Possibly FIDE's most amusing rule

[E Michael White]

This former FIDE rule, quoted by Stewart Reuben elswhere on this forum, must have been one of the most comical as it had some amusing side effects.

1997-2001 this particular ending (K+2N v K) was stipulated as a draw in blitz. A player had to have 'mating potential'. This was where the opponent, having the move, could not avoid being checkmated in one move. We gave up on that one when we found we were unable properly to define mating potential.
Stewart Reuben

Take for example this position:
B to play and ”…produce a position legally, possibly by Helpmate, where an opponent having the move cannot avoid being checkmated in one move”

pos1.jpg (9.89 KiB) Viewed 2314 times

If W ran out time black should win as he could argue the continuation, with unskilled defence could be:-

1... Kh3 2. Ra8 Nc2+ 3. Kd2 Na3 4. b4 Nxc4+ 5. Kd3 Nb2+ 6. Kd4 Kg4 7. b5 Kg5 8.b6 Nd1 9. Kc5 Ne3 10. Kc6 Nc2 11. b7 Nb4+ 12. Kc7 Nc2 13. Kb8 Nb4 14. Ba7 Nc2 15. e4 Nb4 16. e5 Nc2 17. e6 Kf6 18. e7 Ke6 19. e8=N Kd7 20. Nd6 Ke7 21. Nc8+ Kd8 22. Nb6 Nb4 {(now White cannot avoid mate next move)}

pos3.jpg (11.21 KiB) Viewed 2314 times

23. Bf5 Nc6# 0-1 There may be a quicker Helpmate deferred 1 move in 23 but I cant see it.

In an attempt to outlaw the K+ 2N as a draw, the rule makers left in many positions of this type where a K+N or K+ B wins against K + miscellaneous material. The term “unskilled defence”, which appears in other rules, is also amusing as it would take imagination and chess skill to come up with a line like that immediately.

When applied in blitz games between 1997-2001 the game itself might take 9 minutes to play but it might take much longer, possibly days to establish who should have won. The rules didn’t say whether the claimant or the arbiter had to find the line! I saw 4 games, not mine, wrongly given as a draw by the arbiter, who wouldn’t hear of any other result with various excuses such as “we haven’t got time to look into that”.

Here’s another example with a K+B if anyone wants to tax their chess brains. For full effect you should imagine you are playing in 1998 with an arbiter saying “you can have the win if you can show me the line quickly” and a hoard of players gathered around are chanting “that’s ridiculous”.

W to play and ”…produce a position legally, possibly by Helpmate, where an opponent having the move cannot avoid being checkmated in one move”

pos4.jpg (10.73 KiB) Viewed 2314 times

It didn’t only apply to Blitz. It was contained in the BCF rapidplay rules, a separate set of rules, often posted at Rapidplays earlier than 1997. I have a copy dated 1995. Many events advertised as Rapidplay in 1997 or later, announced just before play commenced, that the Blitz rules would be used so this rule was quite widespread. Not only that, it was written into the league rules of 2 leagues that I have played in as their own rules for QPF !

The present FIDE rule is much better as it is possible to tell in seconds that both the positions above would be won, even with the most unskilled arbiter.

[Stewart Reuben]

More amusing, I think is the current US Rule (I am told) is that a player with bare knight or bishop cannot win on time. I think we managed to get into double figures for a forced mate for the bishop.

Promotion before it said in the Laws that it had to be to a NEW bishop, knight, rook or queen of the same colour it was possible to construct mate in 1 but only by promoting a piece already on the board and moving it to the new square.

Remember when the Laws allowed castling with a king on e1 and a promoted rook on e8 (of course it had not moved). Ke3 and Re2. Tht loophole was eradicated by stating it has to be on the same rank.

Remember when a player could escape check because by moving a piece the king was threatened by 3 pieces. The Law used to say attacked by one or two pieces, now it says one or more.

Somebody one asked me whether changing the Laws will ever come to an end. I do hope not.
Stewart Reuben

[John Upham]

Stewart,

Can you tell the forum when the Laws of Chess were amended to stop promotion to a piece of your opponents colour? I've tried to discover this without success.

[Richard Thursby]

Proving I have rather too much time on my hands, here's a variation I came up with for the bishop vs 4 pawns:

1 Bb7 h5 2 Bc8 h4 3 Ka2 h3 4 Ka3 h2 5 Ka4 h1N 6 Ka5 Kg8 7 Ka4 Kf8 8 Ka5 Ke8 9 Ka4 Kd8 10 Ka5 c6 11 Ka4 Kc7 12 Ka5 Kb8 13 Ka4 Ka8 14 Ka5 Nf2 15 Ka4 Ne4 16 Ka5 Nc5 17 Kb4 Na6 18 Ka4 Nb8 19 Ka5 a6 20 Kb6 and whatever black replies, white plays 21 Bb7#.

[E Michael White]

Yes the final position is the same as my solution but the moves to get there are different. I dont think its possible to get to that position in less than 20.

If you still have time to kill, try the first one again with the pawn on h2 instead of e2 other pieces and the move the same; my solution for that is B mates on move 15.

[Stewart Reuben]

John Upham >Can you tell the forum when the Laws of Chess were amended to stop promotion to a piece of your opponents colour? I've tried to discover this without success.<

I don't know the answer to that one. It was before my involvement and is not allowed in the 1980 Laws. But prior to 1984 the Laws had not been amended since 1974. In the following 10 years there were interpretations, but no actual changes shown in Kazic's 1980 book. Thus it must almost certainly be before 1974. The 1974 set were the first to be published in English as the first language rather than French. David Welch has a collection of old sets of the Laws, preceding that I think.

I have suggested a doctorate be funded to be on the history of the Laws. I said in Dresden before it was too late and important figures died off. Of course Bob Wade did die shortly afterwards.

Richard Thursby. I think you have got the concept wrong. It is where the bare bishop has a forced mate provided both players play the best moves.
A basic concept is white king f1, white bishop e4. Black king h1, pawns h2, f3 g4. It is now mate in 3 if white to move. You can add in a queen on a8 that the bishop takes off at the start. Then sprinkle some extra black pawns on, for example, g5, g6 and g7. Another one on d6, another on d7 and another on e5. I think that comes to forced mate in 9.
Stewart Reuben

[E Michael White]

Stewart,

Can you tell the forum when the Laws of Chess were amended to stop promotion to a piece of your opponents colour? I've tried to discover this without success.

I have two dates at the back of my mind of 1896 and 1884 but both were collected years ago. BHW had an article which mentioned this in his Chess mag around 1963-1966. I composed a problem once allegedly based on a game between Holmes and Watson called "The Speckled Pawn" relying on this law as a clue in its solution. Peter Clarke told me later he thought the rules had never included that but for the sake of my chess problem I chose not to believe him.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Remember when a player could escape check because by moving a piece the king was threatened by 3 pieces. The Law used to say attacked by one or two pieces, now it says one or more."

I claim responsibility for getting that changed - I showed the idea to Mike Fox, who published it in "CHESS" and I assume someone at FIDE went "oops."

One of the new laws nearly raised its head at Thanet this weekend. A player had to withdraw on Saturday night as he was playing the violin at an event on Sunday. I pointed out that if hed brought the violin to the tournament I would have had to warn him for "introducing a source of noise" into the venue.

[John Wright]

Yes the final position is the same as my solution but the moves to get there are different. I dont think its possible to get to that position in less than 20.

If you still have time to kill, try the first one again with the pawn on h2 instead of e2 other pieces and the move the same; my solution for that is B mates on move 15.

from the original puzzle, how about

1. Ka2 c5
2. Ka3 d6
3. Ka4 Kg8
4. Kb5 Kf8
5. Kc6 Ke8
6. Bg2 Kd8
7. Bf1 Kc8
8. Be2 Kb8
9. Ba6 Ka8
10. Kc7 h6
11. Bb7#

[David Pardoe]

There are several that might be described as `odd`, or querky, or perhaps...OTT.

Take the `rule` which allows players to `win` in certain events, even though their flag has fallen.....? Is that not laughable....and very frustrating if you dont notice it..... The rule in all cases should be that a player cannot be declared `winner` if his flag has fallen...surely.
Liken this perhaps to a football match, where the Ref has `blown` but no-one heard it and a goal was subsequently scored.. It would not stand.....
And there`s those newer rules....`outlawing` English notation....almost farcical when you note all the great chess literature that has been written in English notation......now presumably, this can be regarded as `dead`...unless players continue to use and learn this....least they would not be able to read these excellent works...!!??

And you have that other rule about mobile Phones....automatic `death` on violation thereof.....???
At the very top levels, or where serious abuse is suspected, this might well be appropriate...but otherwise surely a 5 min clock penalty for single breaches should suffice. Otherwise why not penalise all such noise with similar penalties.
I`ll just add that at Congresses this rule clearly stops situations where multiple ring tones might prevail, sometimes mischievously, which would be a major annoyance...I`ve seen this only once, caused by a non-competitor...

Writing down moves before they are played...again, at the very top level, or where foul play is suspected, this might be appropriate......otherwise not, in my opinion..... Regular crossing out and altering of moves might constitute cheating/gamesmanship...with game AWARDED for serious breaches..maybe two warnings and OUT.
Maybe these are more bemusing an amusing, but I know of many cases where players/leagues `sportingly` turn a blind eye to minor infringements....

[Roger de Coverly]

Take the `rule` which allows players to `win` in certain events, even though their flag has fallen.....? Is that not laughable....and very frustrating if you dont notice it..... The rule in all cases should be that a player cannot be declared `winner` if his flag has fallen...surely.

The only example I can think of is that mate ends the game even if the flag falls marginally later. That's been the rule since the 1960's and was introduced following an incident involving (I think) Mabbs and Rumens. You still draw with your flag down of course if your opponent only has a bare king.

[IM Jack Rudd]

There are several that might be described as `odd`, or querky, or perhaps...OTT.

Frustrating though it is to deal with your posting style and your random ellipses, I'll have a go:

Take the `rule` which allows players to `win` in certain events, even though their flag has fallen.....? Is that not laughable....and very frustrating if you dont notice it..... The rule in all cases should be that a player cannot be declared `winner` if his flag has fallen...surely.

Why? The object of the game is to give checkmate. This surely has to take precedence - the clock is a necessary evil, but it shouldn't take priority over the in-game mechanisms of checkmate and stalemate.

Liken this perhaps to a football match, where the Ref has `blown` but no-one heard it and a goal was subsequently scored.. It would not stand.....

Non-analogous. In football, you're always playing to the ref's decision. In chess, on-board events take priority.

And there`s those newer rules....`outlawing` English notation....almost farcical when you note all the great chess literature that has been written in English notation......now presumably, this can be regarded as `dead`...unless players continue to use and learn this....least they would not be able to read these excellent works...!!??

Great chess literature usually gets translated into algebraic. And a number of players have exemptions allowing them to use Descriptive Notation - one is playing here at Coulsdon.

And you have that other rule about mobile Phones....automatic `death` on violation thereof.....???
At the very top levels, or where serious abuse is suspected, this might well be appropriate...but otherwise surely a 5 min clock penalty for single breaches should suffice. Otherwise why not penalise all such noise with similar penalties.
I`ll just add that at Congresses this rule clearly stops situations where multiple ring tones might prevail, sometimes mischievously, which would be a major annoyance...I`ve seen this only once, caused by a non-competitor...

This one I'll cautiously agree with you on. I can see why it's in there (a five-minute penalty is nothing if you are in fact using your phone to cheat), but the total inflexibility is not something arbiters or players appreciate much.

Writing down moves before they are played...again, at the very top level, or where foul play is suspected, this might be appropriate......otherwise not, in my opinion..... Regular crossing out and altering of moves might constitute cheating/gamesmanship...with game AWARDED for serious breaches..maybe two warnings and OUT.
Maybe these are more bemusing an amusing, but I know of many cases where players/leagues `sportingly` turn a blind eye to minor infringements....

Writing moves down before they are played carries a non-specific penalty, and I wouldn't usually intervene unless either I was asked to, or I felt the player was using it to cheat. And in the former case, I'd probably just give a warning.

(I'd prefer it if, as David Welch once suggested, the rule stated that writing down a move constituted a commitment to playing that move. That would stop the cheat tactics, while still allowing the situations where you have to write the move down first.)

[John Moore]

Can I just say that I agree with everything Jack has written.

[John Hickman]

One of the new laws nearly raised its head at Thanet this weekend. A player had to withdraw on Saturday night as he was playing the violin at an event on Sunday. I pointed out that if hed brought the violin to the tournament I would have had to warn him for "introducing a source of noise" into the venue.

Surely it's only a source of noise if he's actually playing it, or using it in some other way to make a noise

But then again, the arbiter is always right

[E Michael White]

from the original puzzle, how about 1. Ka2 c5 2. Ka3 d6 3. Ka4 Kg8 4. Kb5 Kf8 5. Kc6 Ke8
6. Bg2 Kd8 7. Bf1 Kc8 8. Be2 Kb8 9. Ba6 Ka8 10. Kc7 h6 11. Bb7#

John - Yes your solution is quicker than my solution which is a shame because it destroys the artistic elements of my problem, which included a self-stalemate of the N. To get that position I would probably have to turn it into a help mate in 6 with 2 half moves retracted leading to forced mate in 2 half moves. Stewart Reuben's posting is confusing the genre of this type of problem which should contain :-

The help mate should be as long as possible but there should not be a shorter solution from the start position, the winning side should have K+N or K+ B only throughout, the artistic elements should be as varied as possible and there should be minimum material to illustrate these elements.

Have a go at composing something yourself.