Rules that you misunderstood when learning (or were a kid)

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Neville Twitchell
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:22 am
Location: Harlow, Essex

Re: Rules that you misunderstood when learning (or were a kid)

Post by Neville Twitchell » Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:51 pm

MJMcCready wrote:
Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:56 pm
Yes agree. In addition, Korchnoi once asked an arbiter if he could castle whilst his rook is attacked.
A propos ignorance of the rules at the highest level, apart from the egregious example there (in the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match I think) there was the even more celebrated case of Spassky forgetting the repetition rule in one the games from the 1972 match with Fischer and allowing a draw where he still had some winning chances.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Rules that you misunderstood when learning (or were a kid)

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:14 am

Neville and Roger >The fifty move rule is another that is often misunderstood, particularly since I know it has been extended to 75 moves for certain endings where it was discovered you could force a win but that it might take more than fifty moves (viz K+R+B v K+R). I am not sure if the 75 move rule had now been rescinded, and whether it has ever been tested in practice..<
You both misunderstand 9.6 and have misquoted it as well.
9.6.If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:
9.6.1 the same position has appeared as in 9.2.2 at least five times.
9.6.2 any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.

For the 3 times occurrence rule or 50 move rule, a player has to claim. The Arbiter does NOT step in.
For the 5 times occurrence rule or 75 move rule, the game is drawn. The arbiter MUST step in.
All those endgames where the number of moves was extended, often to 75, have been swept aside for a number of years.
An example of 5 times occurrence.
A the original position. 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Ng1 Ng8 A. 3 Nh3 Nf6 4 Ng1 Ng8 A. 5 Nf3 Nh6 6 Ng1 Ng8 A. 7 Nc3 Na6 8 Nb1 Nb8 A.
A has occurred 5 times and the game is drawn
Personally I would have stepped in and declared the game lost by both players under 11.1 bringing the game into disrepute.
I was very concerned that the arbiter might not notice the 5 fold occurrence. Thus I wanted it to be 5 consecutive occasions. But they are NOT consecutive. It takes a minimum of 8 moves as shown by my example. I set up a committee of arbiters from all over the world. but the wording defeated us. I had not, at that time, thought of the (simple) example shown here. Thus the simply expressed, but hard to implement, rule.
Returning to the 75 move rule. The endgame K+Q+N v K+R+B+N takes over 200 moves for the exchange to be won and another 40 then to win that endgame. With best play on both sides.
THESE ARE THE RULES THAT HAVE UNDERGONE MOST EXTENSIVE REVISION.

Just consider, if intelligent and knowledgeable people like Neville and Roger can get these Laws wrong, what hope is there for inexperienced players?
The reason 9.6 was introduced was because of 30 second increments of course. 200 extra moves might result in nearly 7 hours extra play.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover

Re: Rules that you misunderstood when learning (or were a kid)

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:16 pm

Hi Stewart another misunderstood rule that I recently saw on the net was someone asking if you HAD TO take en passant
Obviously someone glancing at the rule, seeing it must be done on the next move and picking it up as a legal requirement.

Regarding Spassky and I think also Petrosian perhaps getting caught out with three fold rep.
Recall having a discussion that in the USSR up to the 1930's/40's three fold rep could only be
claimed if the position arose on consecutive moves not say at move 27, 32, and 37.
(cannot recall if the case was proven or not but do remember it being raised as a possible reason why there was confusion.)

---

The most famous case regarding castling was Averbakh - Purdy 1960 when here...



....Purdy played 14....0-0-0 and Averbakh insisted this was illegal.

This incident is well documented here: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/purdy.html

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Rules that you misunderstood when learning (or were a kid)

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:35 pm

Geoff >This incident is well documented here:<
That is too long for me to red. Can you not extract the piece? I don't have time to scan the whole piece. Yuri became a well-respected arbiter.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover

Re: Rules that you misunderstood when learning (or were a kid)

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:08 pm

Hi Stewart,

From the Edward Winter site:

Image

O.G. Urcan
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:37 am

Re: Rules that you misunderstood when learning (or were a kid)

Post by O.G. Urcan » Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:51 pm

Stewart Reuben can read Edward Winter's full coverage of the Purdy matter (which also includes Averbakh's side of the story) via this direct link:

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/ext ... _the_rules

O.G. Urcan