This sort of thing is what the Preface of the Laws of Chess is for:
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise
during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions.
Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it
should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying ...
No, this is not possible.
for example move the piece, don't press the clock and then resign?
In particular, that loophole is explicitly covered by the rules:
6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the ...
In my thread on the English Chess Forum, which seemed to make the world go crazy on the subject, I gave all the major and minor events in the history of the “legal” triple check that my extensive research has uncovered. This loophole was even talked about recently in Episode 20 of "The Chess Pit" at the 12:13 mark. Here is all information in ...
FIDE Laws of Chess, rule 3.7e:
When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour.
The Wikipedia article on promotion contains some information about the history of the rule, which previously implicitly allowed ...
It is important to realize that chess is a zero-sum game*. In other words, everything that gives advantage to one player gives an equal disadvantage to the other player. So if adding 2 minutes to your opponent's clock benefits you, then it would be harmful to your opponent. It is not possible for any decision of the arbiter to give an advantage to your ...
There is no loophole. Rules 3.7.1 to 3.7.4 allow pawns to move forwards along the same file, or diagonally forwards onto an adjacent file.
The only argument here seems to be that "forwards" is not explicitly defined but it is implicitly defined by 22.214.171.124 which beings with the following quote: "When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank ...
I suppose what is comes down to is that the way 3.8.2 is written can be argued to have a syntactic ambiguity. 3.8.2 can mean either "This is a move of the king, and either rook of the same colour, along the player’s first rank," or "This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank."
There's no ...
Excellent question. The rules state that this is not possible. Castling can only be done once.
This is explicitly mentioned under Guidelines II. Chess960 Rules:
II.3.1 Chess960 allows each player to castle once per game, a move by potentially both the king and rook in a single move. [...]
Specifically, castling (even if the king doesn't move) should still ...
Is there any glaring flaw in this rules lawyer case, or is it solid
until FIDE fixes it?
Yes, there is a glaring flaw in your case. The rook and king have to be on the same rank. This is clear from the text of the rule and the diagrams which follow. Here is the text from the latest FIDE Laws of Chess:
3.8.2 by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and ...
When I touch two pieces simultaneously, how will the touch move rule
It will primarily depend on your intention, or rather what onlookers clearly perceive as being your intention.
Here's what the latest FIDE Laws of Chess have to say:
4.1 Each move must be played with one hand only.
4.2.1 Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces ...
This is a good question, as much as some may be instinctively frustrated by it, because finding room for improvement in rulesets is useful and can prevent future issues where arbitration is required.
My understanding is that "front" is defined by the piece's colour, not it's rotational orientation. This is consistent with the definition of "last rank" in ...
No matter how a chess piece is shaped, FIDE rules do not define "front" or any other direction relative to the orientation of the piece.
Chess pieces do not have a front, rear, direction of advance, and so forth. Only the board has these.
This question really needs a diagram with this position:
[FEN "8/8/4P3/3p4/2p3p1/1pP1kPPp/1P5P/R3K2R w KQkq - 0 1"]
White to mate in 3.
Tim Krabbé and Max Pam found the loophole in the rules that you are asking about -- when they composed this problem in 1972, the promoted rook did indeed enable castling, as the rules only talked about a rook that hadn't ...
No, according to FIDE's Laws of Chess, castling has to be done along the first rank.
3.8.2 by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same
colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the
king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its
original square two squares towards the rook on its ...
No, it is not.
FIDE Laws of chess, clause 3.7e:
When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it
must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a
new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour.
The official PDF of the FIDE Laws of Chess includes illustrations of the legal moves for each piece. These clearly show the white pawn moving "up" the file (including the two-square move from the starting rank), and the black pawn moving "down" (only one square, because it's shown away from the starting rank).
Moving the pawn along a rank is explicitly ...
Hi thanks for your questions Remellion. I have a better answer for Q2 than Q1, but bottom line there is no loophole in the FIDE Laws.
(1) I don't know of and can't locate any other official source of Chess960 rules other than FIDE rules.
(2) There is a second place in the FIDE rules where we are told how naughty it is to leave a king in check:
FIDE Law ...
There is still a pawn on a2, and it wasn't touched.
The queen can only be on a1 due to a promotion, but you don't state the pawn was ever touched, and you say that nothing more than that happened.
Now the puzzle becomes extremely technical, and I don't think the FIDE laws are precise enough to decide. Of course we're talking about
6.9 Except where one of ...
One way out of this would be to invoke article 3.9.2 of the FIDE Laws:
No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.
Yep, that seems entirely unambiguous to me. You can't leave your king in check after your move. (Your objection seems to be predicated on the idea that a move that touches two ...
I can’t see the diagrams on mobile, but having read
or the square which it is to occupy
the white king ends in check on c1
I would say FIDE covers the scenario: the square which the king is to occupy is attacked if the king would end in check, no?
Or is the issue that the unique 960 arrangement means that the rook previously blocked the check ...
Resigning immediately after a checkmate is not possible. HOWEVER, the FIDE rules do allow for a player to do another action, namely withdraw. Withdrawal can be done outside a match and for the most part has the same result, namely that the player is no longer part of the tournament. However, there are penalties involved with this action if the FIDE arbiter ...
He could try, but in a real FIDE tournament it would be illegal and not allowed.
In a small local club with amateurs who knows how they would rule if nobody knew the real rules.
If this were not a FIDE tournament their rules might allow some loophole which might permit it. No way to guess what oddball rules soem other group or club might use; so ...
While today's official rules do forbid promoting a pawn to a piece of the opposite color, it has not always been the case. I would like to contribute to this topic with a tale in the field of chess humor that stars an alien learning chess. The tail exploits loopholes in the rules and features not only promoting to an opposite-colored piece but also promoting ...
The "on the same file" language already takes care of this.
2.4 The eight vertical columns of squares are called ‘files’
Moving based on some notional "facing'" of the pawn would take the pawn off the file.
Yes, I am saying that releasing the queen on a1 is not enough to be considered having made the move!
4.7 explicitly states that:
"cannot be moved to another square on this move".
Thus, the "possible series of legal moves." from 6.9 HAS to start with this move (any other move could not be considered legal, as it would conflict with 4.7) and ...
You have found out all relevant rules, which are the Laws of Chess, including Guideline II. As expected, the wording of the rules seems not to cover that case. In Guideline II, some special cases of castling are considered, but not this one, so Article 3 applies. Article 3 deals with regular chess, and in regular chess your case simply is not possible. Your ...
Sorry I am late to this party.
The question is about how FIDE resolves this issue. I can only answer about chess problems.
Although the text says that they only apply to over-the-board chess, I know from discussions with a FIDE rules writer that they have been concerned about their responsibilities as owners of a document which problemists will take ...
Front is meant to be the next square that the pawn could normally advance to unless it were making a diagonal capture. Pawns and pieces per se have no front or back. Maybe FIDE should define it that way for people who want to be lawyers and pick at the rules.
I am not surprised that such an excellent loophole exists in the FIDE laws, or that Remellion was the one to find it.
To summarize: bPa2 was never removed, although the move could only end with that action. Moreover, the clock was never pushed. So by 6.2.1 the move was not complete. The key question is whether an illegal, unfinished move has any impact on ...