Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Geoff Chandler » Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:22 pm

In the thread on Bxc6 in Spanish Stewart thinks 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Ke2 ? is possibly the
worst ever move. I agree but 3.Ke2?? in the Centre Counter (Scandinavian) is another candidate.

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2



There is a legend regarding this position.

Apparently on move 3 White intending 3.Nc3 played 3.Bc3, an illegal move.
Black insisted that White put the Bishop back on c1 and, according to
what ever rules where in place at that time, make a King move.

Such a rule did exist. From William Lewis in 1835 in 'Chess for Beginners' we read:

Image

In the same volume we read that unless you say 'Check' when attacking a King a player can ignore it.

Image

So here when White has played Rd8+ and was just about to say check but Black quickly played Rh1 mate. (and announced it)



I want both rules reinstated, especially 'the 'you must announce check' rule.

It would be brilliant hearing 'check' getting shouted out all over the tournament hall.
And think of the squabbles with players denying one player said check and positions
with two Kings in check because the players have refused to speak to each other.

Stewart, next time you meet the rule makers, can you please put this one on the table.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5568
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by NickFaulks » Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:48 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:Stewart, next time you meet the rule makers
Who do you think makes the rules?

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Geoff Chandler » Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:05 pm

Hi Nick,

Stewart and some guy who believes in aliens, they also consult Alex MacFarlane.

These I know for sure....there may be others.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:46 pm

We had a dispute in a league (not Surrey) a few years ago where the players sent in a position for adjudication, and one player added that he had now noticed that he delivered check just before time control and the game had continued without either player noticing that one king was in check. There might have been a time-scramble. The other player agreed this had happened. So the League Secretary pointed out that as the time-control had not been reached (legally), the position could not be adjudicated, and the game would be scored 0 - 0. At this point, the opposing captain said that as the first player had not announced check, therefore, it was not check and the position was perfectly legal and they claimed a win, especially as the player had made an illegal move by not saying "check". The committee met to discuss this and ruled that the captain was an idiot. However, we did not tell him that, we just said his appeal failed, and referred him to the Laws of Chess.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5568
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by NickFaulks » Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:13 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:Hi Nick,

Stewart and some guy who believes in aliens, they also consult Alex MacFarlane.

These I know for sure....there may be others.
I've always believed that Alec Baldwin is involved somehow, but I can't prove it.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Geoff Chandler » Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:44 pm

Hi Kevin,

The captain could have showed them the Lewis rule 18 about announcing check.
Every captain should have a copy of the Lewis book on hand to resolve such matters.

Rule 21 also needs brought back.

Image

So here where stalemate seems unavoidable.
Instead of double saccing my Rooks on b1.



White can play 1. g8=Black Knight and win.

I can have two Kings! or give my opponent two Kings and then I can do
something which I've always wanted to do but was told it was impossible.

Image

1, Nc5+++ is a triple check!

E Michael White
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by E Michael White » Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:23 am

Geoff Chandler wrote:
White can play 1. g8=Black Knight and win.
1, Nc5+++ is a triple check!
why stop there ? Read the Black Qs as Black Ks (Paolo's board doesn't let me put in more than 1 BK)



fxe8=Q is octuple check

Julie Denning
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:07 am

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Julie Denning » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:04 am

Not long after I took up playing chess again 15 years ago I was playing an internal club game against, I believe, the recently deceased Nathan Goldberg. My opponent touched a piece with which he couldn't make any legal move. (I think it might have been pinned against his king.) I stated that he therefore had to move his king. He disputed this and no one else around seemed to know what I was talking about. Oh dear! Was I even more senile than I thought? A bit of research revealed that this once my memory wasn't at fault, it was just that the Rule had been deleted during my quarter-century absence from the game.

Gavin Hughes
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:36 pm

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Gavin Hughes » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:38 am

Geoff Chandler wrote:In the thread on Bxc6 in Spanish Stewart thinks 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Ke2 ? is possibly the
worst ever move. I agree but 3.Ke2?? in the Centre Counter (Scandinavian) is another candidate.

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2



There is a legend regarding this position.

Apparently on move 3 White intending 3.Nc3 played 3.Bc3, an illegal move.
Black insisted that White put the Bishop back on c1 and, according to
what ever rules where in place at that time, make a King move.
I believe it was Tarrasch that made this error think i read it in a Lasker book (not the world champ)

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5201
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by LawrenceCooper » Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:05 am

Julie Denning wrote:Not long after I took up playing chess again 15 years ago I was playing an internal club game against, I believe, the recently deceased Nathan Goldberg. My opponent touched a piece with which he couldn't make any legal move. (I think it might have been pinned against his king.) I stated that he therefore had to move his king. He disputed this and no one else around seemed to know what I was talking about. Oh dear! Was I even more senile than I thought? A bit of research revealed that this once my memory wasn't at fault, it was just that the Rule had been deleted during my quarter-century absence from the game.
You're not alone, I was brought up with that rule but when quoting it to one or more arbiters it became clear that it's not a rule they had ever heard of.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Geoff Chandler » Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:11 am

Hi Gavin,

Tarrasch's name does crop up from time to time when this game is being mention.

page 27 of 'Chess: The Complete Self Tutor.' by Edward Lasker mentions it.


Image

But details of Tarrasch v Whom, Where & exactly When are to date unknown.

There is the game: Lindemann vs Echtermeyer, Kiel 1893


http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242985

Which, apparently, finished this way.

Of course this kind of stuff is Edward Winter territory and he has indeed been active.

Chess Note 5381


http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter42.html

Which indicates 3...Qe4 mate may not have been played.

The only thing resembling a possible touch move incident I can
find regarding Tarrasch, is Tarrasch - Alapin, Breslau 1889.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf3 Ne4




Black thinking or assuming (but not looking) White would and did play 5.d4
Black played 5...Be7. But White had played 5.d3 Be7 6. dxe5 and Alapin resigned.

Alistair Campbell
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Alistair Campbell » Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:05 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:In the thread on Bxc6 in Spanish Stewart thinks 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Ke2 ? is possibly the
worst ever move. I agree but 3.Ke2?? in the Centre Counter (Scandinavian) is another candidate.

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2

This reminds me of the following game, which I previously posted in another place; white, having accidentally brushed his king before making his intended move, instantly recognised the comic potential:

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4101
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:18 pm

Anybody can make a submission to the RC. The Laws of Chess are agreed by the Rules Commission, of which I am a member, ratified by the General Assembly, to that point all very democratic. They are then messed around with by the Presidential Board, expressly against the FIDE Statutes.

I have no intention of putting forward as a law some idiotic old rule. It might then end up being accepted!
Julie that business about having to move the king has NOT been in the Laws in your lifetime, nor even mine.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1458
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Alex McFarlane » Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:35 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:Julie that business about having to move the king has NOT been in the Laws in your lifetime, nor even mine.
But it was in the first version of the BCF Laws in 1912!! Being an ECF official Julie may be unaware of (or in denial of) developments after that time :D .

The first FIDE Laws of 1931 had no such condition.

I'm too much of a gentlemen to do the maths regarding Julie's age.

Julie Denning
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:07 am

Re: Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

Post by Julie Denning » Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:35 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote: Julie that business about having to move the king has NOT been in the Laws in your lifetime, nor even mine.
Just goes to show how far behind the times Guernsey must have been in the 1960s, as that's when I would have picked it up! (And probably before they broke away from the BCF and set up their own federation.)

Post Reply