In blitz chess both the legality and ethics of KxK has long been debated. Of course under recent rule changes KxK now does not happen, but moving the king next to your opponents king and hoping they don't notice still can.
This was exactly the situation that occurred during the Doeberl Blitz on Saturday night, and having made a pretty clear ruling, I felt it important enough to share.
In the game in question the player with the White pieces was winning over the board, having run a passed pawn down to the 7th rank. Both players were short of time (a few seconds for each left) and Black had not chased the pawn with his king, but had kept in the middle of the board. When the White pawn reached the 7th rank, Black moved his king next to his opponents. Not noticing, White promoted, and Black claimed the game.
Due to some clock trouble earlier in the game, this was the last game to finish, and one that I was watching (in case of further clock trouble). Despite Black's claim, I had no hesitation in awarding the game to White. This was for one specific reason, and one general reason. The specific reason was that the Kings standing next to each other was clear evidence that an initial illegal move had been played, and the evidence showed that Black had played it. But, but, but you might say. Doesn't the rules say that White has to claim? And this is where the more general principle comes in. The Laws of Chess are there to protect players who follow the rules, not reward players who break them. In fact this issue was discussed during my time on the FIDE Rules Commision, and my ruling was consistent with that discussion. Again you may ask, why did we not add a rule to cover this situation? Because the Laws of Chess are written on the assumption that players will follow them, not break them. If they had to cover every possible irregularity and potential illegality, then they would be thicker than your phone book.
Of course some people will disagree with my ruling (including the player with the Black pieces) but I hope that it is clear that the ruling was a fair one, in an ethical sense.
(**Update: There is some additional discussion/information about this ruling in the comments section **)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Shaun, I think this situation is also covered now where the arbiter can step in and call illegal moves in blitz games from the changes after July 1 2014.
Full rules at the bottom but Blitz B.4 would be in operation, which means A.4 of the rapidplay rules are in effect.
An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If the arbiter observes this, he shall declare the game lost by the player, provided the opponent has not made his next move.
Garvin- As you were watching the game, you observed the illegal move by black and so can immediately declare the game lost by the rules.
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Rapidplay
A.1 A ‘Rapidplay’ game is one where either all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player; or the time allotted plus 60 times any increment is of more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player.
A.2 Players do not need to record the moves.
A.3 The Competition Rules shall apply if one arbiter supervises at most three games and
each game is recorded by the arbiter or his assistant and, if possible, by electronic means.
A.4 Otherwise the following apply:
From the initial position, once ten moves have been completed by each player,
no change can be made to the clock setting, unless the schedule of the event would be adversely affected.
no claim can be made regarding incorrect set-up or orientation of the chessboard. In case of incorrect king placement, castling is not allowed. In case of incorrect rook placement, castling with this rook is not allowed.
An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If the arbiter observes this he shall declare the game lost by the player, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim a win, provided the opponent has not made his next move. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.
To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop the chess clock and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful, the claimant must have time remaining on his own clock after the chess clock has been stopped. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the claimant cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if the illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.
A.5 The Rules for a competition shall specify whether Article A.3 or Article A.4 shall apply for the entire event.
Appendix B. Blitz
B.1 A ‘blitz’ game’ is one where all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of 10 minutes or less for each player; or the allotted time plus 60 times any increment is 10 minutes or less.
B.2 The penalties mentioned in Articles 7 and 9 of the Competition Rules shall be one minute instead of two minutes.
B.3 The Competition Rules shall apply if one arbiter supervises one game and each game is recorded by the arbiter or his assistant and, if possible, by electronic means.
B.4 Otherwise, play shall be governed by the Rapidplay Laws as in Article A.4.
B.5 The Rules for a competition shall specify whether Article B.3 or Article.B.4 shall apply for the entire event.
Garvin thanks for the extra content. When I wrote the post I probably did not emphasise the fact that I was trying to cover the situation where the arbiter was either not present or chose not to interfere in games in progress (ie waited for a claim to make a ruling). In fact one of the extra reasons for making the ruling I did was exactly as you described, although I did not jump in straight away (when the king was first moved next to the king) but waited until a claim was made. The extra piece of information I did not mention was that this event was not FIDE rated (or even ACF rated) so I felt I had some latitude on the whole 'arbiter shall flag/patrol/stick there nose in' requirement.
I won many games as a junior by playing KxK.
But now now believe that deliberately placing your king next to your opponents in hope to play KxK should earn you an expulsion for poor sportsmanship.
I have similar views to those who decide to flag KR v KR.
Post a Comment