|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Chess related: When was the last time that chess rules changed?
« Back to forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
rich_sposato 18-Jan-11, 16:25 |
 When was the last time that chess rules changed?I've also heard the touch-move rule was changed in the early 1930's. As you know, if you touch a piece, you are required to move it. One purpose of the rule is to deter somebody from touching several pieces at the start of a turn. According to Wikipedia, the touch-move rule once required a player to move the king if the player touched a piece which had no legal move. (en.wikipedia.org) A few moves into a tournament game between Lindermann and Echtermeyer back in 1893, Lindermann accidentally touched his dark-square bishop instead of the queen's knight. As you see, the bishop has no legal move, so Lindermann was mandated to move his king. The king has only 1 legal move, which allowed the black queen to win on the next move. As the story goes, highly regarded chess players of the late 19th and early 20th centuries thought the "you must move your king if you touch a piece with no legal moves" rule was a bit harsh because it cost a person a game. So by agreement, chess players dropped that one requirement from the touch-move rule in the early 1930's. (According to chess grandmaster and author, Siegbert Tarrasch.) Can anybody say if the touch-move rule really had this requirement at one time? (Apparently, FIDE does not use "must move your king" rule anymore since rule 4.5 says, "If none of the pieces touched can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal move." www.fide.com ) Was this really the last (or only) time a chess rule was changed within the last 3 to 4 centuries? |
||
|
I have heard... Time controls were introduced some time in the 19th century. Apparently the La Bourdonnais-McDonnell match was a hard watch if looking at nothing happening for hours on end didn't take your fancy. McDonnell was a very slow player as even his hero-worshipping biographer admitted. It would be interesting to discover how and when the 'King's leap' metamorphosed into castling. I rather fancy the King's leap - which could be two squares orthogonally or diagonally, but there was no moving a rook. However, it is clear that by far the most 'King's leaps' would have been along the back rank, with a consequent incarceration of one of the rooks, especially when 'Leaping' to the K-side. Judging by a game known from 1600, the castling move must have evolved in the previous century. |
||
|
baronderkilt 19-Jan-11, 15:31 |
Yes ... |
||
|
baronderkilt 19-Jan-11, 19:11 |
Others affecting Chess Play (CP) or Tournament Play(TP) ... Rules for play by the blind ... touching -pieces etc. (CP) And for Assistance in Score Sheet keeping for the blind or for anyone needing that. Rules for Scoresheets & requirement of keeping one (TP) Rules for Postal Chess play, including some differences from otb play. Introduction by ICCF, of new Numbered notation. FIDE Rules for Matches, WC's, etc. (TP) Rules for Rating/Elo Calculation, etc. (TP) Changing preferred Notation from "Descriptive" to "Algebraic" by FIDE & USCF. Prize Funds & distribution. Pairing Rules & preferences for Swiss/Round-Robin/Double RR/Quads/etc. Before the Swiss Pairing method, non-Round Robin events would be some manner of "Knock-Out" format ... single loss, double loss, or total points made or lost. *** Specifications for Set/Board/Pieces; preference to Staunton design. Choice of equipment to Black if his meets specs. * * * FIDE Rules for conduct, now including some that is Off The Chess Board/Personal. EG's Various Matters that involved: GM Quinteros(Sanctioned for playing a tournament in South Africa,I believe it was), GM Ivanchuk,(urine testing). * * * Much More . . . }8-) |
||
|
rich_sposato 19-Jan-11, 23:26 |
As far as I know, the rules regarding the board and pieces have not changed in a long time - except for that one minor change regarding "must move king if you touch a piece with no legal move". Thanks. |
||
|
blake78613 20-Jan-11, 07:47 |
The pseudo check maneuver in Blitz has been outlawed. An example of the pseudo check is when your opponent's king is on the 8th rank. You move your rook to the 7th rank and yell "check". Your opponent, thinking you moved your rook to the 8th rank and checked him, moves his king to the 7th rank putting it in check. You then claim a win due to an illegal move by your opponent. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 21-Jan-11, 02:44 |
Rules are allowed to slide sometimes.... And unless you have a witness,you will not win your case! Also,i've seen at the Marshall many players that accidently touch a piece and the opponent trying to claim that he must move that piece now.No,the rules state that "accidental"touch is not covered under the "must move"rule.But that can turn into controversy because a player who actually did NOT touch the piece accidently,can claim he did touch it accidently! I've also seen at the Marshall,many players that DO touch the piece with intentions to move that piece,but in a split second shout..."Jadoube"!This way you can touch the piece to readjust it.But then the arguments can start between both players and the arbiter!Can you "prove" that the first player did touch the piece first BEFORE asking for adjustment?Do you have witness's?If not,then forget it!Its not worth the effort. So,now,what I see on the club levels and some lower profile tournaments is that opponents ALLOW EACH OTHER to touch any piece they want and even move it to any legal square they want.But as long as they keep their hand on the piece,they are allowing each other to move it BACK to the initial square where it was taken from and move ANOTHER piece of their choice. Its when they RELEASE the hand after it rests on the new square,that it now must stay put. The bottom line is that most players don't want to "interupt" the flow,karma,bad feelings,arbiter intervention,tension and other emotions that can occur with this touch rule,so they let it go many,many times.And I agree. |
||
|
baronderkilt 22-Jan-11, 12:55 |
I have to think that all the Another aspect of Chess that keeps it stabilized would be that Many Rules changes, even to moves etc, ARE made ... but become Variants, while the basic game itself has great enough wealth of artistry and complexity remaining that it also endures. Consider variants like bughouse, even single blitz alters the check rule. Fischer960 And so many more. But they only supplement, not replace. |
||
|
tactical_abyss... The thing is that this person will be more liberal in his exploitation of the slide than that. Not much might be said; it might all look sweetness and light; but I'll bet quite a bit of resentment simmers beneath. I might let the 'j'adoube' stand if my opponent forgets to say the word until after touching the piece, but that ought to be my choice, not my opponent's. Even if I can't 'prove' it, by complaining loudly and bitterly, I can make my opponent a hissing throughout the land. Would I make a false accusation? I would not. Having said all that, here is a confession from a tournament of a zillion years ago. i hadn't been playing well anyway, but on this particular day was doing fine on the White side of a Closed Sicilian. But my opponent must have been living it up the night before and kept on nodding off to sleep, a circumstance I found distracting and mildly annoying. I had a strong attack going on the K-side with rooks doubled on the g-file against the castled King. There came a point at which I wanted to advance a rook in the file. Just as I moved the piece, my opponent, having dropped off again, snorted, causing me to look up just as I set the piece down. Glancing down I saw I had placed it one square short of where it should have gone, onto where I could kiss goodbye to the Exchange, Rook for Bishop. 'Whoops,' thought I, and adjusted it according. You never saw anyone wake up so fast! Naturally I denied any wrongdoing with as much face as I could muster. He knew better, but let it go. He didn't actually see anything. My justification? I had more to complain of than he did: he had been distracting me all through the game. His somnolence was probably genuine - the dude didn't seem the sort who would try anything on like that - but it really was playing merry hell with my concentration. And, of course, making loud snorting noises as one's opponent is in the act of moving aren't really 'on'. Sometimes you do have to let things slide. But keep it in the realm of informal good will. Once it becomes formalised, good will is sacrificed, with the consequent increase in everyone's blood pressure. Oh, yeah. The 'pseudo-check' was just plain cheating. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 22-Jan-11, 16:27 |
With all said,the touch rule is not always given alot of weight at the Marshall Club,which is one of the most major clubs on the planet.This is due to the fact that there is usually a verbal agreement beforehand(with witness's).Some players actually prefer to do away with some of the "petty rules"as I heard a senior master just say on Friday night.What ensues is actually alittle LESS pressure or resentment,especially in fast blitz play,if there are no big worries about touching a piece,as long as you place it back without removing your hand,its ok. Some of my opponents are sort of against some of the USCF rules and actually as a GROUP love to play in a custom way...as a form of "anti establishment"rule bending!I just watched a game last friday at the Marshall with two players on the master level.One of the players did touch the Knight but decided not to move it,even though there was a legal square to move it too.A spectator on my left shouted "foul".Guess what happened?Both players disagreed with the spectator!Again,its up to the players in my book. Now,don't misunderstand me.I am primarily speaking of some of the more "friendly"games at the club or a few more "minor"tourneys for a few dollars once in a while. When some of the big tourneys are around or a Chicago or Las Vegas Open,then everybody will put their bowties on,behave,and play strictly by the rules.They have to....the worlds looking on and so are the judges/arbiters ready to spring like cobras! |
||
|
If you're talking of Blitz... At that, I haven't been a member of a chess club these twenty-four years. Who knows what goes on in these dark dens of iniquity...? |
||
|
tactical_abyss 23-Jan-11, 12:16 |
ion, Union strikes and paper thin pizza with barbecue sauce,pinnapple,ham and goat cheese. Chicago deep dish?No way!How does this relate to chess rule bending?You have to be a rebel and pretty sharp/deep thinker to see the similarities! Yesterday at the club my friend and I really "bent"the rules!We do this with all newcomers that come into the club.We play reverse chess!Now what the "h" is this?If i'm white,I set up the white pieces on my opponents side,and play backwards,moving 1.e4 towards me!My opponent reaches over to the other side of the board and pulls his pawn or other piece backwards towards him!In the beginning its haywire!But by mid game or so,things smooth out. Hmmm...what 10,000 rules does that break? TA |
||
|
tactical_abyss 23-Jan-11, 12:27 |
Yes,the reverse game smooths out EXCEPT with the pawns! My Queening at my foot of the board and pulling a backwards en passant can twist the mind into all kinds of chaos!Onlookers are baffled.Its hard to keep from breaking out in a laugh!Foul,foul,foul!!!! |
||
|
Is that last... I recall a friend of mine telling me he tried one evening a session in which the knights and bishops were reversed at the set up time, but the bishops moved as knights and vice versa. In other words, normal chess but with bishop pieces representing knights and knight pieces representing bishops. I gather it created quite a bit of fun on the knight. The bad part was that this was during what passes in this country for a major tournament. The following day, yep: it had to happen to someone. Deep in concentration he tried to move a bishop like a knight, and got into a heap of trouble... Bob was not a popular boy for a while after that. And speaking of pizza - I still think the best pizza I ever had (though the local Hell's Pizza came pretty close) was the square, thick, Buddy's Pizza I had in Detroit, more than 30 years ago... Cheers, Ion |
||
|
tactical_abyss 24-Jan-11, 15:22 |
Once a month I pull out my Star Trek multi levelled 3D board.The rules on that board are as close as the Mandarin language is to English! |
||
|
baronderkilt 25-Jan-11, 14:07 |
Reversing seats ... BUT in otb I found it could matter very much, for me. Often with a troublesome or complex game in an otb tournament, I would get up and stroll ... then come back and have a look at things from my opponent's side of the board, and found it could be helpful and revealing at such times. Might call it a Little Chess Secret I guess. One of those little edge getters when needed. Give it a try ... |
||
|
FIDE changes the laws of chess 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. The PROBLEM with that occurs if, (using the example of the White pieces), before the White king castles, 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 New Rook down from e8 to e2. So FIDE changed the rule of castling to add the crucial words "along the rank," moving the unmoved King 2 squares ALONG THE RANK towards an unmoved Rook, and the Rook jumping one square over the King. |
