Etiquette of resigning

[Chris J Greatorix]

I played a Blitz game tonight that was drawn, even though I was K+plenty v K down. He played pawn to a1, and pressed his clock without replacing it with a queen, which was an illegal move. I thus drew the game, because he'd completed an illegal move, but I had no means of winning the game by any series of legal moves.

Always worth being on the ball in blitz.

I would argue that this is precisely the sort of example Alan Burke refers to where you are claiming a win "becuase the rules say so" and it is immoral, lacking etiquette to claim a win when you know on the board itself you have been beaten fair and square. Maybe if it was a serious blitz event, fair enough claim the win, since players could reasonably be exptected to know the rules, but if it was a lesser situation your reputation as a player gets tarnished. By the letter of the law, you may be right, but it's hardly in the spirit of things is it?
(I can picture a Norris Cole type character off Coronation Street getting beaten at Chess but suddenely gets his rule book out looking for any rule his opponent has violated)

EDIT: just realised you claimed a draw, but still my case stands.

[Roger de Coverly]

Maybe if it was a serious blitz event, fair enough claim the win, since players could reasonably be exptected to know the rules, but if it was a lesser situation your reputation as a player gets tarnished. By the letter of the law, you may be right, but it's hardly in the spirit of things is it?

I would be rather inclined to agree. Whilst Bill Hartston promulgated the view that there's no such thing as a friendly game of chess, if you were playing a series of 5 minute games in a bar or at a club, then if someone pulled that trick or denied that an upturned rook was a second queen, then the series of blitz games would be terminated. If you are treating the blitz as training, there's little point in continuing totally lost positions.

[Richard Bates]

And of course if you are playing a casual game of blitz, you may not have the spare pieces available to properly observe the rules on pawn promotion.

[Alex Holowczak]

Maybe if it was a serious blitz event, fair enough claim the win, since players could reasonably be exptected to know the rules, but if it was a lesser situation your reputation as a player gets tarnished. By the letter of the law, you may be right, but it's hardly in the spirit of things is it?

I would be rather inclined to agree. Whilst Bill Hartston promulgated the view that there's no such thing as a friendly game of chess, if you were playing a series of 5 minute games in a bar or at a club, then if someone pulled that trick or denied that an upturned rook was a second queen, then the series of blitz games would be terminated. If you are treating the blitz as training, there's little point in continuing totally lost positions.

The blitz wasn't really training; it was merely plugging a gap between our arrival and the start of the club AGM. We both thought it started at 7:30pm so arrived accordingly, and it turned out it started at 8pm. I knew that the claim wasn't likely to cause a fuss, because of who I was playing.

And of course if you are playing a casual game of blitz, you may not have the spare pieces available to properly observe the rules on pawn promotion.

So what you do is stop the clock - quite legally - and go and find the appropriate piece.

[Richard Bates]

The blitz wasn't really training; it was merely plugging a gap between our arrival and the start of the club AGM. We both thought it started at 7:30pm so arrived accordingly, and it turned out it started at 8pm. I knew that the claim wasn't likely to cause a fuss, because of who I was playing.

Well as long as you do your research in advance. Some people might opt to punch you in the face.

And of course if you are playing a casual game of blitz, you may not have the spare pieces available to properly observe the rules on pawn promotion.

So what you do is stop the clock - quite legally - and go and find the appropriate piece.

Perhaps get on a bus, go and find the local chess shop or something?

[Paul McKeown]

Richard,

I can only agree with that wholeheartedly.

Friendly chess then claim a draw on some jobsworth technicality?

Punch in the face?

Lucky the board wasn't wooden, then, as a chessboard through the cranium is liable to cause offence.

My pet peeve amongst the rules is the one that capturing the king during blitz results in the loss of the game. I remember Geert Gijssen trying to justify that as "taking the king makes it impossible to re-establish the position". I remember asking Bob Wade and he just snorted that he didn't think that Gijssen had played much blitz chess since the 1960s.

[Alex Holowczak]

Lucky the board wasn't wooden, then, as a chessboard through the cranium is liable to cause offence.

FWIW, the board was wooden.

My pet peeve amongst the rules is the one that capturing the king during blitz results in the loss of the game.

... but only if your opponent claims it is an illegal move, and you've pressed your clock. If he then makes another move - despite not having a King on the board - he loses his right to claim. At least, that's my understanding.

[Paul McKeown]

My pet peeve amongst the rules is the one that capturing the king during blitz results in the loss of the game.

... but only if your opponent claims it is an illegal move, and you've pressed your clock. If he then makes another move - despite not having a King on the board - he loses his right to claim. At least, that's my understanding.

Surely he has then made another illegal move and a claim can be made? QED reductio ad absurdum.

[Alex Holowczak]

My pet peeve amongst the rules is the one that capturing the king during blitz results in the loss of the game.

... but only if your opponent claims it is an illegal move, and you've pressed your clock. If he then makes another move - despite not having a King on the board - he loses his right to claim. At least, that's my understanding.

Surely he has then made another illegal move and a claim can be made? QED reductio ad absurdum.

Well, no, he hasn't necessarily made an illegal move. He might still have moved a Bishop diagonally, for example, which is quite legal.

The point is, the position on the Board would be illegal. So then you're into the realms of what happens when there's an illegal position. So you go back to the last identifiable position before the irregularity. As long as the King taker never agrees to the position on the Board, he wouldn't agree to the bit when the opponent's King disappeared. So the last identifiable position may well be to restart the game.

Arguably, if a guy makes a move when he doesn't have a King on the board, he probably doesn't deserve to win the game that way anyway.

[Paul McKeown]

Alex,

I think you're interpretation is not quite correct. In blitz one does not try to re-establish the last known position from which an irregularity or illegal move has been made. The offender is simply awarded a loss. I have always viewed capturing the king as a demonstration of that very fact.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex,

I think you're interpretation is not quite correct. In blitz one does not try to re-establish the last known position from which an irregularity or illegal move has been made. The offender is simply awarded a loss. I have always viewed capturing the king as a demonstration of that very fact.

An arbiter who has not seen the game doesn't know why the King isn't on the board though:
(1) The opponent may have captured the King to demonstrate an illegal move had been made.
(2) The King may have been knocked off during some scramble with limited time, and no one noticed for a move or two (it may not have been replaced as quickly as the next player had moved; an illegality in itself)

Suppose you wanted to allow King capturing in blitz. How does that ideal fit in with:
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 that square 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.

[Paul McKeown]

An arbiter who has not seen the game doesn't know why the King isn't on the board though:
(1) The opponent may have captured the King to demonstrate an illegal move had been made.
(2) The King may have been knocked off during some scramble with limited time, and no one noticed for a move or two (it may not have been replaced as quickly as the next player had moved; an illegality in itself)

Suppose you wanted to allow King capturing in blitz. How does that ideal fit in with:
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 that square 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.

Yeah, yeah, give me all the legalistic mumbo-jumbo. It has never convinced me. The fact that an illegal move has been made may in itself make the position impossible for the arbiter to know what has happened. If the arbiter hasn't seen what is going on then you can be left with a yes I did, no I didn't conflict of testimony, rather like the, happily rare, touch move conflict.

In the specific case of a captured king, what happens if the player who left their king in check, confirming that this indeed did happen? I have actually seen a player who was awarded the game pleading with the arbiter to give him the loss instead, because the whole thing was an embarrassing outrage against natural justice. No chance.

And if we are going to worry about players telling porkies, if they are that determined to win, why couldn't some unpleasant idiot say that their king is in check, but only because the other player changed their move and then called the arbiter? Or some other ridiculous tableu?

[Alex Holowczak]

In the specific case of a captured king, what happens if the player who left their king in check, confirming that this indeed did happen? I have actually seen a player who was awarded the game pleading with the arbiter to give him the loss instead, because the whole thing was an embarrassing outrage against natural justice. No chance.

If I were the arbiter, I'd be sitting resolutely at my desk waiting for results to be handed to me in blitz with inadequate supervision. If two players agree a result, that's good enough for me!

If someone called me over to complain that the King had been taken, and it was an illegal move, I'd feel duty bound to give the complainer the win. If I'm not called over, and the players accept the King capture meaning the guy whose King was captured loses, that's good enough for me, on the principle that "the game of chess is played between two opponents", and not "...two opponents and an arbiter". Particularly in blitz where I'm not supposed to interfere unless called upon anyway.

And if we are going to worry about players telling porkies, if they are that determined to win, why couldn't some unpleasant idiot say that their king is in check, but only because the other player changed their move and then called the arbiter? Or some other ridiculous tableu?

This could happen in all forms of chess. Luckily most people are civilised.

[Paul McKeown]

Alex,

In some strange way, I think you are agreeing with me.

I agree with the philosophy that three on a chess board is an unnatural practice.

The idea that capturing a king automatically leads to a loss seems absurd to me and no justification will seem other than ex post facto sophistry. I seriously wish that the result was simply left up to the arbiter based on the exact facts of the case. You seem to be arguing that that is what you do anyway, in practice.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I've never seen arbiters get involved in blitz chess anyway. Does that really happen? At Blitz World Championship level? Are there separate rules in the Arbiters' Handbook for this?