Capturing the King

[Stuart McKinney]

White and Black are playing a chess game. White puts Black in check. Black fails to see this and White then captures the King and claims the win.

White and Black are playing a chess game. Black puts his King onto a square where he's in check. White captures the King.

The same scenarios happen in allegro chess.

I've come across these scenarios a few times (not only in my own games) and the decisions made have been unclear.

Is White correct to get the win or can Black do so as capturing the King is illegal and White has made the most recent illegal move.

Asking this question on the internet is just as confusing.

Your thoughts on this.

[JMcNicoll]

Stuart, there really shouldn't be any confusion, article 4.8 is quite clear,

" A player forfeits his right to claim against his opponent’s violation of Articles 4.1 – 4.7 once the player touches a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it."

So in picking a piece up to take the king you lose the right to claim your opponent made an illegal move.

Therefore the act of taking the king is the illegal move is considered illegal and the opponent can then claim against you.

The simplest thing to do in competition is, after the opponent has made what you consider as an illegal move, pause the clock and get hold of the arbiter and make the claim to him/her/it. It's what they are there for.

[Alex Gillies]

Questions re this  for John /other Arbiters :

In allegro I have saw many times opponents take the king and lose.   Looking back I don't recall any of them actually press or stop the clock.  

Is that your experience as an arbiter?

Also I was advised that clock must be pressed or stopped to lose. Can you confirm that they do in fact have to press the clock to lose?  If that is indeed the case,  that would suggest many results are unnecessarily been agreed as loses as they would have the option to move the piece or if illegal make another move.

[Ianbrownlee]

Questions re this  for John /other Arbiters :

In allegro I have saw many times opponents take the king and lose.   Looking back I don't recall any of them actually press or stop the clock.  

Is that your experience as an arbiter?

Also I was advised that clock must be pressed or stopped to lose. Can you confirm that they do in fact have to press the clock to lose?  If that is indeed the case,  that would suggest many results are unnecessarily been agreed as loses as they would have the option to move the piece or if illegal make another move.

the ruling as I understand it is that you put up your hand to get the arbiter's attention. If you take the king you lose unless it is checkmate as checkmate signals the end of the game, in which case it would be pointless anyway to take the game. I believe you can pause the clock ( as opposed to resetting or stopping the clock) but I'm not 100% sure on this.
Before anyone points out the definition of stopping the clock ( as opposed to pausing it) means the clock cannot be restarted or "un paused"

If the arbiter decides that pausing the clock is interfering with the normal game, he can award the game to the opponent.  Have I got it right Ken?

This rule is a bit of an arse as well as more recent rules which habe been questioned.

[Alex Gillies]

It could take too long to call an arbiter and you can lose on time so pausing clock would make sense.

My point is on taking the king - I can't recall anyone having taken the king and also pressed the clock or paused the clock - so the move is incomplete and can be changed- I assume it's an unpopular rule but if am I correct all those losses were unwittingly accepted or wrongly ruled as a loss.