low time scramble, WK on b4, BK on d4 I played as white Kc4?! (on purpose), black played h2. I played Kxd4 1-0.

[Alan Shore]

Classic example - holding the ball in Aussie Rules, but don't expect Jenni to be relating to that either.

This is a great one. A player's deemed to be holding the ball if tackled, does not dispose of the ball (or disposes incorrectly) but did have prior opportunity for disposal. The length of time is most likely 1 second or under.

However, this is actually slightly different from the older holding the ball rule that dictated a player must be attempting to dispose of the ball when tackled. Now if a player has no prior opportunity he can simply hold the ball in without penalty - something I don't particularly like.

[Bill Gletsos]

I sometimes disagree with Gijssen strongly. For instance:

I thought part of his response to my question about illegal move/legal position was simply total nonsense.

I agree.

I disagree with his claim that the arbiter should not judge the final position, only the subsequent play, in Art 10.2 draw claims where play on is called and a flag later falls. There is nothing in the rules to support such an interpretation at all.

I agree.

This is more procedural but I don't agree with his "wait until it happens" principle in response to unusual hypothetical positions. I think good risk management involves anticipating such positions before they occur. Even if you only stop one incident in the entire history of chess it's worth it - what if that incident happens in a World Champs final or something? The consequences for the game could be very severe.

I agree with this too.

Bill - if the Rules Committee ruled that king captures are illegal in 1998 then isn't that the last word from FIDE on the matter and shouldn't we accept that, but each decide for ourselves what the penalty should be (if any)?

I agree in that as it currently stands the arbiter should decide what the penalty is (if any). He should however announce this prior to the start of the tournament.

Or are you arguing that the Rules Committee decision is actually either invalid or not binding?

I believe their ruling is binding, I just dont think it is correct.
As such I would like to see them reverse this decision and instead insert that taking the king is a legal means of demonstrating the player left his king in check just as it was back prior to 1992.

But what if player A is himself in check? Take this example from the Tassie Lightning this year. I played Qd1-e2+ and my opponent extremely kindly responded ...Qh4xh2#, so I claimed a win by illegal move. But if I had, instead of claiming the win by illegal move, played QxKe8 (in a comp where king captures were allowed) then my move QxKe8 would have clearly been illegal under the Laws. (Art 3.9: No piece can be moved that will expose its own king to check or leave its own king in check.)

Therefore it does not follow that all king captures in blitz are legal moves.

I agree that is why the wording in the pre-1992 rules was ideal where it said "or captures the King as valid proof ".

The current Article C3 could easily be modified to reintroduce that intent. e.g. An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. However, the opponent is entitled to claim a win either before making his own move or where the player has left his king in check, by capturing the players king.