GameKnot: GameKnot related, what just happened my opponent just made a illegal move?

GameKnot related: what just happened my opponent just made a illegal move?

From

Message

grasudice79
03-Mar-11, 04:30

what just happened my opponent just made a illegal move?

If the square which the King must cross is
attacked by one of the opponent's pieces not by able castle.

1. d4 b6
2. e4 d5
3. c3 e6
4. a3 c6
5. b5 b7
6. exd5 exd5
7. xc6+ xc6
8. f3 h6
9. O-O e7
10. e2 f6
11. e5 d6
12. xc6 xc6
13. e1 d7
14. b5 c6
15. b4 g8
16. f4 O-O-O

kingdawar
03-Mar-11, 04:49

It's legal

The king does not cross a square that is attacked by one of the opponent's pieces

baronderkilt
03-Mar-11, 10:08

grasudice79

In America we have a saying to cover such events ... We call it "a rude awakening" when we find out something completely unforeseen has happened. I don't know if that is said other places too. But you are not alone in this, Chessfriend~!

I have read of 2 Grandmasters posing the same question in a tournament. Was it Korchnoi !? (I'm not sure; but He is not too bad as Grandmasters go! lol ) So do not feel bad you did not know. I played tournaments myself for years before learning this too !
***
The next interesting Questions about this are: What if an opponents piece sat right on the b8 square (say Bb8)... could it be captured by o-o-o as the Rook sweeps across it?!

Or if it is sitting Bc8 could o-o-o capture it since the King lands upon c8 !?

Or could a Bd8 be captured during o-o-o since the King sweeps over that square And the Rook actually lands on d8 ?

[The answers are all "NO". Because the Rule is written to say that the squares between King & Rook must be UNOCCUPIED by anyones' pieces. Therefore Castling would not be Permitted if ANY piece were between them.]
***
}8-)

baronderkilt
03-Mar-11, 10:23

PS//

It seems to me it would be a nice Rules change if they made it so such captures Could be made by o-o-o and by o-o. Maybe fun to play it that was as a Chess Variant sometime ?!
***
Heinzkat
You are The Man for puzzles. Do you (also) think it might be quite interesting to see a puzzle created that would make an (non-checking) unveiling move which placed the piece moved be put between a K & R simply to prevent Castling for that move. ...and then the delay of being unable to castle for that move would lead to a forcing mate sequence becoming unavoidable !?? Or the loss of castling privelege due to forced capture of the piece, makes the mate work ... that would not have worked otherwise ?! Perhaps its already a common theme? I just dont recall seeing one myself.

kingdawar
03-Mar-11, 10:29

White piece (bishop or knight) to b8 to prevent castling might be interesting indeed, can't recall ever having seen that. I'll let you know when I have an idea to put it in practice

archduke_piccolo
04-Mar-11, 16:37

Craig...

There was an incident when GM Yuri Averbakh was touring Australia and New Zealand in the mid-sixties (1966 I think). In an exhibition game with the Australian master, Purdy, his opponent castled long to save his a1-rook from attack. The Russian GM did not know that Purdy's move was legal. Apparently he bore the 'rude awakening' with good grace.

shamash
04-Mar-11, 16:59

Some rules WERE different in the '60s. . .

At least one rule for castling WAS different.

For instance, castling was defined (before 1984) as moving an unmoved king 2 squares towards an unmoved rook, with the rook jumping one square over the king.

Is there a problem with that? Potentially:

Using the example of the White pieces:

Before the White King castles, take the case where White promotes his e-pawn to a rook.

Then castling could legally consist of the White King moving (up along the e-file) from e1 to e3, and the newly-created Rook down from e8 to e2.

So FIDE changed the rule of castling to add the crucial words "along the rank."
FIDE re-defined CASTLING as moving the unmoved King 2 squares ALONG THE RANK towards an unmoved Rook, and the Rook jumping one square over the King.

archduke_piccolo
04-Mar-11, 20:47

I've composed a position...

... in which the prevention of castling is the key:

b

Black to play: it's mate in 4:
1... Bb1!
2.Kd2 Qxb2ch
3.Kd1 Qxe2ch (equally good are ...Qc2ch and ...Nf2ch)
4.Kc1 Qc2#

I have to admit, it's a bit unlikely! Still, it has its charms. White may not castle K-side on account of 2.0-0 Qxh2#, and the other King moves also lead to a swift quietus. The position is not much of a problem, but it was an interesting exercise setting it up.

kingdawar
05-Mar-11, 03:37

It's more that you prevent the check than that you prevent the castling

archduke_piccolo
05-Mar-11, 13:51

It does prevent...

2.0-0-0ch, though. Actually, I wanted to create an incentive for castling. Maybe I'll try and come up with something a bit more likely, in which castling would have been a plausible defensive try. At that, in the above diagram, were you to place a Black pawn at d7 (or a White one at d6), I daresay 1...Bb1 would still be the best move.

kingdawar
05-Mar-11, 14:08

Yes it is a good problem and a good example of what baron was trying to explain, sorry

« Back to forum