If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I just realized that Rf2 is ambiguous, both Rooks can move to f2, but i meant the Rook on the f-file, so that the Black Queen is still pinned. This invokes 3.9.2 in the rules, BUT 3.9.1 is a special clause that was invented to override 3.9.2 in this case and makes the Queen able to capture the King on h1, but not any other White piece on h1. This means that capture of the King is the ultimate decider of games, and if one side captures the king even 1 ply ahead of the other, that player wins.
I think it is FIDE has the bad logic. Why did they invent this special clause? Why is the White King on h1 in check when no other White piece on h1, or on g2, or on f3, or on e4, would be in check?
Rff2 (in your position) is not ambiguous, it's illegal. The white King is in check and the check must be dealt with first; it has precedence over all else. The fact that the black Queen on d5 can't physically(?) capture the white King is irrelevant. In fact, capturing a king is not allowed under the FIDE-approved laws of chess. This seems to be a sticking point for you. Maybe it is worth noting that a pinned piece (i.e. pinned to its own king) can not by itself checkmate an opposing King because the side under attack still has a legal move left, viz.: the pinning piece captures the pinned/checking piece. An exception would occur if the pinning piece was itself pinned to its own King, but, let's not get silly. Consider the following from FIDE's Handbook:
BASIC RULES OF PLAY
Article 1: The nature and objectives of the game of chess
1.1
The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces on a square board called a ‘chessboard’.
1.2
The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move.
1.3
A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.
1.4
The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.
1.4.1
The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king is not allowed .
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
I just realized that Rf2 is ambiguous, both Rooks can move to f2, but i meant the Rook on the f-file, so that the Black Queen is still pinned. This invokes 3.9.2 in the rules, BUT 3.9.1 is a special clause that was invented to override 3.9.2 in this case and makes the Queen able to capture the King on h1, but not any other White piece on h1. This means that capture of the King is the ultimate decider of games, and if one side captures the king even 1 ply ahead of the other, that player wins.
I think it is FIDE has the bad logic. Why did they invent this special clause? Why is the White King on h1 in check when no other White piece on h1, or on g2, or on f3, or on e4, would be in check?
Pieces are not equal. Thinking about checking the king as equal to "checking" a pawn is wrong. None of other pieces are "checked", they are attacked but not "checked". A check is related only to the king.
My dad and other older generation amateurs players used a word "garde" for attacking the queen. [At that time I did not know of existence of Garde wonderful chess clocks LOL
Rff2 (in your position) is not ambiguous, it's illegal. The white King is in check and the check must be dealt with first; it has precedence over all else. The fact that the black Queen on d5 can't physically(?) capture the white King is irrelevant. In fact, capturing a king is not allowed under the FIDE-approved laws of chess. This seems to be a sticking point for you. Maybe it is worth noting that a pinned piece (i.e. pinned to its own king) can not by itself checkmate an opposing King because the side under attack still has a legal move left, viz.: the pinning piece captures the pinned/checking piece. An exception would occur if the pinning piece was itself pinned to its own King, but, let's not get silly. Consider the following from FIDE's Handbook:
BASIC RULES OF PLAY
Article 1: The nature and objectives of the game of chess
1.1
The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces on a square board called a ‘chessboard’.
1.2
The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move.
1.3
A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.
1.4
The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.
1.4.1
The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king is not allowed .
It seems you are just trolling, and you are missing the whole point of this thread.
If you look back at post #8 in this thread, which was one of my posts, I found the clause in the FIDE Laws of Chess and so I am not disputing whether the Queen check of the King on h1 is legal or illegal. FIDE specifically made it magically legal, although any other move of the Queen off of the d-file in that position (if it were Black to move) is illegal.
And I am also NOT saying that there is an actual capturing of the King. That would not happen because if someone as White played Rff2 or Rfd1, the opponent would claim illegal move and the arbiter would agree and the White player would have to find a legal move.
And I did not say Rff2 is ambiguous, I said Rf2 (which I originally put in post #1) is ambiguous, so I had to correct that to Rff2. Yes, I agree that Rff2 is illegal due to FIDE's magical rule.
So I am not going to argue any of those points with you, no matter how much you may troll me about them.
My point is that the CHECK of the King on h1 from a pinned Queen on d5 in this specific position is a logical fallacy, because the Queen cannot "attack" any other White piece that is not on the d-file. But the King is magically allowed to be attacked because of FIDE rule 3.9.1 as Egis pointed out.
So I am wondering how rule 3.9.1 came about, which I doubt anyone here knows anything about but I put the question out there anyway. Why did FIDE make this logical fallacy a rule of chess?
I remember recently Neil Frarey said en passant was the stupidest rule in chess, but I think 3.9.1, whatever you want to call it since it doesn't have a name, is truly the stupidest rule in chess.
You can debate that with me if you like, but please stop all this trolling of stuff that doesn't address the logical fallacy.
Pieces are not equal. Thinking about checking the king as equal to "checking" a pawn is wrong. None of other pieces are "checked", they are attacked but not "checked". A check is related only to the king.
My dad and other older generation amateurs players used a word "garde" for attacking the queen. [At that time I did not know of existence of Garde wonderful chess clocks LOL
Fine, we can talk about attacks rather than checks. Rule 3.9.1 used both terms, "in check" and "attacked".
You say Thinking about checking the King as equal to "checking" a pawn is wrong. So we can change that to attacking the King versus attacking any other piece.
A Knight is attacked when an enemy piece, if the enemy had the move, can move legally to the square occupied by the Knight. If my given position, if we replace the King on h1 with a Knight on h1, the Knight is NOT attacked.
A King thus should be attacked when an enemy piece, if the enemy had the move, can move legally to the square occupied by the King. And in this case, FIDE created rule 3.9.1 to specifically mention this case that creates this magical attack on the King that doesn't exist for any other piece. In the position given, ONLY if the King is on h1 does the Queen attack h1.
So I understand that they did this, what I want to know is why? It must have been part of the original FIDE rules, whenever those were first created. Why was this added?
I wonder if anyone knows????? It might be a lost piece of information in the history of chess.
So I understand that they did this, what I want to know is why? It must have been part of the original FIDE rules, whenever those were first created. Why was this added?
I wonder if anyone knows????? It might be a lost piece of information in the history of chess.
The rules of the game have not changed for ages (you might check exactly when that was and what kind). As I recall Morphy games are with current rules (maybe except those with odds), and those like many years before FIDE was created...
Rules are written to have least interpretations. You might not like them, but you are stuck with them.
Once more - a king is a special piece (and as in a real life in those days). You can give a check but you can not capture it. Kinda similar to a pin. Pins of K+N (absolute) and Q+N (not absolute -the Legal's checkmate is based on it) are very different.
You can debate that with me if you like, but please stop all this trolling of stuff that doesn't address the logical fallacy.
Don't be calling me a troll simply because I disagree with you. If you think chess has one or more magical rules, fine! In the meantime, that's the way the game is played. If that upsets you so much, maybe you should consider a hobby that has no magical rules. If that doesn't appeal to you then maybe you should deeply research this magical rule. One day you can publish your results to international acclaim: "Canadian Chess Dude Discovers Magical Chess Rule Missed by Millions" Maybe the news coverage might include a quote from Magnus Carlsen: "Gosh. To be honest I never thought about magical rules before today."
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
The rules of the game have not changed for ages (you might check exactly when that was and what kind). As I recall Morphy games are with current rules (maybe except those with odds), and those like many years before FIDE was created...
Rules are written to have least interpretations. You might not like them, but you are stuck with them.
Once more - a king is a special piece (and as in a real life in those days). You can give a check but you can not capture it. Kinda similar to a pin. Pins of K+N (absolute) and Q+N (not absolute -the Legal's checkmate is based on it) are very different.
I don't know the detailed history of chess, so I would like to have a discussion with a true chess historian and find out if he or she knows when FIDE's 3.9.1 was actually integrated into chess, and as you say, it could be long before FIDE, but FIDE put it into words. But maybe before FIDE's Laws of Chess, there was another written set of rules, and maybe the equivalent of 3.9.1 was there too. I don't know, I'm just wondering. It would be fascinating to find out where this rule first appeared. We know roughly when castling and en passant appeared, I'd like to know when the "Phantom Check" rule was first invented.
(Yes, I tried to think of a name for it because "3.9.1" isn't informative, so I think it should be called "Phantom Check". There is an expression for those who have lost arms or legs, "phantom limb", in which they feel like their missing limb is actually there and they can move it.)
I'm nor arguing any of your points, Egidijus, and really the only thing I don't like about this rule in particular is that it is a logical fallacy, but other than that, it doesn't affect me in any way. In my variants, I can choose not to implement it, and I will need to make a note about that, and for my reason I will argue that it is a logical fallacy which shouldn't exist.
I have shown that it is a logical fallacy, and have found that a special clause 3.9.1 was written to make it part of the rules, and it is not me who is stuck with it, it is all the people who play competitive chess, and I wonder if any of them have ever realized the logical fallacy of it so that it took a special rule to make it so.
Don't be calling me a troll simply because I disagree with you. If you think chess has one or more magical rules, fine! In the meantime, that's the way the game is played. If that upsets you so much, maybe you should consider a hobby that has no magical rules. If that doesn't appeal to you then maybe you should deeply research this magical rule. One day you can publish your results to international acclaim: "Canadian Chess Dude Discovers Magical Chess Rule Missed by Millions" Maybe the news coverage might include a quote from Magnus Carlsen: "Gosh. To be honest I never thought about magical rules before today."
Of course you are fine to disagree with me, but why are you going on so much to me about capturing the King when I never said that someone actually plays a capturing move of the King? It's like someone pissed in your oatmeal and you want to lash out at me in response.
Ok, so you disagree that this "Phantom Check" rule is a logical fallacy. Then please explain why clause 3.9.1 exists in the FIDE Laws of Chess? It had to be put there because otherwise people would, in that situation, logically not expect a check of the King coming from a piece that is itself pinned against its own King from a different direction.
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if even Magnus Carlsen hasn't realized the logical fallacy of the Phantom Check. Am I the first one to ever call 3.9.1 into question? I have no idea.
People seem to be getting the impression I don't like this rule. I don't think I've said that or even implied that anywhere.
I've proven it is a logical fallacy, and I'll give you Bob the same question I gave Peter: if it is not a logical fallacy, then why did FIDE need to include clause 3.9.1?
Wow, the pandemic must really be bringing out anger in people. I think I might leave this forum for good, there are too many disturbed people here.
..... If you think chess has one or more magical rules, fine! In the meantime, that's the way the game is played. I.....
When I was much younger, I met someone who was an aspiring tournament director. Somewhat surprisingly, he was of the opinion that if a game in one of his events went:
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Qxf7 mate
he would accept that result and declare white the winner. You see, there was a rule that mate ends the game - no intervention is possible. Never mind the overriding rule that the TD is supposed to enforce the spirit and "rules" of chess. These days, that rule is written a bit differently so that the above issue is explicitly not allowed but it was not the case that the above game was possible under the rules in my youth.
Nevertheless, experienced people can get the issue wrong. Players of a certain age will remember an incident in Kapuskasing II where it was discovered after the end of the game that the "winning" player had managed it by cheating. The TD and Tournament Appeals committee declined to overturn the result on the basis the game was over. It took the National Appeals Committee to fix things.
Edidijus writes in another thread how the current regulations do not specify that WGM titleholders must be female and the FIDE rules committee is planning to fix that. Good luck trying to claim a WGM title if you are male but claiming that you qualify under the rule "today".
I addressed this question earlier this year I believe. I knew Paul Bonham when he was working on system software at MIT. He and I shared an interest in chess and poker, and we had many conversations about chess variants in particular. My interest in variants mirrors his and so people think I could be him, since he isn't on this forum any more. So I guess he also used to post a lot here about chess variants.
He told me back then about this forum and warned me there was a lot of weird people here, but at that time I wasn't interested to join up. Now that my life has settled down a lot more, I have been on this forum for a few years and am seeing firsthand what Mr. Bonham meant. At one point, Mr. Bonham had a group of doctoral students at MIT regularly sending each other the latest posts on ChessTalk, with some not too complimentary comments about the intelligence of the people posting, but I only heard about that, I wasn't part of it.
I know Mr. Bonham's wife, who had muscular dystrophy, passed away from complications from her disease in 2019 and i haven't been in touch with him since then. At the time he was doing specialized software for the Drug Discovery unit at Eli Lily in Indiana, but his residence was still in New Hampshire i think, or maybe Massachusetts. I have reached out to him a few times but i get no response, and the phone number I had for him is now disconnected.
He and I did discuss Option Chess, it was his favorite variant. He said it was the best variant to reinvigorate chess at the elite levels without taking too much away from it.
My software knowledge pales compared to his, and so my attempts at creating chess variant engines have been slow and cumbersome. But yes, I am still working on an Option Chess engine among others. I could mention a few things about it, but i won't because I see no one here has any interest. There is a much better site, ironically called talkchess.com, which has very many people interested in computers, chess and chess variants. Here, people are lazier and don't want to think too hard. Plus the majority of you seem to want to turn everything into a grudge match.
So I think after seeing the reaction on this thread that I will give it up here and focus on people that are more receptive and creative. I did have 2 of our children involved before the pandemic in tournament chess (they have their mother's last name, so there probably aren't any Perrers in chess in Ontario), which of course stopped with the pandemic, and I will not be having them continue and they have both lost interest anyway. Even if they were interested, I would discourage them because of the attitudes, even some racism, that I have encountered here. Who knows, maybe even some of the reactions to my postings in this thread are caused by an undercurrent of racism, but I won't go so far as to accuse anyone of that. Whatever it is, it is really silly and frustrating. Mr. Gillanders calling me a troll from my very first post in this thread is an example of just pure nonsense and something even disturbing. I guess I am not allowed to have an opinion, and that is HIS opinion.
EDIT: by the way, I don't think I have ever mentioned Option Chess on this forum, or if I did, it was in passing. I haven't posted anything that was ABOUT Option Chess, so I don't know where Francis is getting that idea from that I am here to rehash Option Chess.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Friday, 12th November, 2021, 02:00 AM.
Tweet
Comment