From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:58:33 GMT

In article <1590@tekgen.bv.tek.com> brucec@tekgen.bv.tek.com (Bruce Cheney) writes:
>In article <92325.182926RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
>>what? if your right to protest an illegal move ends when the player
>>making the move takes his hand off the piece, then i bet i could mate
>>kasparov in two.
>>
>>soon-to-be-world-champ bob vesterman.
>
>Bob;
>
>I think you've jumped into this thread mid stream and might have
>missed something. Your right to protest an illegal move DOES end
>when that move is complete (see Ken Sloan's post further elaborating
>on the definition of complete), IF the move is A) checkmate (or
>otherwise ends the game) AND B) the move itself is legal.
>
>The amendment of B to the rules was done to prevent the type of
>situation you are alluding to in your post. Ironically, you may be
>correct in your assertion because Ken Sloan has pointed out that
>the illegal move 'trapdoor' in the definition of end of game
>(checkmate in this case) has been specifically blocked in USCF, but
>apparently not in FIDE.
>
>So... if you play kasparov under USCF rules, you wouldn't be successful
>winning this way. But under FIDE rules, you could at least make the 
>arguement!!
>

My main concern (since the last time this discussion came up) was not
with the illegal move problem, but with the discretion given (forced on)
a T.D. when the mate/flag problem arises.  The current rules seem to say
that making a mating move wins, regardless of the state of the flag on
the clock.  I have been playing chess since about 1968 (in tournaments,
both rated and not) and have seen this a couple of times.  I have never
felt that "mating" ends the game if the mating move is illegal (a point
over which this thread diverged a couple of times.)  An illegal move is
simply that, and no rules interpretation I have ever seen would allow an
illegal move to win a game.  But, what about the flag?  I had simply
proposed that the flag be at the top of the "tree" of alternatives.  ie,
before analyzing anything else, if your flag is down, you lose.  If you
have a bare king or whatever, you lose.  A TD can take that and run with
it.  There is simply no reason to allow the room for arguments and
different interpretations.  Some don't like to lose if their opponent has
only a bare king.  I could take either approach, but like an "ironclad"
clock rule.  

I guess that I am getting old enough that simplicity wins out over
cleaverness every time.  At least with simplicity, I don't have to
think too hard nor worry about whether I was victimized or not.  If,
after the game 1 e4 e5  2 Bc4 any 3 Qf7 mate, if a TD upholds that,
he had better not be TD'ing my game....   :^)

In summary, this is one of the few games where the rules of play are
simple, but determining when the game is over is difficult.  Looks like
congress had a hand in writing the rules and everybody added their own
pet ammendment to it......

Bob


-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess