I think if that were the case the rulebook would be thousands of pages long, and that some senior TDs (not Senior TDs) would be very upset because of the handcuffs that would be in place.
Alex Relyea
I don’t think the rulebook would be thousands of pages long if you limited the rules revisions to cases like this and 32B3 where two or more NTDs produce different rulings, and both rulings are reasonable given the wording of the rules. I’m not talking about judgment calls, like whether a particular behavior is disturbing or not, but clearcut cases like this where it’s a question of what the rule means.
Yes, some TDs might not like the revised rules, but there’s something to be said for consistency.
After 32B3, can you list the other “ambiguous” passages? I consider myself a fairly competent TD (we’ll see based on the results of my Senior test)…so…I’m curious what rules might be considered ambiguous?
32B3 isn’t necessarily ambiguous, it’s just stupid. That forces TDs to choose between enforcing a stupid rule or using common sense. That’s what that 32B3 thread was all about.
Bill Smythe
The ambiguity in 32B3 is whether a player can win more as a participant in a prize pool than he/she would win as a clear winner. Look at the topic I cited for details.
The ambiguity in blitz rule 9, and regular rule 11C, is whether checkmate/stalemate ends the game when one or more pieces have been displaced or if the player first has to replace the displaced pieces.
Another ambiguous rule that we’ve been discussing recently is blitz rule 16. What happens in blitz when White moves his king next to Black’s king, Black doesn’t notice and on the next move White plays king takes king? My interpretation of the rule is that Black wins, because this “is a cheap shot [that] will not be tolerated!” The scholastic Nationals rule that “neither player can play king takes king” has problems, as Bill Smythe has pointed out.
I still revile blitz “rule” 16. I disagree with your reading of that “rule.” The “cheap shot” is the move that places one king next to the other, not the next move of “king takes king.” Fundamentally, except for the entertainment and novelty value, I see no reason that “king takes king” should ever be allowed. I very much favor the FIDE rules that treat “king takes king” as an illegal move and allow the opponent to claim a win.
As for the ambiguity in rule 32B3, I do see that as a legitimate ambiguity. In the thread discussing that question, I proposed language to add to the rule to remove the ambiguity. If I remember correctly, I had Jeff Wiewel’s support for my suggested change (which I took as encouraging). I will propose that change to the rules committee.
I regard the current question as different from the rule 32B3 ambiguity. Here, there is no ambiguity. I regard the proposed TD Tip as being more verbiage that restates what the rules already make clear. And, as a member of the rules committee, I do share concerns that the rule book is already (much) too long and tries way too hard to be a follow-the-steps manual for handling every possible situation. Long live rule 1A!
I recall following a local rule concerning the taking of the king in blitz. Any player who took a king was punched in the head. The rule was strictly enforced by the players. No kings were taken. I believe it was called the “pub rule.”
The most logical way to implement the old WBCA language of “this cheap shot will not be tolerated” would be to allow the second player (the opponent of the player who first put the kings into proximity) to play king takes king, but not the first player. This would be analogous to the second player claiming a win by playing, for example, bishop takes king after the first player has failed to parry a check.
But now things get dicey. Suppose the second player doesn’t notice the “cheap shot” and moves a different piece. Is the first player then permitted to play king takes king? Presumably not, that’s the point of “this cheap shot will not be tolerated”. So does the prohibition against king takes king apply to all the first player’s subsequent moves, as long as the kings remain adjacent? And what about the second player? Can he still play king takes king on the second move, if he overlooked this possibility on the first? Or does a prohibition against king takes king also apply eventually to the second player?
This is fun. 
Heh heh. I derive great pleasure from extending nonsensical blitz rules to their logical conclusions.
OK, let’s say we’re playing in a blitz event, using the rule that “neither player may play king takes king”. This would mean that, whenever the two kings are adjacent, neither is in check from the other.
But moving a king next to your opponent’s king is still illegal. This now becomes a special rule, no longer related to the more general prohibition against placing (or leaving) one’s king in check.
Suppose we arrive at the following position:
White plays 1. Qa1+. Black responds …Kb7. White doesn’t notice, and, having only a couple of seconds on his clock, plays his planned move, 2. Qxd4, and presses his clock. Now black can’t play …Kxa8, because “neither player may play king takes king”. Instead, he plays …Nc7 mate.
Yes, that’s mate. White is in check, not from the black king, but from the knight. White is not allowed to play 3. Kxb7. And both 3. Kb8 and 3. Ka7 are prohibited, because it’s illegal to move your king next to your opponent’s king. (It’s not check, it’s just illegal.) Black’s earlier illegal move stands, because white didn’t catch it in time. Checkmate. Game over.
What do you think of them apples, Baba Looey?
Bill Smythe
My interpretation of the “cheap shot” rule is that as long as the two kings are next to each other, the opponent of the player who first moved his king next to the other king wins if either player points out the irregularity. So with the White king at e1 and the Black king at e3, if White plays Ke2, from then on White is at risk of losing. If White plays Kxe3, or says “illegal move”, Black wins, and if Black plays Kxe2, or says “illegal move”, Black wins. To avoid loss White has to move his king away, e.g. by playing Kd1.
I’d have no problem with abolishing the “cheap shot” rule. It would simplify the rules by making king vs. king the same as any other illegal move situation.
Aw, jeez, you’re trying to spoil my fun.
But perhaps not successfully. Let’s reverse the kings: white king at e3, black king at e1. White plays Ke2, in response to a black rook check at a3. Black doesn’t call the illegal move, and instead plays another move elsewhere on the board. Now white “has to move his king away”, but unfortunately, there is no legal move which does that. Now what?
If you abolish the cheap shot rule, then you are allowing the cheap shot. Somehow I don’t think this works well, either.
Bill Smythe
White is in serious trouble. Other than hoping for Black to lose on time, White’s best chance of avoiding loss might be to play a move like Kd2, intending Kc2 or Kc1 on the next move. Since Kd2 is an illegal move, Black can claim a win if he notices it.
I wouldn’t call this checkmate because it’s an illegal position, with both kings in check.
How common would this “cheap shot” be if it were legalized? I don’t remember anyone attempting it in any blitz tournament that I’ve directed.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it a few times at clubs.
Besides, it must have happened at some point in major blitz tournament history. Remember the maxim, “everything in the WBCA rules is there because of something that once happened to Walter Browne.”
I can’t completely escape blame myself, either. I once pulled off a “legal” version of this cheap shot with queens. I moved Qd5, checking his king at g8. After he moved his king, I took his queen at a2.
This was against a master, no less. He obviously wasn’t expecting Qd5+, and in time trouble simply moved his king. After I took his queen and won the game, I felt I had to apologize.
Bill Smythe
Story needs an ending…did you? (apologize)
(…did he sucker punch you in the parking lot?)
Sort of. He was obviously p…d, but too nice a guy to really say anything. So I think I said, “well, maybe that was a dirty trick I played”, or something like that. It was probably my only victory over him in at least a dozen tries.
Definitely not. Much too nice a guy.
Bill Smythe