En Passant incident...

[John Upham]

A recent match occurred this very Tuesday...

The home player was presented with an opportunity to capture a pawn en passant.

The pawn was moved appropriately, the clock pressed, the move recorded and a drink was purchased from the bar.

A couple of moves later the home player noticed that the pawn he had intended to capture en passant had been reluctant to leave the environs of the 64 squares and was still where it when it was moved two squares in one move.

The home player suggested that this reluctant pawn should leave the position.

The away player felt that he would like to keep this pawn and did not agree to the home players request.

The (now illegal) game continued until a result was agreed (the away player won).

A spectator suggested to the captains that an illegal game of chess was in progress.

The game continued and was concluded illegally.

Your views would be most welcome!

J.

[Alex Holowczak]

I am under the impression that if an illegal move has been played, and a player notices as such, then the game has to revert to the last recognised legal position, and have two minutes either taken from his clock or added to his opponent's clock. There might be a 3-move limit on that though.

Either way, the away player was being very unsporting.

[Peter Brace]

I'm sure you're right Alex

7.4 a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, including capturing the opponent’s king or failing to meet the requirements of the promotion, 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. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.13. The Articles 4.3 and 4.6 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position..

When the away player rejected the home player's complaint should the home player have stopped the clock and consulted his captain? Does team captain also act as arbiter? If the captain also has the role of arbiter I wonder if he is able to stop game without the player informing him (a spectator told the captain).

I assume everything is too late after the game has ended?

I curious to know the correct procedure to this, if there are any arbiters reading this?

[Sean Hewitt]

Quite simply, assuming this was a standard play game the position prior to the illegal position should be restored, as should the clock times, and the game continue from there. This is the case no matter how late in the day the illegality is discovered providing the game is still in progress. If it were rapidplay, then the answer would be the same unless a reply to the illegal move had already been made in which case the game continues regardless.

However, once the scoresheets have been signed the result stands as recorded.

[Peter Brace]

The away player felt that he would like to keep this pawn and did not agree to the home players request.

What do you do if your opponent is stubborn & refuses your objection to his illegal move? If no arbiters are present do you ultimately refuse to play on? Also, do team captains class as arbiters?

[Ian Thompson]

... unless more than three moves have been played in which case the game continues regardless.

Where does it say that in the rules for a rapidplay game? The answer is not A.4 a.

[Neill Cooper]

The away player felt that he would like to keep this pawn and did not agree to the home players request.

What do you do if your opponent is stubborn & refuses your objection to his illegal move? If no arbiters are present do you ultimately refuse to play on? Also, do team captains class as arbiters?

My understanding is that team captains do act as arbiters.
I would have thought that my normal maxim to juniors applies. Stop the game and get it sorted when the problem if first noticed. It can't be sorted out once the game is over.

[Sean Hewitt]

... unless more than three moves have been played in which case the game continues regardless.

Where does it say that in the rules for a rapidplay game? The answer is not A.4 a.

Apologies. That will teach me not to read the scenario properly. I should have said "...unless a reply to the illegal move has already been made.."

[Paul McKeown]

IF it is as you have reported, John, and not some partially half-reported incident (such as the recent 10.2 nonsense... ):

Stand your ground - take the pawn from the board. If it is replaced - give a warning and then remove it again. If the pawn is replaced again, simply inform the match captains if present, record the position, ensure the score sheet is completed, sign it, record a win for yourself in the match report, send the scoresheet and position into the league, complete with a short report, copied to the respective match captains and the idiot who insists on breaking the rules. The league will later support your claim of a win.

As it is, this charmer should be drummed out of the league, the league should score it as void and the league grader should avoid that game like the pox.

Strewth, what a blood boiling moron.

Regards,
Paul McKeown.

[Ian Kingston]

Was there no copy of the Laws available to be consulted? Disputes like this can be dealt with in a couple of minutes by pointing to the relevant article.

[David Shepherd]

Paul To be fair this is only one side of the arguement - was the pawn originally taken from the board or not? If it was left on the board what move was recorded by the oponent and was the pawn taking the piece clearly moved to the square or half on it. Without having been there I would not wish to judge either player.

However if I felt my opponent was not abiding by the rules I would not play on (as infact was what happened once in the case of a draw offer that an opponent tried to retract after playing his move). I merely pointed out that he couldn't retract it the game was over as I had accepted it and left the board - the matter was quickly resolved outside by the match captains and the opponent was happy to abide by the rules and amicably accepted the draw to his credit.

[Paul McKeown]

Paul To be fair this is only one side of the arguement

David,

To be fair, to be fair, that's why I said:

IF it is as you have reported, John, and not some partially half-reported incident (such as the recent 10.2 nonsense... ):

I understand your point that the pawn might not originally have been removed from the board, but what is the significance of the sequence pawn d7 - d5, then pawn c5-d6? It can surely only be an en passant capture? Otherwise it could only be an illegal pawn move, which cannot stand? So return to the original position and ask that a legal pawn move be played, what else? Which results, naturally enough, in the legal pawn c5 captures pawn d5 en passant moving to d6.

As for the player being inexperienced, surely that is good reason to listen to more experienced players about what the laws of chess are.

IF the situation is as reported, then the en passant denier was very much in the wrong.

[David Shepherd]

Hi Paul sorry missed the first line of you comment, all I was thinking was that if the pawn had not been taken and the other player had not recorded ep but just that the pawn moved forward one square on his score sheet then the situation would be less clear as to what should have happened if it was unclear which pawn the square was on (sounding a bit unlikely as I'm writing this but still).

[Ian Thompson]

As for the player being inexperienced, surely that is good reason to listen to more experienced players about what the laws of chess are.

IF the situation is as reported, then the en passant denier was very much in the wrong.

I've now heard a first-hand account of what happened from the player who had the illegal move played against him. According to him, John Upham's description of what happened is accurate as far as it goes, but not the full story. Apparently, the player who forgot to remove the pawn when he captured it en passant wanted to remove it several moves later in the position they had then reached, and the opponent objected to this. It seems that neither player knew that they should go back to the position when the illegal move was played.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Apparently, the player who forgot to remove the pawn when he captured it en passant wanted to remove it several moves later in the position they had then reached, and the opponent objected to this. It seems that neither player knew that they should go back to the position when the illegal move was played."

Well - that clarifies matters. It helps to get all the facts before making decisions.

So we don't need to ban either player for life, just gently suggest they learn the Laws.

There was a weird "incident" at the Portsmouth Spectrum, in a rook and pawn ending, where black (to move) had pawn on a6, rook on a5 and white had an unprotected pawn on a3. Black picked up the pawn on a6, then captured it with the rook. White looked a bit surprised and pointed out this was illegal, so black played Rxa3 instead (and both players laughed). Luckily for black the pawn had no legal moves...