Rule Question: Calling Check

Hope you can shed some light on this rules question. Say your playing chess with your son, and he notices that he had you in check several moves back. (Probably a discovered check that wasn't noticed). My belief was that the game was irrevocably ruined, that simply playing on from the moment it was noticed just didn't seem right. He felt that we should just continue with the check now in effect.

I couldn't find anything on the web to solve this. Though I did learn that in tournament play calling check is neither required nor desired.

Thanks-

Hunter

According to the rules of the US Chess Federation, if you discover that an illegal move has taken place during the last 10 moves, you must reinstate the position to what it was before the illegal move. Obviously, this is easier if you're playing a game where you're taking notation.

If the illegal move occurred more than 10 moves ago, you do not "turn back the clock," and instead play the game as it stands. However, every move where a king is left in check counts as an illegal one; so even if you failed to recognize a check many, many moves ago, there's still an opportunity to turn back the clock.

Of course, in casual or blitz games, such adjustments are difficult if not impossible. At our club we're very informal about these things--we'll go back a few moves if it's easy to reconstruct; otherwise we'll just go ahead from where we are.

In casual games like that I would advocate having the custom rule that if the king is taken that king's owner loses the game. I mean, the real objective of chess is winning the opponent's king right? just take it off the board. You've won.

If you want to make sure things like that don't happen, make sure you make notations.

The following is from FIDE rules:

7.4
a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the
requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been
completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity.

that's p stupid

Thanks, all, for these quick and useful replies. We've decided to make a 'house rule' should this ever occur again incorporating all your suggestions. If we can trace back far enough to the point where the check occurred, we'll do so, if not, we'll go with Drecon's rule that the player who put a king in check, and it wasn't noticed, gets to take it at the next opportunity. We're too casual for notation, but now we know where to go to avoid a knock down drag out fight over chess rules-

Thanks!

Hunter

Just so you know (and also for HeavyArtillery, assuming this is what he's criticizing), it's an old rule in OTB blitz that you can capture the opponent's king (and thus win the game) if he leaves it in check. So this would probably work well for you.

In fact, that rule has been changed by FIDE. Taking the king in blitz in reply to an illegal move is itself an illegal move! So in an official blitz tournament, if you accidentally leave your king in check, and your opponent takes it, you can stop the clocks and claim a win. Your opponent should have done that himself.

Of course, that's FIDE rules. There's one country in the world where the chess federation think it's necessary to make their own version, so I don't know what the exact rules are in the US.

Thanks for clearing this up, DimKnight. I've wondered this myself.

The USCF blitz rules (section 3) state that, if a player makes an illegal move and then hits the clock, his opponent may receive two extra minutes.

As a variant (section 3A), the USCF ruleset states:

"A player making an illegal move and hitting the clock shall forfeit the game, if called by the opponent before touching a piece. The one exception to the touch restriction is if a player leaves the king in check, the opponent may then touch the piece delivering check and remove the player's king from the board in order to claim a win caused by such an illegal move."

As is often the case with these variants, it is the responsibility of the tournament director to make them known before the start of play.

As for the snarky comment "There's one country in the world where the chess federation think it's necessary to make their own version," I would point out to Scarblac that the USCF rules governing tournament play were originally written in the 1950s, when the FIDE's bare-bones ruleset was focused on providing oversight of smaller master-level tournaments. At this time, large Swiss-system tourneys were gaining in popularity here; and the USCF tournament ruleset was designed to plug this glaring hole in the FIDE's version. I might also point out that it's customary for players in USCF tournaments to bring their own equipment (my understanding is that this is not the case in Europe), so there needs to be a whole section regarding what constitutes acceptible equipment, who gets to choose, where the clock should go, etc.

All this aside, if you're playing in any rated tournament it's the player's responsibility to be familiar with the tournament rules and regulations; if you are unclear on any point, you can ask a tournament director.

Having played chess in the US for 25 years and now in Europe for 10+ I can say there are definitely advantages and disadvantages to both! I had an adjustment period here to say the least. Its nice not to have to supply your own set, clock, score sheets and other equipment but sometimes you get stuck with very crappy/cheap sets such that I would prefer to bring my own ! I recall one event in Mondariz Spain in which the pieces I was playing on were pieces ( all plastic ) from 3 different chess sets ! The bishops were taller than the king and queen and one rook was taller than the knights and the other shorter ! This is a worse case example and I have not been back to this particular event since !

What have you been smoking?