< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 5 ·
|Nov-13-02|| ||Sneaky: A helpmate?! |
|Nov-25-02|| ||pawntificator: I read that this same thing happened to a grandmaster (dang it now I forget who... maybe petrosian) because he accidentally moved his bishop to c3 instead of the knight and the rule was you had to move your king if you messed up like that. I hope that isn't the rule anymore. |
|Nov-26-02|| ||drukenknight: I think the rule now is that if you touch the piece you have to move it, if a legal move is possible. If no legal move is possible, then I think there is no penalty. Here legal moves are possible so he'd have to move the B perhaps to e2. |
|Nov-26-02|| ||Sneaky: There is this game too:
1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Ke7 3.Qxe5#
A friend of mine was playing in a tournament and the game went 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 e5 6. Nb5 a6 7. Nd6+ Bxd6 8. Qxd6 Ke7 (illegal)
My friend called for the TD, not sure what the ramifications of such a move is. The fact is, if his king could move at all, he'd have to move it. But it couldn't move! So there was no penalty. He promptly played ...Qe7, apparently the move he intended.
There was some discussion later over whether or not he commited that gaff on purpose just to fluster his opponent.
|Nov-26-02|| ||drukenknight: yeah, no penalty if the piece is not allowed to move. |
THe director could impose a time penalty if he thought the guy was tyring to gain some advantage by flustering his opponent. LIke if it happend more than once, they might have to penalize time.
|Dec-20-02|| ||newfan72: i thought this was material for a chess trap book. what ws white thinking w/Ke2? |
|Dec-28-02|| ||Yamamonji: According to a former chess trainer: White accidentally touched the king. Black insisted that White has to make a legal move with the king. There is only one legal move: Ke2. |
|Dec-28-02|| ||ughaibu: Fox and James in The Complete Chess Addict give the story about the player accidentally touching the c1-bishop instead of the knight. They also use an expession about 'the rules of the time' stating that the king must be moved instead, implying that the present rules are different. De Voogt in his Bao book mentions a story related by Chernev about a simultaneous game by, I think, Horowitz during which the master saw that if he let his opponent take his knight he would have a mate, but naturally his opponent would be suspicious if he left the knight under attack. To get round this problem he moved the knight to the second square diagonally, an illegal move, NN then insisted that the master make a move with his king instead, thus allowing him to take the knight and in consequence be mated. Does anyone know the game in question? |
|Jun-12-03|| ||Infohunter: Ah, another discussion to which I am a latecomer.
I read of the game posted on this page in Chernev's <Wonders and Curiosities of Chess> (1974), which was a revision of his book <Curious Chess Facts> (1937). This is the exact same story that Fox and James give in <The Complete Chess Addict> (1987), referred to just above by <ughaibu>.
Now it seems to me that I heard some story somewhere about Horowitz and the deliberate illegal move of the Knight, but I can't place it, so I'll just have to leave it at that for now. But I CAN confirm the rule under which Lindermann was compelled to play 3.Ke2 in the game posted here.
I realize that, as enjoyable as Chernev's writing is, he made some mistakes. I also allow for the possibility that Fox and James just might have copied a mistake of his in this instance. But I have independent confirmation, completely unconnected with this particular game, that the "touch-move" rule of the time cited by <ughaibu> was indeed in force when this game was played.
Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch's last book, <Das Schachspiel>, was published in 1931. Ironically, it was the first book of his to be translated into English. Entitled <The Game of Chess>, it was a manual intended to help beginners work their way to competent expertise. On the last page of Section One, "The Elements," Dr. Tarrasch gives a subsection headed "The Most Important Laws of the Game." Herewith an excerpt therefrom:
"If a player makes a move not permitted by the rules of the game or if he touches either an enemy man which cannot be taken or one of his own which cannot be moved, then until recently there was a rule that as a penalty he must move his King (but not castle). If the King could not move, then the touching of the man entailed no penalty. This rule was altered a few years ago--and rightly so. Now the illegal move must be retracted and the man touched must, whenever possible, be moved (if his own) or captured (if his opponent's). If, however, he can neither move his own man nor capture his opponent's, there is no penalty--only the illegal move must be retracted."
Now, since 1893 was more than just a few years before 1931, I think it is reasonable to assume that the rule Dr. Tarrasch mentions was indeed in force at that time.
|Jan-29-04|| ||sac 4 mate: Intentional or not, 3. Ke2 gets my vote for worst move of all time. |
|Jan-29-04|| ||catfriend: What's with 2.f4 in L Darling vs R Wood, 1983 |
|Mar-14-04|| ||GoodKnight: The game pawntificator was talking about is here I think:|
L Palau vs Calabar, 1927
|Apr-28-04|| ||ruylopez900: apparently they thought the King was quite strong back then =D |
|May-30-04|| ||Zire: jeez could white help black more? this is a pathetic game. and between two great players! What was this, blitz? |
|May-30-04|| ||iron maiden: <Zire>, read the kibitzes above. White was required to play Ke2 because he had tried to make an illegal move. |
|Oct-06-04|| ||Benzol: I played at a lightening tournament last year and one of my fellow club members accidently touched his king on the second move after 1.e4 e5. So 2.Ke2 had to be played.
The most unfortunate thing about this was he was playing
Aleksei Kulashko at the time. |
|Oct-29-04|| ||Apocalypse79: Was white's king drunk ?? lol His rating will be under 900 maybe.. |
|Feb-22-05|| ||aw1988: White probably touched his king, or made an illegal move. |
|Mar-07-05|| ||Mate Hunter: If white touched his king, why didn't he resign then? Did he think that black don't see it? |
|Apr-23-05|| ||dbquintillion: I'm with sac 4 mate. 2. f4 in that other game is bad, but its clearly a premeditated attempt to play the shortest possible game. This game involves an accepted opening followed by an unusually horrendous move. |
|Apr-23-05|| ||Holden: I'd better memorize this complicated mating combination so I'll be ready the next time I'm playing the Scandinavian as black and my opponent plays 3. Ke2! |
|Aug-23-05|| ||Chessman1: I agree with Sneaky.|
|Oct-17-05|| ||AlexanderMorphy: why would anyone play Ke2?|
|Nov-11-05|| ||hidude: <AlexanderMorphy> yeah, why?|
|Nov-15-05|| ||JYMMI: AFF WHITE HELPED BLACK TO MAKE THE MATE.HE... NEXT TIME MY SISTER PLAYS Ke2 I'LL DO IT WITH HER|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 5 ·