Chess question

There’s a book called “The Quickest Chess Victories of All Time,” for sale at…

…and a customer reviewer with the name of

I am the man from Silicon Valley with the review below., mentions that years ago, the penalty for an illegal move was a King move.

So, say you make an illegal move, your opponent calls the Director and he agrees the move is illegal. But, your King cannot move because the opponent has all the available King squares covered.

Would you get a tie from this debacle? I certainly hope not.

I think you should not only suffer a loss, but made to go to bed without your supper.

I don’t really think it is true that the penalty for an illegal move was a forced King move at any time. No cite, but I have never heard that as the case either and it doesn’t really make a lot of sense, IMO.

I’ve never heard of this, but I’m not an expert. Paging glee

Anyway, if this was actually a rule, your point is probably the reason it was dropped.

If my memory of old books of chess stories is correct, when the King did not have a legal move, then there was no penalty.

Well, I bought the book.

It won’t make me a better player, but it looks like fun - and I don’t have to contend with that asinine old rule.

For the record, nowadays, the opponent gets two minutes onto his clock. It’s really meaningful if you’re both racing w/ 30 seconds left, which is when illegal moves are likely to occur.

Hmm. I didn’t know it was even allowed to make illegal moves. Couldn’t that unbalance the game quite a lot in some situations? Why accept such moves at all?

Well, no, it’s not allowed. When a player makes a move that’s determined to be illegal, the move is retracted, and all pieces involved returned to their previous locations. The penalty is applied for the attempt … That’s the nature of the penalty under discussion, that the replacement for the retracted move must be a King move (if any legal King move is available, evidently). I’ve never heard of that one either …