Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Chess Ettiquette Regarding Unseen Check/checkmate?
9 Answers
What is the correct etiquette in a chess game scenario whereby an opponents king is placed into check or checkmate, without either player noticing (ie perhaps a knight is involved). Then after another move is made the check/checkmate position is noticed, but because of the previous move an escape can be made.
Should the game then be brought back to the check/checkmate position, or just played out due to there being no check stated by the attacking player?
Should the game then be brought back to the check/checkmate position, or just played out due to there being no check stated by the attacking player?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.The usual rule is that you try to reset the position to the one immediately before the illegal moves were made (in this case, everything after the check). Failing that, reset to an even earlier position. Failing that, then you should find an arbiter to decide what to do. In blitz games, illegal moves if noticed immediately can cost you the game, but only if there is no arbiter and if the opponent has sufficient material to win.
The current laws of chess seem to be a lot less harsh on illegal moves than used to be the case, when the player who'd made the illegal move was often obliged to move his king instead if possible; but the old rules say for the situation you describe that:
"If the King has been in check for several moves, and it cannot be ascertained how it occurred, the player whose King is in check must retract his last move and free his King from the check; but if the moves made subsequent to the check be known, they must be retracted."
While these rules are older, they are essentially the same as the modern ones and clearer on the case in point. No penalty; just retract to the last known legal position.
The current laws of chess seem to be a lot less harsh on illegal moves than used to be the case, when the player who'd made the illegal move was often obliged to move his king instead if possible; but the old rules say for the situation you describe that:
"If the King has been in check for several moves, and it cannot be ascertained how it occurred, the player whose King is in check must retract his last move and free his King from the check; but if the moves made subsequent to the check be known, they must be retracted."
While these rules are older, they are essentially the same as the modern ones and clearer on the case in point. No penalty; just retract to the last known legal position.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.