You can not let you king be checked or mated by your moving.
It would be called error, senior moment, carelessness, fumblefinger, or some other term depending on the commentator as there is no standard word for trying to move a piece pinned against your king.
Facing the chessboard, the Queen should be on the fourth square of the first rank (row) and the colour of the Queen should be the same as the colour of that square. (If the colours are different, rotate -90 or +90 degrees the chessboard.)
The King of a given color is on the square immediateley next to the square of the Queen of the same color and that is ...
In the old days it was done in less formal situations, but in a tournament I would hope that the director would stop it as it can often damage the clocks used back then.
Now with electric clocks they wont toggle unless you use a finger so they are protected somewhat from the kiddies taking their aggressions out on the clock by slugging it with a piece.
As others have pointed out, the points values themselves are merely an initial value to get you started. Over many many years, people have found that generally trading three pawns for a bishop is a fair trade.
The point values are just a tool to get you started. They're a way for you to not make mistakes by trading valuable pieces for less valuable pieces....
As has been said, in ordinary chess the points do not count, and the only person who can definitively tell you your school's rules is your chess coach.
But that said, the purpose of looking at the points is to be a quick way to answer the question, "who is winning this game?" So if you promote, it makes sense to take away those points (and give him a point ...
Material, aka “points,” is just one factor in deciding who is ahead. There is time, space, material, position, tactics, zugzwang and other things that will determine who is doing better.
Your school needs to stop counting points as it is, by itself, meaningless.
If you have a time limit, then limit the game time so that it finishes before the limit. ...
Points in chess mean nothing with respect to the actual play of the game with regards to the rules. They are only a reference to give players a general sense of what value each piece has relative to the next piece.
In essence, if you lose your queen, 9 points, but promote a pawn, you gain 9 points minus one for the pawn, so you would still be down one in ...
There is more on the condition to consider
The King and Rook have to be on the same rank, otherwise Pam-Krabbe castling would be possible.
Pam-Krabbe castling is basically a vertical castling, where the king would castle with a promoted pawn. This is not allowed anymore.
No, it was not a draw. For a draw by three-fold repetition, the exact position, and all of the possible moves (castling and en passant, which since en passant can only happen on the move, in essence, it requires a fourth repetition of the position), have to be repeated three times.
It was clearly a case of your opponent not really knowing the rules.
The only source I know is The Retro Corner.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t been kept up to date, but together with the FIDE site itself, it should give you coverage back to 1977.
The rules are hardly perfect, but there have been continual improvements in writing quality over time. Specific changes have mainly been in various kinds of draws, and filling various ...
Either method is completely fine, do whichever you're more comfortable with. There are a few "pros" and "cons" of each, but they're more or less non-factors:
Taking the piece you intend to capture off first may look more "precise", since the other way involves scraping the pieces together. There's also the small issue of touch move. What if at the very last ...
Short answer: Their movement is cleaner than yours, but not more legal.
Longer: When you shove aside a piece with your capturing piece, it risks affecting the placement of the pieces around it. It also risks accidentally causing you to touch other pieces, bringing some other conflict into the game. So, all things considered, your way risks causing more ...
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:
4.1 Each move must be played with one hand only.
In other words, the "correct" hand movement is one which uses only one hand. The order in which the opponent's piece is removed and the player's own piece moved to the capturing square is irrelevant.
Note that once the captured piece has left the board it doesn't ...
I believe either way is fine. I have seen both, but not in blitz.
4.6 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is then considered to have been made:
a. in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been removed
from the ...
This is a bit long for a comment.
Playing a 15+0 rapid open, I saw sub16 world champion GM Ibragim Khamrakulov facing this against an IM that was very nervous and pressed the clock before replacing the pieces he had thrown away.
They were both hurry on time, but the IM had less time. All arbiters and all of us where there.
Khamrakulov just raised his ...
As you said, Alireza Firouzja lost on time while he was trying to restore a piece he dropped. He appealed, but the appeal was denied.
It was denied for several reasons.
First, he appealed about Magnus uttering one frustrating word earlier in the game. That was denied because had he wanted to appeal that, he had to do it right then and there, but he did ...
So as soon as X resigns, Y resigns as well.
If the arbiter can establish this then player X's resignation, coming first, ends the game and player Y wins:
5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.
But suppose the resignation really is simultaneous?
Such a real world case was considered by ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
The relevant section from the rules would be Article 7.4.1:
If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the
correct position in his own time.
The rules do not specify a certain procedure, but what I have seen happening in practice is: Player A knocks a piece over on his opponent's time. Player B is now allowed to press the clock to ...