Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42
  1. #1
    CC Rookie IM_bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    From Peru to Japan.
    Posts
    22

    Blitz/Rapidplay FIDE rules

    The FIDE laws which govern the game and are prone to certain ambiguous interpretations and debate amongst arbiters and chess players alike, has lead me to pose this following question.

    What are the laws of chess according to FIDE for

    1) blitz (5mins) and

    2) rapid play (e.g. 30min, no increments)?

    And how do these differ from the normal tournament rules (to take the australian juniors for e.g. 90mins with 30 sec increments)?

    I understand in blitz one is allowed to 'capture' the opponent's king thereby ending the game if said opponent misses a check. However this would not be true in rapid play and definitely not for tournament chess as seen here http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101.

    If there is no 'official documentation' for either blitz or rapidplay chess rules would others please post any rules they know apply for blitz and/or rapidplay.

    I'll get the ball rolling: in blitz one can move their own king next to the opponent's and if they fail to see this illegal move, one can capture the opposite king next move!

    Just noticed this thread http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4355.

    I suppose the rule i quoted above is no longer in effect? Although i must say, to (rightfully) claim your opponent has made an ilegal move in chess and win the game is definitely a rule i was not acquainted with for blitz.
    Last edited by IM_bob; 26-01-2007 at 11:34 PM.

  2. #2
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Illegal move definitely loses a Blitz game. By appendix C3.

    see..
    http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE102

    However Capture of the king is not allowed and is itself illegal. This was a matter of some debate over the years but recently the FIDE rules committee moved to ban it specifically.

    1.3 It is not allowed to capture the King.

    So if you opponent makes an illegal mve, you stop the clock and make a claim. If you capture his king then you are making a move and thereby forfeiting your right to claim a win. In addition YOU are making an illegal move under 1.3 and your opponent can claim a win under C3.

    Therefore, I recommend not capturing your opponent's king the next time he leaves it in check.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #3
    CC Rookie IM_bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    From Peru to Japan.
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Therefore, I recommend not capturing your opponent's king the next time he leaves it in check.
    Thank you Rincewind for your very quick reply and the link.

    Just to confirm, if i accidentally leave my king in check and my opponent captures it claiming 'checkmate' then i would be entitled to claim they have made an illegal move and as i have claimed this before them, i would win the (blitz) game. Correct?

  4. #4
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by IM_bob
    Thank you Rincewind for your very quick reply and the link.

    Just to confirm, if i accidentally leave my king in check and my opponent captures it claiming 'checkmate' then i would be entitled to claim they have made an illegal move and as i have claimed this before them, i would win the (blitz) game. Correct?
    Correct except for the reason.

    C3 states
    An illegal move is completed once the opponent`s clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected

    So the fact that he made a move (by capturing your king) that means he can no longer make a claim a win by a legal move. The primacy or otherwise of your claim is not the issue.

    Also it is only a win if you have mating potential. If there is no series of legal moves leading to mate then the game is simply drawn.

    Hope this clears it up.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #5
    CC Rookie IM_bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    From Peru to Japan.
    Posts
    22
    Yes, crystal clear

    Anywho i just thought i'd raise something i read in another section of this sub-forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I agree with this concern.

    It would also seem that under his proposed changes if a player fails to promote and the opponent touches a piece without claiming the illegal move then the pawn must remain on the 8th rank (which is what you would do about it under the current rules anyway.)
    Really, can a pawn be promoted to just a pawn in a blitz match if the player has pushed it to the last rank and pressed their clock whereby their opponent makes their own move and presses the clock?

    And just one more for the patient souls.

    Quote Originally Posted by JGB
    We had the same thing happen in a league game last year, and the guy used the old upside down rook, which the opponent of course allowed knowing that a rook is always a rook regardless of how it stands. The player not knowing he had underpromoted until he made a false rook move which his opponent quickly drew his attention to. So we learnt pretty quickly to just stop the clock and draw the adjudicators attention to the matter of an extra queen not being available.
    An upside down rook (or two pawns on the same square) isn't necessarily a queen if a pawn is promoted? And the opponent can claim for the rook to be used as a normal rook instead of a queen in this situation?

  6. #6
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by IM_bob
    Yes, crystal clear

    Anywho i just thought i'd raise something i read in another section of this sub-forum.



    Really, can a pawn be promoted to just a pawn in a blitz match if the player has pushed it to the last rank and pressed their clock whereby their opponent makes their own move and presses the clock?
    No, in real terms a pawn cannot be promoted to a pawn, however the following is what is actually happening.
    If a player places the pawn on the 8th rank and presses his clock without replacing the pawn with a piece, then his move is illegal and his opponent can make such a claim. If however his opponent fails to make such a claim before making a move then the pawn remains a pawn for the remainder of the game. Any attempt by the player to replace the pawn by a piece on a subsequent move would again be grounds for a claim of illegal move by the opponent.

    N.B. A player promoting his pawn to an opponents piece and pressing the clock is also committing an illegal move.
    Quote Originally Posted by IM_bob
    And just one more for the patient souls.

    An upside down rook (or two pawns on the same square) isn't necessarily a queen if a pawn is promoted? And the opponent can claim for the rook to be used as a normal rook instead of a queen in this situation?
    Actually the opponent could simply claim illegal move.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Actually the opponent could simply claim illegal move.
    Where is the act of inverting a rook regarded as an illegal move?

  8. #8
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Where is the act of inverting a rook regarded as an illegal move?
    I might be wrong but I seem to recall it being mentioned in one of Geurt's columns.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,316
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    I might be wrong but I seem to recall it being mentioned in one of Geurt's columns.
    A difficult task unless you know which one, but could you dig it out please? I went looking and couldnt find anything (I probably just missed it).

    A lot of players use upside down rooks. I have always said that a rook is a rook no matter how it is shaped. The point being is that even if upside, it is still a rook and not a queen.

    After saying this, I have advised players (after the game of course), that if they move it in any other way than a legal rook move, they would be making an illegal move.

    So if this is incorrect and even placing the rook upside is illegal, it would be good to have a written reference to go by.

  10. #10
    CC Rookie IM_bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    From Peru to Japan.
    Posts
    22
    Yes i'd like to know about that rook rule too. I guess technically if that were true, i could continue playing in a dead lost K (some minor pieces and pawns) vs. K, Q and P (about to be promoted) and if the opponent promotes the P to a Q using an inverted rook i call them out for illegal move and they lose in blitz!

    Thanks for all the replies to the thread so far, although i'd appreciate if Kevin Bonham in particular could post something in relation to my earlier quote

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    A difficult task unless you know which one, but could you dig it out please? I went looking and couldnt find anything (I probably just missed it).
    Google is your friend.

    It seems that Geurt considers an inverted rook to be an 'illegal action', but not an 'illegal move'. By Geurt's reasoning, it seems that the illegal action could be penalized, but probably not by the loss of the game.

    I don't agree with his reasoning. According to the rules he quoted, it seems to me that a rook is a rook, whichever way it is placed.

  12. #12
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,391
    Quote Originally Posted by IM_bob
    Thanks for all the replies to the thread so far, although i'd appreciate if Kevin Bonham in particular could post something in relation to my earlier quote
    The post of mine you were quoting came from 2004 before the Laws were changed, but discussed a proposed amendment that was essentially adopted.

    The situation now is that "failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn" is clearly specified as an illegal move in 7.4a. Therefore if a player moves a pawn to the eighth rank and fails to replace it before pressing their clock the opponent can immediately claim a win. If the opponent doesn't make such a claim before making a move then it is too late and the pawn stays a pawn, as Bill notes.

    The new wording of 7.4a gets rid of the old debate about whether failing to promote before pressing the clock was an illegal move or just an incomplete one.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  13. #13
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Google is your friend.

    It seems that Geurt considers an inverted rook to be an 'illegal action', but not an 'illegal move'. By Geurt's reasoning, it seems that the illegal action could be penalized, but probably not by the loss of the game.

    I don't agree with his reasoning. According to the rules he quoted, it seems to me that a rook is a rook, whichever way it is placed.
    You also should note that those Arbiter's notebooks were before adoption of the 2005 rules.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    You also should note that those Arbiter's notebooks were before adoption of the 2005 rules.
    True. I just assumed that these must have been the columns you referred to. Did you find any reference where Geurt states that an upside-down rook is an illegal move?

  15. #15
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    True. I just assumed that these must have been the columns you referred to. Did you find any reference where Geurt states that an upside-down rook is an illegal move?
    I've been too busy to go looking. However I believe he made a comment about upside down rooks since the 2005 laws were adopted at the 2004 General assembly.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. St George unplayed draws rehash (was "FIDE to Investigate")
    By peter_parr in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: 27-07-2010, 06:11 PM
  2. Chess Association of Australia
    By WhiteElephant in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 01-09-2006, 07:46 PM
  3. St George Club Championship 2005
    By The_Wise_Man in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 288
    Last Post: 20-02-2006, 09:34 PM
  4. The culture of selection
    By firegoat7 in forum Australian Chess Championships 2006
    Replies: 339
    Last Post: 19-01-2006, 05:18 PM
  5. Game by Game ratings, fide
    By Garvinator in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 14-10-2005, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •