Post by petejwatts on Apr 30, 2010 23:09:22 GMT -5
Among the many absurdities of the laws of chess as declared by FIDE none can be dumber than the Check rule, whereby it is "illegal" to leave one's king in check. One can blunder one's queen apparently, or any other piece, nearly always fatally, but not one's King. Why should a player be protected from just this blunder, and no other one? IT makes no sense. The answer of course is because losing one's king is to lose the game immediately, whereas losing one's queen does not. but so what? A lost queen, or indeed any piece without compensation, almost always means a lost game anyway. Also, one can blunder giving away a mate in one, and that loses immediately too - so why not a "mate in zero"?
There was once a time when it was the norm to call "Gardez" for "Gardez la Dame" when attacking the queen, as it was to call "check" when attacking the king. "Gardez" has long since fallen into disuse, and in "friendly" games players often dont take the opponent's queen for free, though they're entitled too. however many people still think one is obliged to call check to the king, when one is not, and one shouldnt be. Why should one have to do one's opponent's thinking for him? Even if he isnt allowed to leave his king in check, if he doesnt notice right away he will waste some of his time considering illegal moves. also he might attempt to move a man illegally which has a legal, but very bad, move available and suffer having to make it. for example, he may attempt an illegal castle and be forced to make a weakening king move. Also, what if a player doesnt notice he has given check himself? While unlikely this is possible, such as if he reveals a discovered check. If his opponent is allowed not to notice, how can a player be made to be responsible for noticing he has given check in the first place?
All this bullnuts (and i could go on) is entirely a hangover from the days when chess was played without clocks over many hours with the supposed intent of preventing the accidental ruin of a good game by a simple blunder. Before "la Dame" made her appearance on the board many centuries ago, it was apparently courtesy to call "check" whan attacking a rook. All this gentlemanliness is all very well but while manners may maketh man simple boorishness is not usually made illegal per se, and it shouldnt be in chess either. Whether to "take kings" or not should be something that players should be free to choose whether to do or not for themselves, just like taking queens or anything else.
In casual blitz games, many people do take kings, often to the annoyance of the person they are playing - especially if they are one of the many who dont know that one is not obliged to call check. Even those who do know, and dont call check themselves, can get miffed when their opponent takes their king, as while not calling checks themselves they would not normally take a king if left in check by their opponent.
So "taking kings" is often the source of yet more unnecessary arguments. Having already inflicted this much nonsense on us, recently Fools Internationale des Echecs (FIDE) have actually decided to make this situation even worse, though as ever most of the causal coffee house players are unaware of the change, which makes it even worse still.
How did they do that? Well as you know in blitz games people often do in fact take kings. In serious blitz games illegal moves forfeit game, so there is no reason why they shouldn’t., and it looks very theatrical. While this state of affairs apparently undoes the damage done by the stupid check rule, unfortunately its legacy lingers on, via what has been called in non-PC terms as the “Egyptian swindle” on account of its apparent popularity among players from that fair country.
The swindle is this. Ordinarily the king can never check the other king, as that would put itself in check, an illegal move. The result is that one would never expect it. However, if one plays “taking kings” and there is no check rule, there is nothing to stop a player in a lost position from connecting the kings deliberately while his opponent’s attention is elsewhere , such as promoting a pawn, in the chaos of the closing seconds of a blitz game. Let’s say player A is losing and hence deliberately connects the kings when player B is on the point of queening. If B notices he can take A’s king and win the game, but A knows he has lost anyway, so has nothing to lose. If B doesn’t notice as he never expects it and queens or plays something else without moving the king,, B can take A’s king with his own, and claim the game. If that seems outrageous I’ve fallen victim to this swindle myself, plus it occurred in a Rapidplay tourney where they were playing that any illegal move forfeited game (normally the first illegal move in rapidplay only gives away a time penalty) - though on that occasion the arbiters only awarded a draw as the taker had just his king left when it happened. If you think the arbiters should have forfeited him the game on the grounds of poor sportsmanship, the player claimed he connected the kings accidentally, which may have been true, and how could anyone prove otherwise?
Back then such an occurrence was a novelty and assumed to be a one off. However it was the start of what appeared to be an epidemic of “Egyptian swindles” in London at any rate, with it also occurring at the informal blitz tourney held weekly at the Wargrave Arms. I suspect it was noticed by FIDE, because in the next rules update there was a significant change. Did they do the sensible thing that they should have done years ago in any case, and abolish the check rule in its entirety in all forms of chess, so that players would be aware of the possibility of the swindle like any other and hence less likely to fall into it? FIDE would never do anything so sensible. No, they didn’t abolish the Check Rule, effectively they strengthened it! Since if noticed connecting the Kings costs you the game anyway by losing your own, nothing would be gained by banning it. While it can rightly be condemned as poor sportsmanship, one cant prove it was done deliberately in the chaos of a time scramble,, so you cant punish it on those grounds. So what FIDE did was ban “taking kings”. In blitz or other games where an illegal move forfeits game, if your opponent leaves his king in check, you are supposed to simply stop the clock and declare “Illegal move - I claim the game.” If you actually theatrically “take” the opponent’s king, you lose. If that surprises you,, then I’m not surprised it does. I strongly suspect that very few tournament players, let alone coffee house players, know about this rule change. Certainly it hasn’t stopped the habit of “taking kings” seen in Holland Park. I’ve also seen a king taken in a Rapidplay tourney and fortunately for the player who did it his opponent didn’t know about it or there might have been murder done (they were already arguing before it happened). I don’t think the arbiter actually saw it happen and was simply told the - incorrect - result and had no reason to doubt it. I would be interested that if he had happened to witness it whether he would have intervened and altered the result. I witnessed it of course and could have put my oar in, but I doubt you’ll be surprised to learn that I kept quiet.
The “Egyptian Swindle” outbreak seems to have burnt out but I doubt that it’s because of this rule change. Apart from most people not knowing about it, it doesn’t actually stop the swindle in any case. Ok, if a guy connects the kings and the opponent doesn’t notice and leaves them together he cant take the other king, but what’s to stop him also just stopping the clock and declaring “Illegal move - I claim the game.”? After all, his opponent has just made a move leaving the kings connected, an “illegal move”. Ok he didn’t put them together but he left them like that at the end of his move, as they would have been if he had. Again if you accuse the swindler of poor sportsmanship, what happens if he claims he did it accidentally, which cannot be proven to be false?
If this leaves you mystified you are in good company. Recently a letter from the Chief Arbiter of the English Chess Federation (ECF) to registered arbiters specifically stated that if a position occurred where the kings were connected, he offered no guidance as to how to resolve it.
Rather than solve the problem, this rule change actually makes things worse, giving yet more possible things to argue over, even if both players and any arbiter involved are fully aware of it.
Of course hopefully friendly games of chess ought not to be played too seriously, but the issue still remains as to whether in a casual blitz game one should “take kings” or not. Myself I think that one should, especially if playing “Sudden Death” timing.
There was once a time when it was the norm to call "Gardez" for "Gardez la Dame" when attacking the queen, as it was to call "check" when attacking the king. "Gardez" has long since fallen into disuse, and in "friendly" games players often dont take the opponent's queen for free, though they're entitled too. however many people still think one is obliged to call check to the king, when one is not, and one shouldnt be. Why should one have to do one's opponent's thinking for him? Even if he isnt allowed to leave his king in check, if he doesnt notice right away he will waste some of his time considering illegal moves. also he might attempt to move a man illegally which has a legal, but very bad, move available and suffer having to make it. for example, he may attempt an illegal castle and be forced to make a weakening king move. Also, what if a player doesnt notice he has given check himself? While unlikely this is possible, such as if he reveals a discovered check. If his opponent is allowed not to notice, how can a player be made to be responsible for noticing he has given check in the first place?
All this bullnuts (and i could go on) is entirely a hangover from the days when chess was played without clocks over many hours with the supposed intent of preventing the accidental ruin of a good game by a simple blunder. Before "la Dame" made her appearance on the board many centuries ago, it was apparently courtesy to call "check" whan attacking a rook. All this gentlemanliness is all very well but while manners may maketh man simple boorishness is not usually made illegal per se, and it shouldnt be in chess either. Whether to "take kings" or not should be something that players should be free to choose whether to do or not for themselves, just like taking queens or anything else.
In casual blitz games, many people do take kings, often to the annoyance of the person they are playing - especially if they are one of the many who dont know that one is not obliged to call check. Even those who do know, and dont call check themselves, can get miffed when their opponent takes their king, as while not calling checks themselves they would not normally take a king if left in check by their opponent.
So "taking kings" is often the source of yet more unnecessary arguments. Having already inflicted this much nonsense on us, recently Fools Internationale des Echecs (FIDE) have actually decided to make this situation even worse, though as ever most of the causal coffee house players are unaware of the change, which makes it even worse still.
How did they do that? Well as you know in blitz games people often do in fact take kings. In serious blitz games illegal moves forfeit game, so there is no reason why they shouldn’t., and it looks very theatrical. While this state of affairs apparently undoes the damage done by the stupid check rule, unfortunately its legacy lingers on, via what has been called in non-PC terms as the “Egyptian swindle” on account of its apparent popularity among players from that fair country.
The swindle is this. Ordinarily the king can never check the other king, as that would put itself in check, an illegal move. The result is that one would never expect it. However, if one plays “taking kings” and there is no check rule, there is nothing to stop a player in a lost position from connecting the kings deliberately while his opponent’s attention is elsewhere , such as promoting a pawn, in the chaos of the closing seconds of a blitz game. Let’s say player A is losing and hence deliberately connects the kings when player B is on the point of queening. If B notices he can take A’s king and win the game, but A knows he has lost anyway, so has nothing to lose. If B doesn’t notice as he never expects it and queens or plays something else without moving the king,, B can take A’s king with his own, and claim the game. If that seems outrageous I’ve fallen victim to this swindle myself, plus it occurred in a Rapidplay tourney where they were playing that any illegal move forfeited game (normally the first illegal move in rapidplay only gives away a time penalty) - though on that occasion the arbiters only awarded a draw as the taker had just his king left when it happened. If you think the arbiters should have forfeited him the game on the grounds of poor sportsmanship, the player claimed he connected the kings accidentally, which may have been true, and how could anyone prove otherwise?
Back then such an occurrence was a novelty and assumed to be a one off. However it was the start of what appeared to be an epidemic of “Egyptian swindles” in London at any rate, with it also occurring at the informal blitz tourney held weekly at the Wargrave Arms. I suspect it was noticed by FIDE, because in the next rules update there was a significant change. Did they do the sensible thing that they should have done years ago in any case, and abolish the check rule in its entirety in all forms of chess, so that players would be aware of the possibility of the swindle like any other and hence less likely to fall into it? FIDE would never do anything so sensible. No, they didn’t abolish the Check Rule, effectively they strengthened it! Since if noticed connecting the Kings costs you the game anyway by losing your own, nothing would be gained by banning it. While it can rightly be condemned as poor sportsmanship, one cant prove it was done deliberately in the chaos of a time scramble,, so you cant punish it on those grounds. So what FIDE did was ban “taking kings”. In blitz or other games where an illegal move forfeits game, if your opponent leaves his king in check, you are supposed to simply stop the clock and declare “Illegal move - I claim the game.” If you actually theatrically “take” the opponent’s king, you lose. If that surprises you,, then I’m not surprised it does. I strongly suspect that very few tournament players, let alone coffee house players, know about this rule change. Certainly it hasn’t stopped the habit of “taking kings” seen in Holland Park. I’ve also seen a king taken in a Rapidplay tourney and fortunately for the player who did it his opponent didn’t know about it or there might have been murder done (they were already arguing before it happened). I don’t think the arbiter actually saw it happen and was simply told the - incorrect - result and had no reason to doubt it. I would be interested that if he had happened to witness it whether he would have intervened and altered the result. I witnessed it of course and could have put my oar in, but I doubt you’ll be surprised to learn that I kept quiet.
The “Egyptian Swindle” outbreak seems to have burnt out but I doubt that it’s because of this rule change. Apart from most people not knowing about it, it doesn’t actually stop the swindle in any case. Ok, if a guy connects the kings and the opponent doesn’t notice and leaves them together he cant take the other king, but what’s to stop him also just stopping the clock and declaring “Illegal move - I claim the game.”? After all, his opponent has just made a move leaving the kings connected, an “illegal move”. Ok he didn’t put them together but he left them like that at the end of his move, as they would have been if he had. Again if you accuse the swindler of poor sportsmanship, what happens if he claims he did it accidentally, which cannot be proven to be false?
If this leaves you mystified you are in good company. Recently a letter from the Chief Arbiter of the English Chess Federation (ECF) to registered arbiters specifically stated that if a position occurred where the kings were connected, he offered no guidance as to how to resolve it.
Rather than solve the problem, this rule change actually makes things worse, giving yet more possible things to argue over, even if both players and any arbiter involved are fully aware of it.
Of course hopefully friendly games of chess ought not to be played too seriously, but the issue still remains as to whether in a casual blitz game one should “take kings” or not. Myself I think that one should, especially if playing “Sudden Death” timing.
