PDA

View Full Version : Taking the King - Blitz Chess Rule Change



Arrogant-One
13-06-2006, 03:14 PM
Okay,

So the FIDE bureaucrats have changed the rule allowing a player to take a person's King in blitz chess and thereby end the game.

I think the rule change is stupid.

My attitude is 'don't fix it if it ain't broken'.

As such, please vote in my poll.

bergil
13-06-2006, 03:16 PM
Okay,

So the FIDE bureaucrats have changed the rule allowing a player to take a person's King in blitz chess and thereby end the game.

I think the rule change is stupid.

My attitude is 'don't fix it if it ain't broken'.

As such, please vote in my poll.
What poll?

Arrogant-One
13-06-2006, 03:17 PM
What poll?

The one above my first post in this thread.

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2006, 03:23 PM
My attitude is 'don't fix it if it ain't broken'.

As discussed in previous threads on this issue, my attitude is that allowing king captures increases the risk of false wins by illegal move. For instance, suppose an arbiter is watching from a distance and sees the queen move from one side of the board to another and take the king. The arbiter cannot be sure the queen has not slipped off a diagonal onto the next. However if the player says "illegal move" and stops the clock, the arbiter, watching from a distance, can see that no move has been played, walk over, and verify that the opponent has left their king in check.

In case you think queens don't slip off diagonals like that, in the recently held Tas Lightning a player (rating >1600) lost a game after playing Qf8-b3 and pressing his clock before realising his error and adjusting the queen onto a3 - but it was too late, the clock had been pressed and the opponent claimed the win. I also once resigned a blitz game only to realise immediately that the move that caused me to resign had been an illegal diagonal-slip of this sort.

bergil
13-06-2006, 03:27 PM
The one above my first post in this thread.
Ah that one! The one that wasn't there when I first posted. ;)

I guess like you, I thought it was easier just to take the king and be done with it but I'm now used to just claiming the win instead.

It makes a lot of sense to have uniform rules in all time controls of chess, so I agree with the FIDE change.

Arrogant-One
13-06-2006, 03:31 PM
As discussed in previous threads on this issue, my attitude is that allowing king captures increases the risk of false wins by illegal move. For instance, suppose an arbiter is watching from a distance and sees the queen move from one side of the board to another and take the king. The arbiter cannot be sure the queen has not slipped off a diagonal onto the next. However if the player says "illegal move" and stops the clock, the arbiter, watching from a distance, can see that no move has been played, walk over, and verify that the opponent has left their king in check.

In case you think queens don't slip off diagonals like that, in the recently held Tas Lightning a player (rating >1600) lost a game after playing Qf8-b3 and pressing his clock before realising his error and adjusting the queen onto a3 - but it was too late, the clock had been pressed and the opponent claimed the win. I also once resigned a blitz game only to realise immediately that the move that caused me to resign had been an illegal diagonal-slip of this sort.

Yes, thats all true - and I am not saying that the OPTION of stopping the clock and fetching the arbiter shouldn't be open to you, rather I am saying that BOTH OPTIONS should be open to you.

You seem to forget that in blitz time is everything. Sometimes there's not enough time to stop the clock and fetch the arbiter, its just faster to take the King (with say half a second still left on your clock).

Garvinator
13-06-2006, 04:47 PM
You seem to forget that in blitz time is everything. Sometimes there's not enough time to stop the clock and fetch the arbiter, its just faster to take the King (with say half a second still left on your clock).
as soon as you stop the clock, you dont lose any time at all.

Arrogant-One
13-06-2006, 05:09 PM
as soon as you stop the clock, you dont lose any time at all.

Okay, but then what about a situation where you stop the clock and bringing your arm over to stop the clock costs you say .75 of a second. Then lets say the arbiter rules for play to continue. If you are in severe time trouble, that .75 is huge!

ElevatorEscapee
13-06-2006, 09:29 PM
There is also a certain amount of time required in making the split second decision to a) stop the clock, or b) (with a piece already in your hand) complete a capture.

Sometimes in the hesitation caused by having to instantaneously decide between the two, your flag can fall costing you the game.

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2006, 11:50 AM
You seem to forget that in blitz time is everything. Sometimes there's not enough time to stop the clock and fetch the arbiter, its just faster to take the King (with say half a second still left on your clock).

Given that the king capture isn't completed until you have taken the opposing king off the board and moved your piece to that square and released your hand from the capturing piece I suspect that stopping the clock will be faster in all or nearly all cases.


Okay, but then what about a situation where you stop the clock and bringing your arm over to stop the clock costs you say .75 of a second. Then lets say the arbiter rules for play to continue. If you are in severe time trouble, that .75 is huge!

Your problem for making a claim the arbiter is not convinced by. However, if the opponent has left their king in check, the only possible dispute can be "but it's actually still my move!" which could also apply after a king capture.

The vast majority of players are honest and will not dispute a correct clocks-stopped claim of illegal move. They can see that their king is in check and will accept it. But if there is a king capture and then there is genuine confusion about which square the capturing piece was on, it is unlikely the situation will be resolved amicably. By moving the capturing piece off its square, the capturer has removed the evidence of which square it was on and made it possible for recollections to drift.

Desmond
14-06-2006, 06:44 PM
Should you be able to take an opponent's King in blitz?
1. No, the current rule is best.
2. Yes, the current rule is stupid.
3. No, because with the King in check, all other moves are theoretically illegal!
4. Yes, because tradition dictates that everyone likes the rule and have used it for a long time!


1. Changing the current rule creates confusion as other people have noted.
2. Yes, changing it previously was stupid.
3. No arguments there
4. Having the rule changed back to what people are familiar with would avoid confusion.

I can't decide how to vote. Can you change it to multiple choice? :lol:

Arrogant-One
15-06-2006, 02:16 PM
Given that the king capture isn't completed until you have taken the opposing king off the board and moved your piece to that square and released your hand from the capturing piece I suspect that stopping the clock will be faster in all or nearly all cases.



Your problem for making a claim the arbiter is not convinced by. However, if the opponent has left their king in check, the only possible dispute can be "but it's actually still my move!" which could also apply after a king capture.

The vast majority of players are honest and will not dispute a correct clocks-stopped claim of illegal move. They can see that their king is in check and will accept it. But if there is a king capture and then there is genuine confusion about which square the capturing piece was on, it is unlikely the situation will be resolved amicably. By moving the capturing piece off its square, the capturer has removed the evidence of which square it was on and made it possible for recollections to drift.

Unfortunately, I must concede that these are valid points. But I still like the King taking option despite logic apparently winning the day against such a rule.

Arrogant-One
15-06-2006, 02:19 PM
I can't decide how to vote. Can you change it to multiple choice? :lol:

Sure, I can change it. But you have to tell me how because I am not an admin and don't know how to. But I will try if instructions can be provided.

Rincewind
15-06-2006, 02:22 PM
Sure, I can change it. But you have to tell me how because I am not an admin and don't know how to. But I will try if instructions can be provided.

When creating a poll there is an option to make multiple choices allowable. However, I don't believe this option can be selected after the fact.

Arrogant-One
15-06-2006, 02:45 PM
When creating a poll there is an option to make multiple choices allowable. However, I don't believe this option can be selected after the fact.

So you're saying the mountain is stationary and there is no way I can get there?

Rincewind
15-06-2006, 04:13 PM
So you're saying the mountain is stationary and there is no way I can get there?

No, Mohammed. You have to build a new mountain. ;)

Arrogant-One
16-06-2006, 01:17 PM
No, Mohammed. You have to build a new mountain. ;)


:D