The victim thought his joke of shouting KING ME! would never get old.
That’s precisely what I was thinking. I didn’t even realize there was a j’adoube “magic word.” We always played if you touch it, you gotta move it. This would occasionally lead to arguments even with those who are aware of the rule. Also, letting go of the piece finalizes the move. Occasionally, some people would try to get out of that one, too.
Guess the guy felt that he got rooked.
No, it might lead to a draw by threefold repetition, but not to stalemate - which is another kind of draw with a perfectly cromulent definition of its own.
“You may knock your opponent down with the board, but that does not make you the better chessplayer” - old proverb that someone apparently failed to take on board. (ahem)
IIRC from back in the dark ages when I played competitively, the rule was something like, “…or words to that effect…” meaning that it was perfectly sufficient to say, “I’m adjusting this piece,” or “This is not my move,” or anything along those lines – as long as it was said BEFORE the touch. So j’adoube was, as you say, A magic word, but not the ONLy magic word. 
Maybe the question was whether it is allowed to castle with a rook which is under attack. There have been several cases where a chess grandmaster during a tournament game, turned out to be unsure about that rule. :eek:
I’m thinking he got pwned.
The answer is yes, right, since the king does not pass over an attacked square? I admit, I’ve never really thought about that before.
Rules ?! In a knife fight ?!
Correct.
The two most well-known cases where this question came up in a grand master tournament:
[ul]
[li]Korchnoi - Karpov, 1974: Korchnoi wanted to castle but wasn’t sure if it was allowed since his rook was under attack, so he got up and asked the arbiter, who told him that it was indeed allowed; he ended up winning the game.[/li][li]Averbakh - Purdy, 1960: Black castled Queenside while the extra square which the rook had to cross over, was being attacked by White. Averbakh pointed this out, thinking it was an illegal move. Purdy told him that the move was legal; Averbakh believed him but was quite surprised. Averbakh won anyway.[/li][/ul]
So apparently it’s possible to get quite far in chess without knowing all the rules…
…because you can’t Castlenock out of Czech…
=d&r=
You know, this does bring up an interesting point: is there a specific rule that disallows that? And if you have two kings on the board, is the opponent required to trap both of them, or is one sufficient?
Yes, there is a specific (3.7.e) rule, so the second question falls by default.
What I just learned from this article is that there is a game on record in which a player under-promoted (i.e. promoted not to a Queen but another piece) twice in the same game - to Knight each time. Both underpromotions were necessary in order to win.
I’ve done it when promotion to Q would hsve resulted in immediate stalemate.
To think I’m sending my 9 year old daughter to chess club. Unarmed. What kind of mother am I?!
I’d like to see the score of the game.
I imagine the killer had a checkered past.
Huh, I’ve seen underpromotion to knight in puzzles where it’s mate-in-one, and I can see a situation where promoting to queen would be stalemate, but usually in such situations you can get away with a rook, which is still usually overwhelming power at that point in the game. I could maybe even see knighting into a royal fork, except that no grandmaster would ever let himself get into that situation. But underpromotion to knight, twice in one game? That’s hard to imagine.
Thread win.
Death by knife? The ultimate end game.