A moment from an Edinburgh league game 1995.
Not the exact postion but you will get the idea.
Black in this position
played 0-0-0.
White (a Sandy Bells player) did not play Qxc7 mate thus ending the game.
But pointed out 0-0-0 was illegal and the move was taken back.
I like to add he went onto to lose but he eventually mange to win it.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I'm sorry, but I didn't get the last sentence.
A moment from an Edinburgh league game 1995.
Not the exact postion but you will get the idea.
Black in this position
[fen]r3k1r1/ppp1b2p/4Nnp1/4Q3/8/3P4/PPP3PP/2KR4 w q - 0 1[/fen]
played 0-0-0.
[fen]2kr2r1/ppp1b2p/4Nnp1/4Q3/8/3P4/PPP3PP/2KR4 w - - 0 1[/fen]
White (a Sandy Bells player) did not play Qxc7 mate thus ending the game.
But ...[text shortened]... he move was taken back.
I like to add he went onto to lose but he eventually mange to win it.
I do have a stupid question though about legalities and ethics. If he would have played mate, the other guy can't then say, he castled through check. I mean it's a provable situation if the game is recorded. My understanding is that a guy has the ability to call an illegal move, but only if he hasn't played a reply to the questionable move. Am I right in this?
And what if you are the player who notices both mate on the move, and an illegal move being made? I mean what would Jebus do??
a cute real story(from wiki of Korchnoi):
During the match between Karpov and Korchnoi, an amusing incident occurred. In the 21st game, Korchnoi played a strong opening novelty and, after a blunder by Karpov, achieved an overwhelming position. During this game, Korchnoi rose from the board, approached the arbiter and asked whether he could legally castle king-side in the current position, in which a bishop was attacking his rook on h1. The arbiter, Alberic O'Kelly de Galway, informed him that his intended move was legal; shortly after Korchnoi executed it, Karpov resigned.
I found also the match in the database, it is a nice one...I think the castle is the only winning move there...
Originally posted by Ice ColdFor USCF, I think you have to return to the position before the illegal move, if the claim of an illegal move turns out to be correct.
I'm sorry, but I didn't get the last sentence.
I do have a stupid question though about legalities and ethics. If he would have played mate, the other guy can't then say, he castled through check. I mean it's a provable situation if the game is recorded. My understanding is that a guy has the ability to call an illegal move, but only if he hasn't played ...[text shortened]... notices both mate on the move, and an illegal move being made? I mean what would Jebus do??
It could be 20 moves later, and if someone notices it and claims it, you have to go all the way back.
Originally posted by SwissGambitThanks SG
For USCF, I think you have to return to the position before the illegal move, if the claim of an illegal move turns out to be correct.
It could be 20 moves later, and if someone notices it and claims it, you have to go all the way back.
Originally posted by SwissGambitOh no, you aren't saying there are rules about RETRACTION for real chess, huh. 20 moves later calling an illegal move, would be called "pulling the SG trick" 😛
For USCF, I think you have to return to the position before the illegal move, if the claim of an illegal move turns out to be correct.
It could be 20 moves later, and if someone notices it and claims it, you have to go all the way back.