Let's Bring Back the Old Rules

[Geoff Chandler]

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

rnb1kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3q4/8/8/PPPPKPPP/RNBQ1BNR b kq - 0 3

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:



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



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

b2R2k1/6p1/7r/8/8/6P1/5P2/6K1 w - - 0 1

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]

Stewart, next time you meet the rule makers

Who do you think makes the rules?

[Geoff Chandler]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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

1R6/1R4P1/8/8/7K/8/p7/k7 w - - 0 1

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.



1, Nc5+++ is a triple check!

[E Michael White]

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)

3qnqB1/3k1P1R/4q1q1/8/8/8/8/K4R2 w - - 0 1

fxe8=Q is octuple check

[Julie Denning]

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]

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

rnb1kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3q4/8/8/PPPPKPPP/RNBQ1BNR b kq - 0 3

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]

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]

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.



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

rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/3p4/8/4n3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5

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]

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

rnb1kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3q4/8/8/PPPPKPPP/RNBQ1BNR b kq - 0 3

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:
[Event "Team Lightning"]<br> [Site "Grangemouth"]<br> [Date "2007"]<br> [White "Anonymous"]<br> [Black "RJPK"]<br> [Result "0-1"]<br> [ECO "B01"]<br> <br> 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 dxe4 3. Nxe4 Qd5 4. Ke2 0-1

[Stewart Reuben]

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]

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 .

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]

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.)