Do you have to compete promotion to win ?

[NickFaulks]

If the king is to be treated as a normal piece and can be captured then any move which means that the king moves one square or take part in castling must be allowed. Therefore a king can move into check and risk being taken. Also it should therefore probably be able to castle out of check (since that would be an alien concept) and certainly through check.

No, there is no reason to change any detail of the way in which castling is done. It's not even clear that the words would have to be changed, but under no circumstances would I wish to change the evaluation of any position.

By the way, I don't think "in check" is an alien concept, it is a perfectly good shorthand for "en prise when applied to a king". Some club players would continue to say "check" as a form of politeness, warning of an attack on the king.

I can understand where Nick is coming from and it has a certain logic but when you continue the logic to its conclusion the resulting game is nothing like chess as we know it.

I think that is an exaggeration. All I want to do is remove the takeback element, which I do not think belongs in the game. It looks to me very much like blitz chess from not so long ago.

In any case, that argument can be used against any change to chess or anything else. Some of us can remember the days when adjournments were the universal rule, and the introduction of quickplay finishes was considered by many players to change the game beyond recognition - I think they were right! However, it was generally considered to be an improvement and I do not not hear calls for adjournments to return to top level chess.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Note Nick's standard gratuitous insult, this time of Christopher.

What are you talking about? Whenever I try to have a sensible discussion with a sensible person, you leap in to explain to them that I'm saying the opposite of what I'm actually saying. Please stop interfering in this way, or everything will have to be done by private messages.

I took "Now that's a good question, which is a first" as a compliment, that it was the first good question in this thread!

[NickFaulks]

I took "Now that's a good question, which is a first" as a compliment, that it was the first good question in this thread!

You're right of course, although on reflection my comment was a bit unfair on a couple of other people.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick. Do you re-read your own postings?
You wrote about Christopher's query: > - Now that's a good question, which is a first.<
Thus you were saying that this is the first good question Christopher has asked. That is, at best, belittling.
**************************************
Making one last effort to understand your concept. Just dealing with one corner of the board.
White Rh1, Ng1, Ph2. Black Ph3. White plays 1 Rf3 and presses the clock. It is an illegal move and there is the usual penalty in both chess and Nick chess. White probably made a fehler-finger, intending 1 Nf3. If he had not pressed the clock, there would have been no penalty.
White Kh1, Ng1, Ph2. Black Ph3. White plays 1 Kf3. Same scenario and, in chess, the same result. BUT in Nick Chess he would have to play 1 Kg2, putting the king en prise.
Why is that better in your opinion?

[NickFaulks]

Nick. Do you re-read your own postings?

Do you ever read the postings immediately above your own?

[Stewart Reuben]

Yes

[NickFaulks]

Yes

Then you presumably realise that the two participants in that discussion understood each other perfectly well, and your poisonous intervention has failed in its aim of creating unpleasantness. Please stop it!

[Michael Farthing]

I must say that I read Nick's comment above exactly as did Christopher: namely that it was the first sensible question in the thread, not that it was the first sensible question (ever!!) from Christopher.

[Jesper Norgaard]

This is a definition of Nick chess that is internally consistent, involving no problems
with stalemate, forcing a king to move to a square to be taken etc.
Instead moving the king into check is an illegal move. That illegal move will be punished
with declaring a loss, or the player may capture the king.

We need to change one sentence in the Article 1: The nature and objectives of the game of chess:
1.2 before (only 1 sentence changed):
Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed.
1.2 before (only 1 sentence changed):
Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack are not allowed.

The above definitions in article 1.2 do not specify an illegal move, but are duplicated in article 3, where the
definition however does not penalise capturing the opponent's king.

We need a new article
5.1.c
The game is won by the player who captures his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game,
provided that the move capturing the king was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the player cannot checkmate the opponent’s
king by any possible series of legal moves.

We need an introduction and filtering of illegal moves in 7.5

7.5 before
a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before
the irregularity shall be reinstated...

7.5 after
If during a game a player completes a move to leave or expose his king to check, the opponent may
capture the king, or he may notify an arbiter who shall declare the game lost for that player.
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.

For all other illegal moves
a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before
the irregularity shall be reinstated...

There is no need for a redefinition of Illegal move handling for Blitz and Rapid in A.4.b since this will
make the arbiter declare a loss as in the new article 7.5

[Stewart Reuben]

7.5 revised.
7.5a. If, during a game
(a) a player completes a move that leaves or exposes his king to check, he shall lose.
(b) it is found that any other illegal move....reinstated.

This is normal chess with one new thing; the penalty becomes greater with the king in standardplay. What do you think Jesper?

Personally I don't like it. I stick to what I said in 1984 at the Olympiad. A Ugandan had difficulty understanding why there wasn't a greater penalty for something his opponent had done. I said, 'We try to avoid penalising somebody for tripping over their shoelaces.' The Uganda said, 'Thank you very much. Now I understand' and returned to his game. That is why I would prefer it to be two illegal moves for rapidplay and that the pawn push to the 8th rank is incorrect, not illegal.

[Jesper Norgaard]

I do feel that there is a slight problem in the previous definition. This can be seen
from the games 1.e4 Qe5 (illegal move, is retracted in Nick chess) and 1.e4 Qd5 (illegal
move, is retracted in Nick chess) and in case of the latter, white cannot play 2.exd5 with
a winning position, because the previous move was illegal.

Compare this to 1.e4 Ke5 (illegal move, is retracted in Nick chess) and 1.e4 Kd5(+) which
is not only an illegal move, but also exposes the king to check, in current Nick chess White
can play 2.exd5 and win the game. That is unfair because it was otherwise an illegal move,
apart from exposing the king to check.

This could be corrected

5.1.c
The game is won by the player who captures his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game,
provided that the move capturing the king was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7, and
the previous move was in accordance with Articles 3.1 - 3.8 and Articles 4.2 - 4.7.
However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the player cannot checkmate the opponent’s
king by any possible series of legal moves.

7.5 after
If during a game a player completes a move to leave or expose his king to check, with a move that is in
accordance with Articles 3.1 - 3.8 and Articles 4.2 - 4.7, the opponent may
capture the king, or he may notify an arbiter who shall declare the game lost for that player.
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.

Stewart, I sympathise with the notion that we should not punish severely a person tripping over his/her
shoelaces. However I also feel that Nick's idea that BxQd8 and BxKe8 should be treated the same, and one of the
moves should not be pardoned because some illegal move rule interferes. That said only moves that
violate Article 3.9 should be treated Dracionianly like that.

[Stewart Reuben]

Jesper, I am confused. Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. I certainly don't understand your business about 1 e4 Qd5 and 1 e4 Kd5.
Please forget completely about Nick chess. That won't be agreed by FIDE anyway. Concentrate on the normal Laws of Chess. There is no capturing of any king allowed. Article 1 remains unaltered. But the current Laws in standardplay allow a player to leave or place his king in check with the only penalty being that, the first time, his opponent gets an extra 2 minutes. Thus introduce 7.5a (1) new.

7.5a. If, during a game it is found that a player has completed
(1) a move that leaves or exposes his king to check, he shall lose. 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.
(2) any other illegal move, the position before the irregularity shall be reinstated.

Thus 1 e4 d6 2 Bb5+ Nf6 and presses the clock. The game is over and Black loses.
1 d4 e6 2 Bg5 Nc6. White can play 3 Bxd8 winning the queen.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Jesper, I am confused. Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. I certainly don't understand your business about 1 e4 Qd5 and 1 e4 Kd5.

Okay I will have a go at explaining it below.

Please forget completely about Nick chess. That won't be agreed by FIDE anyway.

You may be right that Nick chess won't be agreed by FIDE, but not from lack of merits IMHO, but from clinging to tradition.

Concentrate on the normal Laws of Chess. There is no capturing of any king allowed. Article 1 remains unaltered. But the current Laws in standardplay allow a player to leave or place his king in check with the only penalty being that, the first time, his opponent gets an extra 2 minutes. Thus introduce 7.5a (1) new.

7.5a. If, during a game it is found that a player has completed
(1) a move that leaves or exposes his king to check, he shall lose. 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.
(2) any other illegal move, the position before the irregularity shall be reinstated.

Okay, let's call it Stewart chess. The main difference to Nick chess is that you cannot capture the king. In terms of evidence where you are not moving the piece that can capture the king, or the king itself, it is better than Nick chess.

Thus 1 e4 d6 2 Bb5+ Nf6 and presses the clock. The game is over and Black loses.
1 d4 e6 2 Bg5 Nc6. White can play 3 Bxd8 winning the queen.

Exactly the same results as in Nick chess, although in Nick chess 3.BxKe8 is allowed in the first game. I presume that instead in Stewart chess White will claim the game.

Now what would be the result in the game 1.e4 Kd5 in Stewart chess? I would suggest that Black has exposed his king to check, so he shall lose. In comparison, after 1.e4 Ke5 he has not exposed his king to check, and is allowed to reinstate the position and make a legal first move.

In Nick chess and in Stewart chess it is the same problem. The player will lose with any fantasy-move provided it leaves his king in check. I think it is unfair, and should be treated as he/she was tripping in his own shoelaces. Only if an otherwise legal move has been made, shall he lose the game. My correction would be

(1) a move that leaves or exposes his king to check, which is otherwise legal and respecting touch-move, he shall lose.

Thus 1 e4 d6 2 Bb5+ Nf6 and presses the clock. The game is over and Black loses.
1 d4 e6 2 Bg5 Nc6. White can play 3 Bxd8 winning the queen.
1 e4 Kd5 Black's king is reinstated on e8, and he is asked to make a legal move.
1 e4 Ke5 Black's king is reinstated on e8, and he is asked to make a legal move.
1 e4 Qd5 Black's queen is reinstated on d8, and he is asked to make a legal move.
White: Ke1 Black: Ke3, h7 Black plays 1...Ke2 and presses the clock. White claims a win, but is only granted a draw.

I hope this makes it clear.

[Stewart Reuben]

Jesper - much clearer. Commnts.
>Exactly the same results as in Nick chess, although in Nick chess 3.BxKe8 is allowed in the first game. I presume that instead in Stewart chess White will claim the game.<
Not exactly correct. 1 e4 d6 2 Bb5+ Nf6. White wins the game if an arbiter is present. No claim is needed.

>In Nick chess and in Stewart chess it is the same problem. The player will lose with any fantasy-move provided it leaves his king in check. I think it is unfair, and should be treated as he/she was tripping in his own shoelaces<
It is not unfair, it is the same for all players. But, you and I agree it is undesirable.
The main difference between Nick and Stewart chess is that the former requires 10 changes to the Laws. The latter just 1. That does not mean I favour it,

[John McKenna]

... it is unfair, and should be treated as he/she was tripping in his own shoelaces

Since it is not possible to determine who tied their laces together by accident or deliberately on purpose those who fall foul of that eventuality should all suffer significant consequences. If a child continually did it and kept tripping over its own feet, either accidentally or on purpose it would either be taught how to tie laces properly or given CBT (Cognitve Behaviour Therapy) to treat an underlying anti-social attitude. Waving a complicated set of 'laws' in its face would only exacerbate the problem.

OP, Joey, was right when he addressed his original question "to you rules lawyers to chew over."

A meal, of many courses, is certainly being made to follow his starter. I am sure that the 'lawyers' are enjoying the repast but it's not that easy for the hounds in the pack to digest the remaining meat on the bones that are being thrown from the hunters' table.