Amusing (Illegal) Way To Win

[Joey Stewart]

Playing in our leagues summer rapid competition the subject of illegal moves was raised before the game and it was asked whether it is possible to claim a win via illegal move after you have been checkmated which, it was believed, is not possible as the claim needs to be made immediately otherwise the illegal move stands and the game ends in checkmate.
So, therefore, this opening 'win' was concocted.

1.e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 Qxf7#

Now since the mate will be delivered before the illegal move can be claimed ( as the opponent cannot predict where the queen is going to land until it makes it there) would that mean that it would stand as a win ?

[Sean Hewitt]

The laws say

5.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

Article 3 is about moving the pieces. In particular

3.4 The queen may move to any square along the file, the rank or a diagonal on which it stands.

So Article 5.1 is NOT satisfied in this scenario as the Queen has not moved in accordance with Article 3.4. Consequently, the 'checkmate' does not end the game and a claim by black would result in a win for black if white had pressed his clock. If the clock was not pressed then white would simply be bound by the touch move rule.

[Kevin O'Rourke]

Haha. and this is also why we keep score sheets so that the moves can be replayed straight away.

Better just to throw the black king out the window.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Playing in our leagues summer rapid competition the subject of illegal moves was raised before the game and it was asked whether it is possible to claim a win via illegal move after you have been checkmated which, it was believed, is not possible as the claim needs to be made immediately otherwise the illegal move stands and the game ends in checkmate.
So, therefore, this opening 'win' was concocted.

1.e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 Qxf7#

Now since the mate will be delivered before the illegal move can be claimed ( as the opponent cannot predict where the queen is going to land until it makes it there) would that mean that it would stand as a win ?

Nice try. If this were a legal checkmate of course we would have a revolution in chess. It would make the whole game unplayable.

Take a similar example 1.e3 f5 2.Bb5 d5(+) 3.Qh5#
This is a genuine checkmate because the last move 3.Qd1-h5 is legal even though the position is illegal. This is a checkmate in Blitz, Rapid and Standard games. Even in correspondence games as far as I know.

To avoid this the rule for checkmate should be changed to say that the last move of both players should be legal. Unfortunately FIDE does not want to change the rule, perhaps because nobody has abused it yet. In my opinion FIDE is stuffing the head in the sand like an ostrich. I'm not sure whether FIDE thinks this is OK because it is the player's own fault by making an illegal move, or they think it is not a problem until someone executes such a checkmate.

Either way it is not difficult to fix the problem. Where there's a will there's a way.

[Ian Thompson]

Take a similar example 1.e3 f5 2.Bb5 d5(+) 3.Qh5#
This is a genuine checkmate because the last move 3.Qd1-h5 is legal even though the position is illegal. This is a checkmate in Blitz, Rapid and Standard games. Even in correspondence games as far as I know.

To avoid this the rule for checkmate should be changed to say that the last move of both players should be legal.

That wouldn't work. It would mean, for example, that this game ends in a legal checkmate:
1.e3 f5 2.Bb5 d5(+) 3.a4 a5 4.Qh5#

[Jesper Norgaard]

Take a similar example 1.e3 f5 2.Bb5 d5(+) 3.Qh5#
This is a genuine checkmate because the last move 3.Qd1-h5 is legal even though the position is illegal. This is a checkmate in Blitz, Rapid and Standard games. Even in correspondence games as far as I know.

To avoid this the rule for checkmate should be changed to say that the last move of both players should be legal.

That wouldn't work. It would mean, for example, that this game ends in a legal checkmate:
1.e3 f5 2.Bb5 d5(+) 3.a4 a5 4.Qh5#

Yes that is a legal checkmate too under the current rules. The problem is that 3...a5 is an illegal move because the king is left in check. At the point of the checkmate it doesn't matter that also 2...d5(+) was an illegal move because it actively exposed the own king to check.

If the rule was that the last move of both players need to be legal, then this is not checkmate, again because 3...a5 is an illegal move.

[Sean Hewitt]

Take a similar example 1.e3 f5 2.Bb5 d5(+) 3.Qh5#
This is a genuine checkmate because the last move 3.Qd1-h5 is legal even though the position is illegal. This is a checkmate in Blitz, Rapid and Standard games. Even in correspondence games as far as I know.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. The Laws of chess say

3.9 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

3.10

A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9
A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.

So once again 3. Qh5# does not satisfy Article 5.1 as the Queen has not moved in accordance with Article 3.9. Consequently, the 'checkmate' does not end the game.

[Ian Thompson]

Take a similar example 1.e3 f5 2.Bb5 d5(+) 3.Qh5#
This is a genuine checkmate because the last move 3.Qd1-h5 is legal even though the position is illegal. This is a checkmate in Blitz, Rapid and Standard games. Even in correspondence games as far as I know.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. The Laws of chess say

3.9 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

3.10

A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9
A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.

So once again 3. Qh5# does not satisfy Article 5.1 as the Queen has not moved in accordance with Article 3.9. Consequently, the 'checkmate' does not end the game.

So you're saying that if this was a rapidplay or blitz game Black could claim a win for an illegal move if White has played the move 3.Qh5 and pressed the clock?

[Jesper Norgaard]

Take a similar example 1.e3 f5 2.Bb5 d5(+) 3.Qh5#
This is a genuine checkmate because the last move 3.Qd1-h5 is legal even though the position is illegal. This is a checkmate in Blitz, Rapid and Standard games. Even in correspondence games as far as I know.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. The Laws of chess say

3.9 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

3.10

A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9
A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.

So once again 3. Qh5# does not satisfy Article 5.1 as the Queen has not moved in accordance with Article 3.9. Consequently, the 'checkmate' does not end the game.

Of course 3.Qh5# satisfies the Article 3.9. It says that no piece can be moved to expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check. But Ke1 is not in check. When the white queen moves, the criteria is if the white king is in check.

[Sean Hewitt]

That'll teach me for answering a question during the football without reading the question properly! I saw the move written as ...d5+ and assumed it meant that black was giving check without looking at the previous moves. Apologies.

I'll look at the question again (but properly) now.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Yes. White is 'giving' check when it is White to move, because Black has 'played' d5 to expose the Black king to check (not checkmate). Instead of doing something about this, White has played a different check that 'gives' checkmate...

Is it possible to construct a position where Black plays a move that self-checkmates? That seems easy to do. What happens then? I presume those who like thinking about such things have come up with an answer previously. The idea seems to be that the rules only refer to the immediately preceding move and position, and that anything further back than that is 'allowed', hence the example given.

I thought there was a rule that you can wind the game all the way back to the first illegal move and insist that play resumes from there. Does that only apply in standardplay, and is it different in blitz and rapidplay?

I seem to remember that if you start the game with the pieces in the wrong position (e.g. King and Queen swapped positions), after a certain number of moves in blitz and rapidplay, you have to continue rather than restart the game. In practice, when one side or another notices that the king and queen are the wrong way round (e.g. when castling), they just get swapped round and most sensible people don't object. It is when a bishop giving check to a 'king' (which is actually a queen) gets taken by the queen, that disputes start!

[Jesper Norgaard]

Yes. White is 'giving' check when it is White to move, because Black has 'played' d5 to expose the Black king to check (not checkmate). Instead of doing something about this, White has played a different check that 'gives' checkmate...

Correct.

Is it possible to construct a position where Black plays a move that self-checkmates? That seems easy to do. What happens then? I presume those who like thinking about such things have come up with an answer previously. The idea seems to be that the rules only refer to the immediately preceding move and position, and that anything further back than that is 'allowed', hence the example given.

Yes for instance 1.e3 d6 2.Qh5 d5 3.Bb5+ f5(+) is the same kind of "checkmate" as seen before. However, it is not checkmate since the last move 3...f5(+) is illegal. Even current rules are clear about that.

I thought there was a rule that you can wind the game all the way back to the first illegal move and insist that play resumes from there. Does that only apply in standardplay, and is it different in blitz and rapidplay?

7.5
a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.
If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn.
b. After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this 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.
________________________________________________________________________________

This Article 7.5 is only used in Standard games, not in Rapid or Blitz games. I propose that 7.5 should be active for all modes of play, and A.4 be abandoned. Additionally the penalty for an illegal move in all three modes (Standard, Rapid, Blitz) should be to lose half of (all) fixed time(s) in all periods. Increment time should be unaffected. Finally the players should be allowed to handle the return of the illegal move and the time cut to 50% for the offender on their own so that arbitration is not so urgent, for instance if no arbiter is available.
________________________________________________________________________________

Currently the illegal move in Rapid or Blitz is handled by A.4 given here in full, which I suggest should be abandoned:

A.4
Otherwise the following apply:
a. From the initial position, once ten moves have been completed by each player,
1. no change can be made to the clock setting, unless the schedule of the event would be adversely affected.
2. 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.
b. 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.
c. To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop the chessclock and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful, the claimant must have time remaining on his own clock after the chessclock 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.
d. 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.

I seem to remember that if you start the game with the pieces in the wrong position (e.g. King and Queen swapped positions), after a certain number of moves in blitz and rapidplay, you have to continue rather than restart the game. In practice, when one side or another notices that the king and queen are the wrong way round (e.g. when castling), they just get swapped round and most sensible people don't object. It is when a bishop giving check to a 'king' (which is actually a queen) gets taken by the queen, that disputes start!

A queen can of course capture a bishop that is "giving check to it". The player "giving check to the queen" has confused the matters, perhaps because the king is on the queen's square, and the queen is on the king's square.