Arbiters and illegal moves

[Roger de Coverly]

Over on the thread on the Olympiad

On another point, in a previous Women's Olympiad there was a game won by White after illegally castling queenside.
An Events window should have popped up in the DGT Livechess program warning of an illegal move but either these warnings were not being monitored by the arbiters managing the live boards or else they had no way to contact the match arbiter in a timely manner.

An increasing number of games in British tournaments are being relayed on live boards. Would such an irregularity be spotted and dealt with, assuming the players hadn't notioed?

[Joey Stewart]

I'm very surprised that one slipped past an Olympiad level player - I guess people have got so used to playing online and having the move rules automatically applied they forget that it is still possible to get away with breaking then over the board.

[Roger Lancaster]

Interesting question. Many years ago in the Surrey League, I castled twice. (Genuine mistake, I promise!). If the irregularity had been spotted during the game then the FIDE laws envisage that the game would immediately revert to the pre-error position, and in this case I'd have been obliged to move the king. However, if an irregularity of this type is spotted during the game by a distant arbiter (or perhaps even by a spectator) and not immediately conveyed to the floor arbiter, there's the risk that the game might have ended before the floor arbiter can intervene. Conceivably the players will have already left the playing area and could not readily be traced. Given that situation, it seems to me that the floor arbiter would have little option but to allow the irregularity to stand.

[Matt Mackenzie]

There was a 1980s GM level game (Sax v Kouatly IIRC) where Black castled Q-side despite having moved their QR to d8 and back again.

Neither player noticed at the time, and nor did anyone else until the game was published.

Another famous example is Wolfgang Heidenfeld castling on both wings in an Irish league match in the 1970s (he still lost despite this)

[AlanLlewellyn]

[Event "Whitaker Cup"] [Site "?"] [Date "2019.10.14"] [Round "2"] [White "Llewellyn, Alan Mansel"] [Black "Clough, Fred"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A24"] [WhiteElo "1674"] [BlackElo "1778"] [Annotator "Llewellyn,Alan"] [PlyCount "42"] [WhiteTeam "Barrow"] [BlackTeam "Penrith II"] 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c6 3. e4 d6 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. g3 g6 6. Bg2 Bg7 7. O-O O-O 8. d3 e5 9. h3 Re8 10. Be3 Nf8 11. Qd2 Ne6 12. Ng5 Nd4 13. f4 Qe7 14. fxe5 dxe5 15. Nf3 Nh5 16. g4 Nf4 17. Nxe5 $17 Bxe5 $4 $14 18. Bxf4 Bxf4 $2 $16 19. Qxf4 Be6 20. Qf6 $2 $14 Qc5 $6 21. b4 Ne2+ 1-0
this is as much as the only game where unbeknown to me i played an illegal move but neither of us realised until I and i assume he tried to put the game in the computer, the next move was illegal so i couldn't transfer the moves to the computer and when i kept getting a buzzer alarm everytime i tried to play 22.Nxe2 it suddenly dawned on me and i rushed to look up the rules. Personally i would have been more than happy with a draw agreed between fred Clough and myself which was more than i deserved as the game was going pear-shaped but i found honestly to my dislike that the rules state the end result always stands in such cases. I think a rule change where people if agreed can declare the result either void or a draw is called for.

[Roger de Coverly]

If the irregularity had been spotted during the game then the FIDE laws envisage that the game would immediately revert to the pre-error position, and in this case I'd have been obliged to move the king.

I had a 4NCL game in the 1990s where my opponent played Rh8xh4, Rh4-h8 and then 0-0. I remember being shocked at overlooking 0-0 because otherwise his King was stuck in the centre. Had I realised why I had overlooked 0-0, I could have insisted on a King move. As it was, I didn't find out until I put the game on the computer much later that day.

[David Sedgwick]

Over on the thread on the Olympiad

On another point, in a previous Women's Olympiad there was a game won by White after illegally castling queenside.
An Events window should have popped up in the DGT Livechess program warning of an illegal move but either these warnings were not being monitored by the arbiters managing the live boards or else they had no way to contact the match arbiter in a timely manner.

An increasing number of games in British tournaments are being relayed on live boards. Would such an irregularity be spotted and dealt with, assuming the players hadn't noticed?

In my opinion, yes it (almost certainly) would be.

The problem in an Olympiad is the sheer size of the event.

In neither of the Olympiads where I was a Match Arbiter have I even known from where the live boards were being managed. If I made an error (misplacing the Kings at the end, for instance) I had to report it via my Sector Arbiter.

In any British tournament I have always known the location of Matthew Carr, David Clayton, or whomever from the start and they have never been far away. If I needed to tell them anything, I have always been able to do so promptly (and vice versa).

[AlanLlewellyn]

it was at home after travelling back from what i thought was a brilliant win which i went on about in the car on the way home. Of course the unsaid spectre hanging over the situation was that i may have done it deliberately but honest i didnt and i wanted the rules to state we could agree after the game that the game was drawn but those arent the rules and i think that leaves me with a few undeserved rating points.

[AlanLlewellyn]

if you actually look at the position if he had spotted my illegal move and i had the play say kh2 then the game looked even anyway, i just thought his knight was in trouble and i could win it and completely overlooked i was in double check. But the ilegal move wins a piece so the rules need changing.

[AlanLlewellyn]

Another famous example is Wolfgang Heidenfeld castling on both wings in an Irish league match in the 1970s (he still lost despite this)

had he partaken of the irish nectar LOL

[Joey Stewart]

there was some old legend about korchnoi losing a game because he thought it was an illegal move to castle his rook through an attack and so got his king stuck in the centre because of it - someone else might be able to shed some light on that one?

[AlanLlewellyn]

there was some old legend about korchnoi losing a game because he thought it was an illegal move to castle his rook through an attack and so got his king stuck in the centre because of it - someone else might be able to shed some light on that one?

i remember korchnoi once asked if castling in a certain position was legal LOL

[Tim Harding]

if you actually look at the position if he had spotted my illegal move and i had the play say kh2 then the game looked even anyway, i just thought his knight was in trouble and i could win it and completely overlooked i was in double check. But the ilegal move wins a piece so the rules need changing.

No, the rules do not need changing. What change would you propose?

[Matt Mackenzie]

there was some old legend about korchnoi losing a game because he thought it was an illegal move to castle his rook through an attack and so got his king stuck in the centre because of it - someone else might be able to shed some light on that one?

His famous 19 move win against Karpov in the 1974 Candidates final, no less.

And yes he did ask that question, as the arbiter (Alberic O'Kelly - try looking up his full name) confirmed afterwards.

[Reg Clucas]

there was some old legend about korchnoi losing a game because he thought it was an illegal move to castle his rook through an attack and so got his king stuck in the centre because of it - someone else might be able to shed some light on that one?

This is the position. Korchnoi actually won the game, after checking with the arbiter that 0-0 was legal when the Rook was attacked.

Screenshot from 2022-07-27 20-31-46.png