I was playing chess with my brother-in-law last weekend and we had dispute about the rules. He said that you could not move the King into harm’s way. I said ‘bologna’. If I can set a trap for the King, more power to me. He also said that if his Pawn can be moved to my back row, he could trade it for another piece, something that had already been captured. Horsecrap, says I. I need some help here, guys. Are these actual rules, or loopholes inserted to make it easier for beginning players to play without getting discouraged?
Well, I know that you can’t move the king into harm’s way, or on their turn they’d just take it. That would create an interesting game…
The “trade-in” rule is one I’ve used, but I’m not sure if its kosher in tournaments. A real chess player will come along soon.
No you can’t put your king “in harm’s way.”
Yes, pawns do get promoted.
I don’t know about moving the King, but your brother in-law is correct about exchanging the Pawn once it gets to your side.
From this page:
Your brother is right on both counts. Kings can’t be moved into check, and a pawn that reaches the back rank can promote to any other piece (except a king), whether previously captured or not.
You can move your king into harm’s way as long as you don’t move it into check. The exception to this, which may be what you BIL was thinking of, is that you can’t castle across a spot that is being threatened by an opponent’s piece.
As for the pawn reaching the opponent’s back row, your BIL is more right than you, but not quite. If you get one of your pawns to your opponent’s back row, you can promote it to any other piece (except a king), regardless of whether that piece has been captured. It’s possible to have two queens on the board.
Right. I thought that by “in harm’s way” you meant “into check.”
I remember games when I didn’t notice my king was in check and he got taken… that took a looong time to end.
The only thing I{ll add to the complete answers above is a comment on “in harm’s way”.
If the phrase means, “directly into check” the rules do not permit this move. A King may not accidentally commit suicide. A useful analogy might be to consider that when a player wishes to show he’s resigned, he tips his King over buit you wouldn’t say that a player who accidentally knocked his King over had immediately lost the game, would you?
Of course, a King may legally move into increasingly perilous situations, as long as they are not directly into check. If “in harm’s way” merely means a move into a dangerous position, that is permitted.
- Rick
It’s been mentioned that you cannot promote a pawn to a king, but you also cannot promote it to a pawn. Well, I guess that’s no promotion.
You cannot put your king into check, nor can you castle if any square the king must travel through would be check. However, it’s OK if the rook travels through a square that would be subject to its capture. This is overlooked occasionally, and imagine the expression of surprise on your opponent’s face when you do castle in that position. He thought you couldn’t do it, but it’s legal.
As the others said, yeah, completely legit rules. And it’s possible to have nine queens on the board, not just two (If your original queen never gets taken, and you manage to get all eight pawns across and trade them up to queens).
The next time you play your brother-in-law, toss some obscure chess tactics of your own into play. Call en passant, which is this goony French move that translates to “in passing.” Most beginners and a lot of intermediate players don’t know about it, but it’s fully kosher.
It works like this. If you get one of your pawns to the fifth rank (the fifth rank from you, that is, not your opponent), and your brother-in-law moves one of his pawns into the fifth rank, so that it is next to yours, (placing it where it normally would be safe), you can capture his piece with your pawn. It only works in the fifth rank, though.
Tell him to suck on that!
Actual in some bastard forms of the game this is exactly how it works. Say speed chess, where both opponents have 5 minutes or less for the game. Along with the usual ways, the game can end with the capture of the king. I’ve seen games where, as a desperation move, one player will deliberately attack the opponent’s king with his own king, and then, if the opponent doesn’t see it (in the frenzy of time pressure), win the game with king takes king.
- milo, who spent too much of his youth at the chess tables in Washington Square park
Well, I think it’s been made clear here, but you made an illegal move, and the game should not have progressed as it did. If your King is in check, it is illegal to make a move which results in your King still being in check. And it’s illegal to move yourself into check, either by moving a King into harm’s way, or, say, un-pinning another piece.
Also, it should not have gone unannounced that your King was in check. I don’t know if it’s an official rule, but I would refuse to play with a player who I know does not announce checks.
It doesn’t matter. That’s an illegal move and you just can’t do it. One would obviously notice it if the guy tried to attack one king with the other and–so long as he knew the rules–could simply tell the opponent that that move is not legit.
Seeing as you and your brother-in-law were discussing rules, a good place to start would be United States Chess Federation. Their beginner’s page has this to say about the King:
&
&
Now, if your mind is more into “officialese,” then you can check the FIDE’s Laws of Chess and read Article 3.8.
In blitz, the accepted way of playing is having the ability to capture the king if it remains in check. Accepted does not necessarily mean the correct way.
The rule book states that if a player has less than 5 minutes on the clock and the opponent makes an illegal move, 2 minutes can be added to the first player’s time. I would suppose you’d need to stop the clock, call for the TD, and have him or her add the time on.
This is what the rulebook states for regulation tournaments. I have no idea if that same concept would apply when both players start with 5 minutes but there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t. I’ve never played competitive blitz before, though.
Also, to clarify on en passant capturing, you can only do it on the move immediately after your opponent’s pawn move. The en passant capture is a fairly recent addition to the rules of chess (I’m thinking 1800s or so.) Orange’s explanation isn’t exactly clear, so let me try to clarify it.
Imagine your normal row of pawns. They’re all on your second row, right? Now, imagine an opponent has a pawn on the fourth row, counting down from the bottom. Imagine you want to move a pawn from an adjacent column to your opponent’s pawn. If you move it one row up, your pawn would be attacked by your opponent, right? But, since this is your first pawn move, you can move it one or two squares up. Ah, you think! You’ll move it two squares up to avoid placing it in an attacked position. Sure, you can do that. Thing is, if your opponent decides it’s worth his while, he could act as if you only moved your pawn up one row and capture it. But only on the next turn. Otherwise it stays. Yeah, I know, weird rule, but that’s how it is. And it only comes into effect if you move a pawn two spaces on its first move to avoid being put in an attacked position. And it’s only playable on the next move.
puly: Here’s what Article 3.7d from the Laws of Chess link I posted above has to say about en passant:
As one who has played in many blitz tournaments and in many blitz skittles, let me tell you that the king can be captured in blitz games. This is a fundamental difference in the rules between blitz and regulation.
Following up on en passant, doesn’t the capturing pawn move forward diagonally, to where the opponent would have been if it had only been moved up one square? In other words, the capturing pawn doesn’t end up on the square where the captured pawn was actually located?