FIDE Blitz Rules

Hi, we have a little office blitz tournament going on and in one of the games we had the following scenario.

The time is running out for both players and white is loosing.

1. White moves his king to the square next to the black king and hits the clock.

2. Black does not notice, moves anothe piece and hits the clock.

3. White kill's the Black king with his king, hits the clock and claims victory.

4. Black says that killing the king is illegal move and claims victory too.  

As I understand it then according to 2014 FIDE Rules killing the king is illegal move and black can claim victory because white did indead play the last illegal move and hit the clock.

The tournament follows the 2014 FIDE rules.

What are your thoughts on this scenario? 

I'm by no means an expert on FIDE blitz rules, but it seems to me that as white made the two illegal moves (including the final one and then pressing the clock) they should therefore forfeit the game in black's favour.  At the very least the arbiter could impose a time penalty on white for making the initial illegal move, which I suspect would have resulted in white losing on time anyway?

Out of interest, I have heard many chess terms over the years (check, checkmate, etc), I'd love to know what white said when he gleefully 'killed' black's king?  :)

A lot depends on if the arbiter saw what happened or not. In a normal time control game, the board would be set back up to the last legal position and two minutes would be added to the clock (not a time penalty on the person making the illegal move) of the other player.

Since this is blitz and most likely covered by the Rapid play rules (unless there was an arbiter at each board or something like a DGT board was keeping the game score) and since the claims were not made at the appropriate time, the rules don't really cover it very well. But I would say that white should lose due to placing his king next to the black king. That illegal move overrules all others in my opinion (and is a very unsportmanlike play).

If it's any help see the following link https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&view=article and scroll down to the "Appendices" section near the bottom - see appendices rule B.3.C (referring to illegal moves in blitz) which states:

An illegal move is completed once the opponent’s clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move.

As white played the illegal move of taking black's king and then pressing the clock, black is entitled to claim victory (as presumably he didn't make another move himself).

This is correct , the player who took the king loses the game in this scenario .  

I was looking at the rules. And yes, the claim would come after the person making the illegal move pressed the clock.

That said, the actual taking of the king isn't a rule that is covered and I think you would have to fall back to the worst of the illegal moves, the one where white purposely placed his king in check to try and capture the opponent's king in the first place.

I just noticed you linked to the old rules, which does have a capturing the king statement. You said 2014 rules, where there were actually two different sets in play, depending on when the event started. I assumed after 1 July 2014 and was reading the newer ones.

So, for sure if you are going on the older rules, which spells out capturing the king as an illegal move, then white would lose based on that illegal move and the appropriate claim of the opponent.

Point at the king in check and you will win the game.

You're right Martin, sorry.  Here is a link to current rules http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=171&view=article 

I think that black can still claim victory.

I agree with that. Just pointing out the current rules don't really cover the situation well; not sure why they removed the capturing the king wording as being illegal.

Thanks a lot for the replies, we have ruled that black won. One thought, could white have claimed victory after black moved a piece instead of moving the king away from white's king?

When white moved his king into check and left it there black could have claimed victory but when he instead made another move and left his king in check then white could have claimed victory . The ruling is different if an arbiter is watching the game than if one isnt present to witness what is happening . If an arbiter had been watching and white moved his king into check and then black responded by making another illegal move , like he did , leaving the kings enprise to one another the arbiter can ( may be required to ) declare the game drawn . In blitz any illegal move can cost you the game IF your opponent catches the illegal move and claims the win .  During this game either player could have claimed the game on an illegal move if they had made the claim correctly . 

In Blitz - An if an illegal move is called, game over, the player that called it win.

That said, I'm not 100% sure, but I think there is some exception about how a King can't be placed next to the other King.  Not sure how that works, but I know for a fact that if you are in check or make a move that puts you into check where a piece other than the King is attacking your King, I can call victory or take the king.

This is different than a standard time control where the first violation is 2 minutes added to non-violator's clock, second violation is a forfeit.  Also, moving a pawn to the 8th rank (1st as Black) and not promoting it is an illegal move.  Opponent gets 2 minutes (unless it's second illegal move, then opponent wins) and the promotor at that point MUST make it a Queen, even if it's stalemate.  If he wants to underpromote, he must physically do so before hitting his clock.  If the piece he wants to promote it to is not available, he can stop the clock and get a TD.  An upside down Rook is a Rook, NOT A QUEEN!

Just by the way, they changed the time ocntrols for World Championship Match. It's gonna be 100|30 (40) + 50|30 (20) + 15|30 (...)

The FIDE rules don't really spell that out in the current revisions though. In the old rules, taking he king is spelled out as illegal; new ones don't even mention it. If you notice you can take the king then I would think you should just claim the win and not take it, based on the wording, since the last move was illegal.

Though, I think in the case of a player doing what was done above, white should have the game declared a loss for moving his king into that position; I belive the USCF actually has a that as a rule (would have to look it up to be 100% sure), as it is considered unsportsmanlike to do it.