chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Robert James Fischer vs Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian
"A Team of One" (game of the day Apr-27-2010)
Fischer - Petrosian Candidates Final (1971), Buenos Aires ARG, rd 1, Sep-30
Sicilian Defense: Paulsen. Szen Variation (B44)  ·  1-0
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 40 times; par: 53 [what's this?]

NOTE: You are using our new chess viewer, "Olga." For more info see the Olga Quickstart Guide. You can switch back to the old viewer (pgn4web) from the pulldown menu below. If you have questions or suggestions see our Olga chessforum.

explore this opening
find similar games 28 more Fischer/Petrosian games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: Help with kibitzing features can be found on our Kibtizing Help Page.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-26-17  karik: I would have played 19.-Qxc3
Jul-26-17  Howard: Huh? Please clarify the last comment.
Jul-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  4tmac: 19...Kb8 (threatens 20...QxN) & 20. Kh1 meets that threat
Aug-23-17  Sally Simpson: " Huh? Please clarify the last comment."


click for larger view

The lad is thinking 19...Qxc3 20.Qxc3 Ne2+ but 20.Qxc3 is a check!

He possibly means he would have made that mistake during the game.

Of course if the game had been played in 1835 and White did not announce an attack to the Black King by saying "Check!" then Black could have ignored it and played Ne2+ and Nxc3.

This, 'you must announce a check' rule was in 'Chess for Beginners' by William Lewis 1835.

https://image.ibb.co/bH4HSQ/check.jpg

Aug-23-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Sally Simpson: This 'you must announce a check' rule was in 'Chess for Beginners' by William Lewis 1835.

https://image.ibb.co/bH4HSQ/check.jpg>

That was before the computer age. Now, before you play online, you have to check the box that says: "By proceeding to play chess on this website, I hereby acknowledge that I may be placed in check and possibly even checkmated without warning and I hereby waive all rights and remedies in that respect."

Aug-23-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson: This 'you must announce a check' rule was in 'Chess for Beginners' by William Lewis 1835.>

The "Must" is probably a pretty fine point. What was the penalty for not doing it? It was probably more a rule of etiquette than a rule of the game.

Aug-23-17  Sally Simpson: The penalty as the link suggests is the player in check can ignore it.

If the 2016 World Championship play off had been played in 1835 and here...


click for larger view

....Carlsen has just played 50.Qh6 and if Carlsen never said 'check' then Karjakin could play 50...Qf1 and announce 'checkmate'.

Other 1835 'rules'.

If you make an illegal move then your opponent has the choice of letting you keep it, make another move with the touched piece or force the player to make a King move.

Here


click for larger view

White plays 3.Nb3 Black declares it illegal, puts the Knight back on b1 and forces a King move from White. 3.Ke2 Qe4 mate.

----

If a pawn reached the 8th rank then it can be replaced with 'any' piece of the players choosing.

This wording allows you to take another King or even promote to an opponents piece.

White to play and mate in 3 (1835) - two solutions involving a Bishop promotion.


click for larger view

1. h8 = Bishop and mate in two.

1. h8 = Black Bishop and White mates in two.

Aug-23-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson: The penalty as the link suggests is the player in check can ignore it.>

You can't count on people clicking links. There are too many to click. The relevant information has to go in the post itself.

But okay, assuming this is correct, are there any games extant in any database showing this rule in operation? (Would the databases even be able to handle them?)

Now there was a time when White didn't automatically go first. But those games are easily handled by showing whoever did go first as having White even if in the actual game he played Black.

Aug-23-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Sally Simpson: White plays 3.Nb3 Black declares it illegal, puts the Knight back on b1 and forces a King move from White. 3.Ke2 Qe4 mate.>

That's a riot! Now I know what you do in your spare time!

The way it's worded, if there had been a pawn on e2, black could have demanded that the king hop off the board, too, because it doesn't say anything about a LEGAL king move.

Aug-23-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat>: <That's a riot! Now I know what you do in your spare time!>

He reads chess books. What a shock. I assumed he was into gardening.

Aug-23-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson: The penalty as the link suggests is the player in check can ignore it.>

The thing is that that's no penalty at all UNLESS the other player can mate on the move.

Case in point. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+. I fail to announce check, so you can "ignore" it. You ignore it and play 3...Nf6. I play 4. Bxe8, capturing your King. What good did ignoring it do?

Aug-23-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: < Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat>: <That's a riot! Now I know what you do in your spare time!>

<He reads chess books. What a shock. I assumed he was into gardening.>

Okay, but how many people read chess books about games and positions that are no longer possible according to the modern rules?

You always miss the point because you want everything to be nonsense and that prevents you from looking just a little further to get the point.

Aug-23-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <Okay, but how many people read chess books about games and positions that are no longer possible according to the modern rules?>

Quite a lot of people. It's a well known story, that's been told by every writer of chess curiosities from Soltis to Chernev. It's not that I misunderstood the point, but that the point was wrong.

Good thing he didn't tell the Three Kings Checkmated Simultaneously Story.

Aug-23-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Petrosianic: <Okay, but how many people read chess books about games and positions that are no longer possible according to the modern rules?>

<Quite a lot of people. It's a well known story, that's been told by every writer of chess curiosities from Soltis to Chernev. It's not that I misunderstood the point, but that the point was wrong.>

And just what percentage of people would you say fall into the category? Probably no more than one in a million. It was a new story for me and I enjoyed it, so sue me. Sally Simpson was just telling an amusing anecdote and you have to "contradict" him with some pedantic hair-splitting arguments that are completely beside the point because you can't even bother to click on a link takes all of 10 seconds to read. Then when you miss the point because you're too lazy to click on the link, you have the chutzpah to blame HIM for it! By the way, your "point" about having to include everything in the post instead of providing a link is too silly to comment on, but especially in that case, because it was in graphic format and couldn't be pasted into the post.

<Sally Simpson> took the right approach by just ignoring you and I should have followed his example. Fortunately it's never too late to use the ignore button.

Aug-24-17  Sally Simpson: Hi Petrosianic,

4.B x King on e8 highlights how stupid the rule was and it was soon abolished, if indeed it was ever taken seriously. The rules at that time were a miss-mash differing from country to country, region to region, town to town, club to club.

Staunton laid down 90% of the bones of the rules we use today in the 1850's. FIDE and other at the time governing bodies have been tweaking them ever since.

"....are there any games extant in any database showing this rule in operation? "

Of course no PGN reader would accept leaving a King in check or the taking of a King though countless OTB blitz game have been lost this way. (there probably a few unexplained resignations in Blitz games on this site where a King was left in check.)

Here is a game forcing a King move resulting in a mate in 3.

Lindemann vs Echtermeyer, 1893

I was not telling a story, I was using facts from a book for beginners written in 1835 which I recently happened to be going through looking for something completely different.

I was trying to get some background on this awful game by both sides Cochrane vs A Deschapelles, 1821 I'm thinking due to the play it was possibly a double blindfold game.

Aug-24-17  ughaibu: If a king can be taken, then Carlsen could have taken black's king after Qf1. Assuming that kings can't be taken, the white player, after 1.e4 c5, 2.Nf3 d6, 3.Bb5+ Nf6, might have tried OO+ announcing check. On the other hand, on the principle that the threat is stronger than its execution. . . .
Aug-24-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: Now, there's supposedly that game where Rubinstein sealed an illegal move deliberately, knowing that the best move was a King move anyway. I forget which one it was, but I know it's in a Tim Krabbe article from the 70's.

There are a few games with illegal moves in them, and I'm not sure how PGN Readers handle them. But I have seen a few engines recently with a check box for whether or not to enforce legal moves, so maybe that's the way they're going.

They're probably going to have to do that because recent rule changes have ensured that there will be more illegal moves in games. You may recall, the old rule was that when an illegal move was discovered while the game was in progress, the position would go back to the point where the illegal move was made. But that was probably impractical, holding up a tournament just because of one game, so a few years back, the rule was changed to where you had to notice the illegal move within 3 moves.

I played a Blitz game years ago in which I castled with Black, not noticing that I was castling into check from a Bishop on a2. We played a couple of more moves, I spotted the check when I was on the move, played Kh8, and the game continued. As a result, I sent it in to Larry Evans as a new definition for Eliot Hearst's chess glossary. Discovered Check: In Blitz Chess, when you suddenly notice that your King has been in check the last three moves.

Aug-24-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Lambda: <If you make an illegal move then your opponent has the choice of letting you keep it, make another move with the touched piece or force the player to make a King move.>

So... (from the starting position) 1. Bxd8. Can't make another move with the bishop, can't move the king, guess I have to keep the illegal move.

Aug-24-17  ughaibu: Lambda: Great idea! But why not 1.Kxe8?
Aug-24-17  ughaibu: Another point, white can make a different move with the bishop, a different illegal move!
Aug-24-17  Sally Simpson: Hi ughaibu,

"If a king can be taken, then Carlsen could have taken black's king after Qf1."

The whole set of rules is a farce.

Following Lewis's rules in the example given if Carlsen never said 'check' then Karjakin (in 1835) could have played Qf1 announcing 'checkmate' which ends the game. Carlsen cannot take the Black King, the game is over.

Remember, before someone happens along and does not read the whole thread, not my rules, Lewis's rules for Beginners from 1835. Not guidelines, actual rules of the game.

Of course all kinds of rows would have broken out (and probably did) till this rule and the others mentioned were tidied up. Lewis should have been more careful how he worded the rules. (you guys were not around then to correct him!)

One can just imagine the blazing arguments taking place up and down the country. One player clutching Lewis's book.

"You never said 'check' so I am not in check!"

And situations like this are possible. White has just played Ba4 but not announced check.


click for larger view

So Black ignores the unquoted check and play Rc8 White now plays Rh8 which is checkmate. If he does not announce the checkmate then Black can, according to Lewis, play Rc1 and as long as he said 'check' and despite the fact the Black King is in double check White would have to play Bd1.

What a shambles.

Aug-24-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: I remember a story from one of those chess curiosities books (don't remember which one), in which some rules lawyer got a position like this:


click for larger view

Black wanted to play Re1++, and an argument resulted. They got out the rulebook and quoted the bit about how a player can't make a move that exposes his King to attack.

Black argued that he <wasn't> "exposing his King to attack", as the game ended with checkmate, leaving White no time to capture the King. The way the rule was written, they made it sound halfway plausible, and in the story Black was supposed to be an actual lawyer, making it harder to argue with him.

That's why even though Kings aren't captured in regular chess, it's helpful to pretend that they are, for situations like this. If there were no such thing as checkmate, and Kings were captured, then after Re1, White could play Bxf7, capturing Black's King BEFORE Black could play Rxg1, capturing White's King, which is why Re1 is illegal.

Aug-24-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Sally Simpson> I understood that you were talking about standard rules and when I said you were telling an amusing anecdote, I wasn't implying that you were making up a story (Webster's: Anecdote: a short and amusing or interesting story about a ***real incident or person***).

Anyway, did Lewis's book saying anything about touch move? My father always made a big deal about "touch move" and "announcing check" when he taught me how to play (although he never claimed the right to make illegal moves if I didn't).

Aug-24-17  Sally Simpson: Hi H.C.H.

Usual touch move touch stuff, you must move the piece. etc etc.

One funny rule about giving odds. He gives an imaginative scenario.

Rule No.4

If a player gives a piece or pawn odds but the player giving the odds forgets to remove the pawn or piece from the board. (eh?)

Then if the game has lasted more than four moves the game continues with all the pieces on the board

if before 4 moves are played it is discovered the pawn or piece has not been removed the game restarts with the pawn or piece removed.

But...

...and this is the best bit...

If four moves have been played and the player giving odds who forgot to remove the pawn or piece before the start of the game should win the game, then this win is counted as a draw!

I get the impression he was making up his own set of rules, possibly for a completely different game.

Aug-24-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Silly Samson> (my little revenge for H.C.H. :-)

<If four moves have been played and the player giving odds who forgot to remove the pawn or piece before the start of the game should win the game, then this win is counted as a draw!

I get the impression he was making up his own set of rules, possibly for a completely different game.>

That reminds me of a drunken poker party at 5:00 a.m. when some guy was trying to make up a new rule to suit his situation: If it wasn't really your turn to deal, but nobody notices, then it's a misdeal, but if you have already bet in the first round, then your bet stands and you have to play out your hand (turned out to be a valuable lesson, because I haven't wasted any time on that stupid game since!)

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 8)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Now on DVD
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
Volume 12
from Chess Informant Most Important Novelty winners by Chessdreamer
Art of War's favorite games 5
by Art of War
estrategias 2 de suetin
by LESTRADAR
Sicillian Defense
by Zhbugnoimt
Fischer's good games (wins)
by fref
SICILIAN DEFENCE: B40 - B59
by Inlandmoon
The heavy pieces were quite light in Fischer's hands.
from Bobby Fischer: Road to the Crown by nosuchdude
Robert Fischer's Favorite-Players
by saveyougod
20 straight victories w/no defeats, no draws vs GM competition
from Game collection: -ER by fredthebear
Game 98
from On My Great Predecessors 4 (Kasparov) by Qindarka
Robert J. Fischer Collection [White]
by MichaelMichael
Game 480
from number 5 by Frodo7
taofelix's favorite games
by taofelix
Round 1
from Fischer's 20 consecutive wins by Franz the Stampede
Bjelica_125
by Gottschalk
Game 100
from Russians versus Fischer by Anatoly21
Foresee the future ending....
from strategy by totololo
Fischer walks into prepared analysis and refutes it.
from Inspiring Games! by SpiritedReposte
Fischer-Petrosian
from Fischer by hairmajorchair
Bobby Fischer: My 30 Memorable Games 1968-1972
by Runemaster
plus 48 more collections (not shown)


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC