почему я не могу играть?
calm down, candidate master.
I don't see why you're "not entirely clear" what happens after a player ignores/doesn't see the illegal move. The game goes on until someone notices or it has no effect in terms of punishment.
What is the biggest amount of castlings played in a titled players' tournament game? Yes, it's 3.
I don't see why you're "not entirely clear" what happens after a player ignores/doesn't see the illegal move. The game goes on until someone notices or it has no effect in terms of punishment.
What is the biggest amount of castlings played in a titled players' tournament game? Yes, it's 3.
Ok, I informed you. It‘s up to you to discuss. I rest my case.
мой рейтинг вырос до 2400 и мне сказали что играть больше не могу. как исправить положение?
Can the player claim to correct his illegal move after his opponent ignored it by making a legal move? Otherwise we might see some quadruple check positions soon. Anyway, even if he can't, the punishment for his illegal move can never be harder than losing the game immediately as it was until now. But, for the opponent it will sure be worth thinking about ignoring the illegal move and getting out more of it than just an extra minute.
The new rule creates as many "issues" of interpretation as it is meant to solve. The primary change is the penalty time added, no longer instant loss.
Arbiters, upon seeing illegal moves, are required to intervene. Problem is, they prefer to remain unseen and let players make claims to which they make their rulings. This does not apply to a final table, with a single game in progress. Arbiters are supposed to be be present in this case.
Games continue after an illegal move is made if no claim is made, that is made very clear. So both Kings can be in check with either side to move.
The problem as I see it, in many positions, it is advantageous not make a claim after an illegal move but to ignore it, and to continue playing making a legal move, as by rule the game continues with a greater advantage gained. (Carlsens recent game an example). Whether he forgot the opponents King was in check no one knows, it was a time scramble. He made a legal move, gained a bigger positional advantage than if he had made a claim and stopped the clock.
With the new rule, players may hesitate to stop the clock to gain 1 minute, (allowing analysis) but will just play on after illegal moves. It is difficult for arbiters to randomly observe tables, intervene by chance at one table and not enforce rules at other tables. They tend to let players make the 1st claims.
Arbiters, upon seeing illegal moves, are required to intervene. Problem is, they prefer to remain unseen and let players make claims to which they make their rulings. This does not apply to a final table, with a single game in progress. Arbiters are supposed to be be present in this case.
Games continue after an illegal move is made if no claim is made, that is made very clear. So both Kings can be in check with either side to move.
The problem as I see it, in many positions, it is advantageous not make a claim after an illegal move but to ignore it, and to continue playing making a legal move, as by rule the game continues with a greater advantage gained. (Carlsens recent game an example). Whether he forgot the opponents King was in check no one knows, it was a time scramble. He made a legal move, gained a bigger positional advantage than if he had made a claim and stopped the clock.
With the new rule, players may hesitate to stop the clock to gain 1 minute, (allowing analysis) but will just play on after illegal moves. It is difficult for arbiters to randomly observe tables, intervene by chance at one table and not enforce rules at other tables. They tend to let players make the 1st claims.
What has not been mentioned, which is somewhat interesting, is that Inarkiev's claim vs. Carlsen (which was rejected by the appeals committee) was that Carlsens' move was illegal because Carlsen did not make a claim that Inarkievs' move was illegal! The 1st arbiter saw the reasoning behind this argument and ruled the game a win for Inarkiev.
This new rule seems inapropriate. Say in an endgame with bishops of opposite colours the player with more pawns moves his bishop to a square of a different colour. If opponent notices, he gets a useless extra minute. If opponent does not notice, opponent loses. His best chance is then to try an illegal bishop move himself...
I think that it is a stupid idea to no longer make an illegal move an automatic loss primarily for 2 reasons.
Reason 1: It can be abused. People will be making illegal moves in lost positions now attempting to slip it past the opponent because why not? Worst thing that happens is they get more time, but it's lost anyways.
Reason 2: It lowers the bar for everyone, and people are going to be more careless.
If you don't follow the rules you lose.
The ONLY time I'd consider a similar rule to possibly be good is if you make an illegal move when your opponent has 0 pieces left, and then it is just a draw, and not a loss.
Reason 1: It can be abused. People will be making illegal moves in lost positions now attempting to slip it past the opponent because why not? Worst thing that happens is they get more time, but it's lost anyways.
Reason 2: It lowers the bar for everyone, and people are going to be more careless.
If you don't follow the rules you lose.
The ONLY time I'd consider a similar rule to possibly be good is if you make an illegal move when your opponent has 0 pieces left, and then it is just a draw, and not a loss.
The committee agreed that the new rule will be reviewed as it leaves open many questions. I agree, as it stands, it's wide open to abuse by players choosing to take an advantage.
Every reasonable player understands fair play. Players that abuse the rules risk their reputation. Issue is, too many players care less, will use the rule at any cost to win a game. Sportsmanship is not a word in their vocabulary.
Every reasonable player understands fair play. Players that abuse the rules risk their reputation. Issue is, too many players care less, will use the rule at any cost to win a game. Sportsmanship is not a word in their vocabulary.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.