Do you have to compete promotion to win ?

[NickFaulks]

I do feel that difference - it is just that I don't see it as a valid excuse for Draconian losses.

Jesper,

I would like to understand the basis of our differences using some simple examples.

1. 1.d4, f5 2.Nf3, e6 3.Bg5, Nc6 ( a blunder, probably Black assumed the bishop was going to f4 and failed to notice that it had gone one square further ) 4.Bxd8, resigns
Black has been dreadfully punished for a simple oversight. Draconian, to use the current universally fashionable word? Maybe, but that's the game.

2a. 1.e4, c5 2.Nc3, d6 3.Bb5, Nf6. This is identical to (1) on the other side of the board, but here Black's third move is not a blunder. Instead, the Laws define it as an "illegal move", and it may - indeed, must - be taken back. Black will choose between three reasonable alternatives and suffer no meaningful penalty.

2b. 1.e4, c5 2.Nc3, d6 3.Bb5, Qc7. Black has made exactly the same oversight as in the previous cases, but here he is unlucky with his "illegal move". The Laws say he must take it back and play 3...Qd7 instead, so he resigns. Draconian? You tell me.

You believe ( I think ) that this part of the Laws is of crucial importance. I believe it is just stupid. When I first learned the rules I asked, as I find many beginners do, why there was this exception to the general rule that if you make a mistake you cannot take it back. I did not get a helpful answer, and nor have I in the subsequent 55 years. The game is not improved in any way by this feature, and would be better without it. I do not know why it came to be there in the first place, but in the absence of anything else I can accept the explanation that, when the rules were first made, the very idea of killing a king was anathema, so he could only be trapped ( the same was presumably not true of queens or bishops ). If that's the best we've got, I rest my case.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick, you still have never answered a very simple question.
White Ka1, Pawn a2. Black Kh8, Pawn h7.
1 a4 of course wins.
So 1 a4 h4 illegal. 2 a5 and now Black wins in rapidplay or blitz. In the view of some, 1...h4 would be worth a punt and thus worth doing.

1.e4, c5 2.Nc3, d6 3.Bb5, Nf6 illegal and most unlikely to hve been deliberate.

Why do you have this fixation about illegal moves that expose or leave the king in check as opposed to all other illegal moves?

[NickFaulks]

Nick, you still have never answered a very simple question.

Perhaps that's because I've never been asked it. In fact, I can't even locate a question in your post now.

[Stewart Reuben]

There is a clue. The last sentence in my previous post starts Why and concludes with a ?

[John McKenna]

I can't believe this thread is still alive... and kicking.

[Carl Hibbard]

Is everyone playing nice over here?

[NickFaulks]

There is a clue. The last sentence in my previous post starts Why and concludes with a ?

Oh, sorry, that's the question. I thought there must be some relevance to the four lines in between.

Yes, I think my previous post answered that one quite well. Not clear enough for you, of course, but that's why it wasn't addressed to you.

[Carl Hibbard]

There is a clue. The last sentence in my previous post starts Why and concludes with a ?

Oh, sorry, that's the question. I thought there must be some relevance to the four lines in between.

Yes, I think my previous post answered that one quite well. Not clear enough for you, of course, but that's why it wasn't addressed to you.

You pair are bickering still I see

[NickFaulks]

You pair are bickering still I see

I believe I made a serious point and would be genuinely interested if someone were to point out a weakness in it. Random changings of the subject ( this time, if I decode it correctly, to cheating ) are unhelpful and probably deter constructive discussion..

[Jesper Norgaard]

1. "I would like to see the Laws changed in one simple way which has no substantive effect on the game of chess."

2. "My suggestion for a minor and long overdue improvement to the game is that failing to notice that a move leaves one's king is en prise is treated like any other blunder, and that if the opponent notices he can take the king and win the game"

3. "Forget all the stuff about illegal moves because it isn't an illegal move, just a common or garden blunder like any other."

4. "I never doubted that you would attempt to muddy the water with an irrelevant discussion of stalemate. You know perfectly well that I have no desire to change the stalemate condition. Some consequential changes to the wording of several regulations would be required, since they currently rely heavily on the definitions of "legal" and "illegal" - some clauses could simply be removed, and we don't mind that. The whole process doesn't seem very difficult, if it were deemed desirable."

Instead of quoting you directly, I have taken the liberty to just extract a few phrases you have stated. I hope your ideas are still expressed with this reduced package. Of course the above was really directed to Stewart Reuben if I understand it correctly, but are the most explicit ones you have defined how you would like these rules to be.

I am prepared to have a closer look at your suggestions. Perhaps I feel it is like being invited to the Mad Hatter's tea party with Alice in Wonderland, where there will be 364 non-birthdays to celebrate each year. But please follow along and try to specify what you want in these law change suggestions to see if we can find common ground.

The statement (1) seems hard for me to accept, but I guess the general idea is you can win a game by capturing a king with a legal move. Second capturing the king is not an illegal move (as it is today). Third putting your king in check is not an illegal move, but rather a tease to your opponent, will he see it and capture the king? Fourth the objective of chess is either to checkmate the opponent or capture his king (either win is equivalent to 1 point).

You say that some clauses could simply be removed, but I´m trying to figure out which.

Stalemate is currently defined thus:

5.2.a
The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

You shall scream if anyone suggest you want to change the stalemate rule. However I don't see how you can avoid it. The king can now put itself into check as this is not an illegal move according to you. Now he will have to throw himself on the mercy of the sword. In effect all stalemates are no longer stalemates. All the beautiful stalemate combinations are now invalid as the player will now just lose by being captured, unless the player resigns.

I am sure I have not guessed right about your rules. In fact you may want to redefine the stalemate rule. Over to you.

If you come up with a good replacement we will have to look closely at the definition of "dead position". I think that those will no longer be dead after your changes.

There is one more thing. Illegal moves will still have to be handled in some way. Should the current illegal moves in Blitz and Rapid just lose? Should the current illegal moves in Standard games just be settled with 2 minutes to the other player, and having to redo the illegal move in his own time?

[Roger de Coverly]

Should the current illegal moves in Blitz and Rapid just lose?

As you correctly point out, the concise definition of stalemate is that the King is not in check but is unable to make a move without putting itself in check.

If an illegal move is deemed to lose, I wouldn't regard capturing the king as any more heinous than pointing out the illegality of your opponent's last move. With arbiters watching, you have to do this by just pointing at the King without touching it.

[NickFaulks]

The statement (1) seems hard for me to accept, but I guess the general idea is you can win a game by capturing a king with a legal move.

Why are you guessing that it is the general idea? It is quite explicitly the exact idea. More interestingly, what I really need to understand, and which you do not begin to explain, is why you find it hard to accept. The sole effect would be that a player would not be permitted / required to take back a particularly bad move. Are you simply concerned with tradition?

Second capturing the king is not an illegal move (as it is today). Third putting your king in check is not an illegal move, but rather a tease to your opponent, will he see it and capture the king?

When you play a move which accidentally gives away an important piece for nothing, do you consider that you are "teasing" your opponent? Most people call this a blunder.

Fourth the objective of chess is either to checkmate the opponent or capture his king (either win is equivalent to 1 point).

In practice there is already almost no difference - checkmate is merely an announcement that the king will inevitably be captured next move. Please don't let us get bogged down in details about flags falling during this process.

You say that some clauses could simply be removed, but I´m trying to figure out which.

You're right, the clauses about illegal moves would have to stay to deal with things like Nc3-e5. They would be invoked far less often, though.

In fact you may want to redefine the stalemate rule. Over to you.

Yes, I though I had said that absolutely clearly, but evidently not. I have no desire to change the game of chess in any way, except in relation to the takeback element. The phrase "the player to move has no legal move" would have to be replaced with a different set of words which have the same effect. This cannot be hard, and will not change the set of dead positions.

[Michael Farthing]

If an illegal move is deemed to lose, I wouldn't regard capturing the king as any more heinous than pointing out the illegality of your opponent's last move. With arbiters watching, you have to do this by just pointing at the King without touching it.

As a pernickity point this is not the case! You can touch the opponent's king in such circumstances. I can't see any reason why you can't pick it up and wave it in the face of the arbiter - but that might be somewhat impolite.

There are only two reasons for problems with touching the king:

(1) If it's your move, you might have to capture it (but only if you touched it with the intention of doing so). Clearly not, as will be clear from what you are saying to the arbiter. [And yes,of course, it's illegal to capture it anyway, pace Nick].

(2) If it is your opponent's move then touching his king is a distraction: but I think we can safely say that the opponent is already distracted by the presence of the arbiter and the clocks are probably stopped as well!

[Stewart Reuben]

Jesper, than you for attempting to unravel Nick's idea. I will call it 'Nick chess' rather than chess.

1. "I would like to see the Laws changed in one simple way which has no substantive effect on the game of chess."
2. "My suggestion for a minor and long overdue improvement to the game is that failing to notice that a move leaves one's king is en prise is treated like any other blunder, and that if the opponent notices he can take the king and win the game"

This simple improvement, requires amendments to 11 Articles: 1.2, 3.9, 3.10c, 5.1c new, 5.2b 5.7b, 9.1, 9,6b, 9.7, A.4b, A.4d. I only took 5 minutes over that and have probably made errors. Of course, whenever you amend a Law, that causes consequent changes.

I may not have understood. So let me ask about specific positions in Nick chess.
1. Ka6 Pa7. Black Ka8. Black to move. This is stalemate and the game is concluded as a draw, just as in chess.
2. Kh8, Qh7, Ph4. black Kh6. Black to move. This is checkmate and the game is concluded as a win for White, just as in chess.
3. Kh8, Qh7, black king h6. Black to move. This is a position and Black can play 1... Kg5. He can also play 1 Kxh7. Should White respond 1 Kg8, Black can play Kxg8. I think that is ludicrous. Am I right, he doesn't win as neither side can now achieve checkmate? In chess Kxh7 is an illegal move.
4. Kh3, Rf8. Black Kg1.
In chess, black's only move is 1...Kh1, resulting in 2 Rf1 mate. This is zugswang.
In Nick chess, Black's best first move is Kg2 or Kh2. We will award both moves an ! If white continues with the plan of Rf1, Black can play Kxh3 and it is a draw. Thus the concept of zugswang is eradicated from Nick chess. I regard that as a great pity.
5. White Kh6, Black Kh8. White Pa4, Black pawn h4. White is losing.
in chess and Nick chess. White can play 1 a6 illegal. If Black responds 1...h3 White is winning in blitz and rapidplay.
In Nick chess, White can play 1 Kh7 legally. If Black doesn't take the white king, White wins.
Both a4-a6 and Kh7 are equally illegal in chess and subject to the same penalty.

NICK. YOU HAVE NEVER RESPONDED TO MY QUESTION. You think Kh7 legal and a4-a6 illegal is a better way to play Nick chess; than chess where both are equally illegal. WHY?
it is obvious to me that a4-a6 is a move much more likely to be sharp practice. 1 Kh7 is an in your face way of cheating.
1 e4 d6 2 Bb5ch Nf6 is much more likely to be an honest mistake.

Earlier you said that putting the king en prise, or exposing it to check is the most common form of illegal move. That is simply untrue. There are many types of illegal moves (even leaving aside putting the pawn on the eighth rank and leaving it there). I have only experienced one alleged example of a player putting his king next to the opponent's. I have known players play Ne4-g6; Bc1-f5; castling out, into or through check.

Finally. Everybody will be pleased about that! Nick chess White Kd1 Re1, Black Ke8 Rf2 Rf3. This is blitz or rapidplay. White plays Rxe8. Black responds and the game continues, there is no arbiter present. There is just one king on the board. What is the result of this game when the arbiter turns up?

[NickFaulks]

Thus the concept of zugswang is eradicated from Nick chess. I regard that as a great pity.

You've got me. The element of chess which I'm sneakily trying to eliminate is not stalemate, but zugzwang. If you hadn't been smart enough to spot that, I might have slipped it past everyone else. Seriously, though, if the title of Grandmaster of Misdirection were introduced, you would be at the top of the list to be awarded it emeritus.

Regarding your question, I think that Kh8-h7 should be legal because kings move like that. Pa4-a6 should be illegal because pawns don't move like that.

Finally, I cannot claim much credit for inventing "Nick chess". It is what many of us used to call "blitz chess".