Of course its an illegal move. The White Queen has no rule supporting its very existence - any move it makes is therefore illegal.
If one were to argue that the creation of an piece illegally through promotion results in a legal piece, then if one could promote to a King, and the resulting position would be legal. That’s nonsense.
It’s not that juicy, Bill, and it has been discussed in at least 3 threads over the years, search for posts from me with the phrase ‘kansas city rule’ in them. At this point the rulebook explicitly states how to handle the situation, that was not the case at the time.
You’re right, it’s not that interesting, or at least all the interest was pumped out of it in those threads.
Thank you, though, for satisfying my curiosity.
Bill Smythe
Illegal move is defined as making a move that does not follow rules for how a piece moves. It says nothing about the existence of the piece being illegal, which is an entirely different issue. There is no reason to muddy the waters calling it an illegal move.
If a person moves a knight diagonally then the knight has not been converted into a piece where all following moves are illegal simply because its existence on the wrong square was insupportable.
If somebody steals a car, waits at a light for a left turn arrow, and then turns left (a legal turn), the police will not be issuing a ticket for an illegal left turn but will instead arrest the person for grand theft auto (I wouldn’t be surprised if a lawyer said an erroneous left turn traffic ticket meant the search finding the car was stolen should be considered an illegal search and all charges should be dropped).
If a person borrows pieces from another set, waits until the opponent glances away to sneak them onto the board to replace pieces already captured (this is NOT a hypothetical situation), and then waits 15 moves before moving them, the TD will not make an illegal move ruling but will instead make a ruling about cheating (ejection in the cases at tournaments I’ve worked).
In the OP’s case, 11A would be the proper rule for correction about an illegal queen, not trying to shoehorn an illegal move ruling after the queen made a move that is legal for a queen to make. Note that such shoehorning would require adding two minutes to clock of the person that made the illegal promotion when a TD may not have any inclination to do so (particularly when a weak opponent wasn’t even at the board when the mis-promotion happened).
I think I would argue that under US Chess rules replacing a pawn on the 8th rank with a piece of the wrong color is not an illegal move, just an incomplete one, as the pawn has not yet been replaced with a valid piece. This is similar to leaving the pawn on the 8th rank, or replacing it with a king. (Which I’ve seen done in a national scholastic game.)
So, what’s the penalty for pressing your clock before completing your move?
I have not studied FIDE rules, do they explicitly cover this issue?
In USChess, leaving the pawn on the last rank is explicitly defined as improper (the opponent can simply hit the clock). Replacing it would end up falling under the promotion rules and a king or a piece of the opposing color would be illegal. Remember that it wouldn’t always be the player who promoted that actually made the illegal move, particularly in scholastic tournaments where the opponent may simply put the requested piece on the board rather than first handing it to the player (yes, I know proper etiquette would require having the pieces readily available to the opponent but many kids and some adults are not quite knowledgeable of how they should do things).
The Laws of Chess state that pressing the clock without a complete move (FIDE does not distinguish between determined and completed) is an illegal move.
Alex Relyea
The TD tip to 9D explicitly says that it’s “not legal”, but I agree the rule itself is ambiguous.
Also, I strongly disagree with Kevin’s interpretation that any move with the new queen is illegal. The implication is then that any move following any illegal move (not just erroneous promotion) is also illegal, making the “within the last 10 (2 in sudden death) moves” provision useless.
Sorry, that’s not the interpretation. In the case of other illegal moves the mere existence of a piece is not in question. Here it is. The rules of chess define how pieces may exist, and this Queen does not fit any of those definitions. Hence it does not exist, and thus any move that claims its existence is illegal because the resulting position is illegal. That is not implicit in all illegal moves. If I play 1 Ng3 the mere existence of the Knight is not in question.
My understanding is that an illegal move is any move that results in an illegal position.
If I move a piece per the definitions ascribed to that piece, but my King is in check, I’ve followed the rules for how that piece moves, but the move is still illegal. If my opponent moves a piece per the definitions ascribed to that piece, but my King is in check, he/she has followed the rules for how that piece moves, but the move is still illegal.
All moves that involve a non-existent piece being on the board result in an illegal position. Hence, all moves while such a piece is on the board are illegal.
For example, see 11A, which discusses Illegal Positions, and then works with illegal moves within that.
Further see the TD tip that states: “TD TIP: When the illegal move is a king left in check, special care should be taken by the director. All moves, not just the first move, in which a player’s king remains in check should be regarded as illegal. That way, an illegal move will always have occurred within the last half-move; therefore, players cannot argue that the illegal move(s) should stand.”
The same type of argument applies when an illegal piece is on the board.
Several of the comments above make poor analogies. Moving a piece that exists, in an incorrect fashion, does not undermine the existence of the piece.
Moving a piece that never existed, and that cannot exist under the laws of chess IS an illegal move, because said piece does not exist, and cannot exist. An illegal move is one that creates an illegal position. All moves of a non-existent piece create an illegal position. In fact, all moves while the non-existent piece is on the board create illegal positions. Hence, all of its moves are illegal, and in fact all moves are illegal. There is no “shoe-horning” involved - it’s straightforward, just as all moves when a King is left in check are illegal.
The result of pushing the clock creates an illegal position, and hence the move is illegal.
Using that logic, any illegal promotions (such as a black pawn moving from g3 to g1 in one move - possibly two consecutive one-move movements with no intervening move by the opponent, such as before and after the opponent replaces a pawn that just reached f8) means the piece should not have existed, any position with that piece on the board is illegal, and the 10 move limit can be ignored with a valid illegal move claim being possible even forty moves later.
There is a penalty for making an illegal move. Stating that every move is illegal (including stating all moves by both sides are illegal if one king is left in check) means that a penalty can be called on the opponent of the person that made the illegal move. Shoe-horning an illegal move claim (moving a piece that was erroneously placed by the opponent) is unnecessary (there are other ways to fix it) and muddies the waters.
That is why I used my stolen car analogy. You don’t charge a car thief with making an illegal left turn that was done with a green arrow. You charge the car thief with theft and avoid muddying the waters.
That’s ridiculous.
The position below is not an illegal position, because it can be arrived at through a series of legal moves from the starting position. 1.Nf3 Nc6 2.Ng5 Nb8 3.Ne4 Nc6 4.Ng3 Nb8
It appears that our Logic Guru has come up with a whopping logic error this time.
Bill Smythe
I don’t think Kevin said that was the only type of illegal move, just that if it creates an illegal position it is by definition illegal.
Can Mr. Bachler please explain why it is an illegal position that has a White queen on a1? If not, can he find ANY legal position where White is to move and Black is in check?
Alex Relyea
The definition of “illegal position” includes all four elements of chess, Bill. From the starting position 1 e4 e5 is not equivalent to 1 e3 e5 2 e4. The position you give above is not equivalent to 1 Ng3. But even so, Mulford’s point is also correct.
Yes. It is an illegal position because on the prior move no White Queen existed, and during the current move no White Queen came into existence through legal means. Hence, no White Queen can exist on the board, Hence, all going-forward positions with that White queen are also illegal.
Positions consist of more than only piece placement,
Currently, I don’t believe it is possible for White legally to be on the move While Black was in check,
Mr. Bachler may be overthinking the position. What if White also has a legitimate queen on the board? What if White had a legitimate queen on the board at an earlier point in the game? No one is disputing that a1 (White queen) was an illegal move, but saying that all moves after that are also illegal is a bridge too far.
Incidentally, this applies to Mr. Suarez’ game posted about earlier in the year. Presumably if Mr. Bachler had been directing he’d feel comfortable going back to the incorrect promotion regardless of what had elapsed. Therefore Mr. Suarez would have had no reason to be upset.
Alex Relyea
In my earlier example I said a pawn could have been promoted in an illegal g3-g1=Q move. You are thus saying that even if that promotion is discovered after either player delivered a checkmate or stalemate 10, 20, 30 or 50 moves down the road (possibly hours or days later) then the game did not end on a legal move and needs to be returned to when the pawn was still on g3.
If a person in a blitz game plays g3-g1=Q and the opponent (white) does not notice it and makes another move then you are saying that the player with white has committed an illegal move and can be called for an immediate loss of game. An interested tactic would be for a player with black facing mate in one to play g3-g1=(a palmed white)Q and then claim an illegal move win when the player with white makes the checkmating move.
Calling the situation a perpetuating illegal move is muddying the waters. There was an illegality that occurred and there are ways to fix it without calling everything afterwards illegal moves and without forcing illegal move penalties on the person who did not make the incorrect promotion.
I find it odd that you continue to generate hypotheticals while wondering if it is I who am overthinking.
My response is very simple- there is no over thinking at all.
ALL Moves are illegal so long as a nonexistent piece is on the board.
Just as ALL moves are illegaI so long as a King is in check.
There is nothing to overthink.
There is no reason why this is a “bridge too far.” You give no reason for that statement.
Just as a King in check fundamentally taints the position for each and every move thereafter, the mere presence of a piece that does not exist does the same.