IM pfren

Mar 15, 2019

0

#21

Laskersnephew έγραψε:

pfren wrote:

Simply 1.0-0-0 is an illegal move, so white would normally lose in a blitz game. But as Black only has his king, it is a draw.

What about in a standard OTB game. What's the ruling there?

Two illegal moves lose the game in normal time controls, and one illegal move is sufficient in blitz and rapid.

IM pfren

Mar 15, 2019

0

#22

9497010838 έγραψε:

If you weren’t so far away, I could recreate the scenario spoken of in rule 3.9. OTB
Then, you would be able to clearly see the contradiction. But since you think the scenario that started this post is a draw, lol? You still would likely not be able to understand the concept.

There is no way a player can have a 2000 plus ranking in daily chess, while simultaneously thinking the end game shown in this post is a draw, unless that player is an engine monkey who lacks the ability to grasp slightly more nuanced chess ideas.

Agreed. Usually idiots fail to read or/and understand simple rules (mostly both).

That's not a bad thing in itself, unless they do think they are underrated geniuses.

Jeff2E161

Mar 15, 2019

0

#23

9497010838,

Thee_Ghostess_Lola · 2019-03-15T06:48:58-07:00

Nowhere in the blitz rules does it say that I cannot castle into check. It says that I cannot castle out of check and it says that I cannot castle thru check. Take this example: White plays 1. 0-0-0. White has neither castled out of check nor thru check.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

nightdaydream

Mar 16, 2019

0

#24

9497010838: You could have some reason, if we take the King. The game is over if we check the oposite King and there is no legal move for him. In rapid games, I think we can take the oposit King. But the first to take the king wins...

Lagomorph

Mar 16, 2019

0

#25

9497010838 wrote:

No one probably cares at this point, but I’m going to explain why FIDE rule 3.9 is self contradicting. The rule is stated verbatim in post 6 of this thread.

Sentence 1 basically states that a piece IS NOT PINNED when it comes to placing a check on an opponent’s king. What this means is that you can use that pinned piece to prevent the opponent’s king from taking another one of your pieces. That pinned piece protects the checking piece, or any other piece for that matter the opposing king might try to take.

Sentence 2 basically says the piece IS PINNED NO MATTER WHAT!!! Come he’ll or high water, a pinned piece is pinned, period. That’s what sentence 2 says.

The rule is very poorly written. It did not need to be written in two sentences. One sentence would’ve sufficed. It could’ve basically said:

“A piece is pinned when moving that piece would put your king in check, however the pin is released when it supports another piece that puts the opponent’s king in check”

Seriously lame. I might offer my services to FIDE. They need some editing help.

You are trying to read things into that rule which are not there.

Pinned (against it's own King) means a piece cannot move off a diagonal/rank/file and expose the king to check. It does not mean it mysteriously loses it's powers to control squares.

A bishop on b1 can control every square on the b1-h7 diagonal (assuming no other piece in the way). If the opponent's King is on that diagonal it is in check. if another piece is on that diagonal giving check to the opponent's King, the King cannot capture it. The Bishop has no need to move to perform either function.

If we now place the opponents rook on the a1 square, so the Bishop is pinned against his own King on say c1, the Bishops powers of control/check are still valid. All that has changed is he is no longer capable of moving.

Lagomorph

Mar 16, 2019

0

#26

9497010838 wrote:

Rule 3.9 says, on the other hand that a piece isn’t pinned when it is supporting another piece that checks the opponent’s king in sentence one.

Perhaps chess, like English, is beyond your scope of understanding.

Scottrf

Mar 16, 2019

0

#27

Even if it was a contradiction, which it isn’t, it’s obviously a case of precedent.

No matter what other rules apply, you cannot move into check.

Dunning-Kruger in full force on this thread.

Scottrf

Mar 16, 2019

0

#28

If you’re as brilliant as you think you are, why don’t you put the effort into not playing terrible chess moves (and photography)?

maverick82d

Mar 16, 2019

0

#29

It's funnier when someone castles into a 1 move mate !!

Lord-Of-The-Fleaz

Mar 16, 2019

0

#30

it should be allowed. i mean we are allowed make a stalemate and in footy, own goals count, so we should be allowed selfmate ourselves.

Lord-Of-The-Fleaz

Mar 16, 2019

0

#31

i will give you the patent! we have history in the making!

maverick82d

Mar 16, 2019

0

#32

Castling is a king move ,and you can't move your king to a protected square.

drmrboss

Mar 16, 2019

0

#33

airborne53 wrote:

Castling is a king move ,and you can't move your king to a protected square.

50Mark

Mar 16, 2019

0

#34

I think the first taken king is the loser.

IM pfren

Mar 16, 2019

0

#35

50Mark έγραψε:

I think the first taken king is the loser.

The only loser in this thread is someone who made 22 posts, all of them filled with nonsense.

Drunken_Shrimp

Mar 16, 2019

0

#36

ha

IM pfren

Mar 16, 2019

0

#37

ghost_of_pushwood έγραψε:

I'm jealous! Sometimes mine only manage to be half-filled with nonsense.

Even that would be OK, if they were original nonsense.

50Mark

Mar 16, 2019

0

#38

pfren wrote:

50Mark έγραψε:

I think the first taken king is the loser.

The only loser in this thread is someone who made 22 posts, all of them filled with nonsense.

It seems a legal castling and lead white to instantaneous lose.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Mar 19, 2019

0

#39

9497010838 wrote:

Of course, you’re asking this question theoretically. There are several positional examples where the rules fail in chess. This is the dumbest examples of all. Yet, no one questions these ridiculous miscuse that have existed for over a hundred years.
Here’s another one: bishops cant take a pawn en passant?

Another one: a pinned piece still,counts as a support backup to a check on your king. Even though the piece is pinned, because moving it would put your opponent’s king in check, that piece supports your opponent when they put you in check.

Chess isn’t perfect, but it’s about the closest thing we have.

I'm about to call you over there in OC & fill your cell speaker....grrr !

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Mar 19, 2019

0

#40

pfren wrote:

1.0-0-0 in that position is an instant draw. Try figuring out why.

Well, u just stole my Plan B....so -1 for you.

And btw, I too believe that ur too old to make a GM just like I'm almost too old to make........nvm.