But no injustice was done ultimately. The player with black already touched the queen by moving it to c6, so he/she has to play a legal queen move, which means blocking check with the queen on e6 or f7, causing him/her to lose the queen on the next move (thus resignation).
Even calling the arbiter over on the first move would’ve resulted in a forced queen move to block the check, because you have to move the piece you touched (“Touch Rule”). So white would win the queen, and win the game anyway.
This isn’t unfair at all. He’s still in check by the bishop, so he can’t get out of check by taking the queen. He messed up, he has to play the position. Even if white had pointed out the initial illegal move, under the “touch rule” black would still have to move his queen to f7 or e6 to block the bishop check. White’s bishop would take black’s queen and check the king, king would take the bishop, and white’s pawn would take b7 and queen on the next move. Black was toast after touching his queen.
How is this unfair? if you dont respond to a check it's your problem, even if the bishop was the only one checking the king and the opponent didnt realize it, it should be a win for white
What this guy is trying to say is that it's unfair that black lost the game, because he should've gotten a warning or lost time. Doesn't make sense since official rules say you lose the game if you play an illegal move.
This seems fair to me. Black played an illegal move that was also a blunder even if it had been legal, because it allowed mate in 1, and was punished for it.
If it had been White who played the illegal move and then benefited from it, then maybe that would be unfair.
My opinion has always been that if a player fails to get out of check then the opponent should be able to take the king, winning the game immediately. If he fails to do so then the game continues.
In this position, even if White called the arbiter immediately after the illegal Qxc6, Black loses on the spot. Because, after the move is taken back, Black is obliged to play with the queen if possible (touch move rule), and here it is possible to play with the queen and get out of check. Black would have to play either Qf7 or Qe6. Both moves lose the queen. According to FIDE rules, Black cannot move the king to f8 or h8
Bros king got gangbanged.
This is dumb. Haha.
CEO of: its an incredible move
I wanna see a game where a person leaves their king in check after being attacked and the opponent takes the king
But no injustice was done ultimately. The player with black already touched the queen by moving it to c6, so he/she has to play a legal queen move, which means blocking check with the queen on e6 or f7, causing him/her to lose the queen on the next move (thus resignation).
If both players fail to see an illegal move, is it just a draw, or a loss for the player who made the last noticed illegal move?
That’s fair
Why didn't white just take a king with a bishop?
You should be able to take the king. They never should have changed that rule.
Even calling the arbiter over on the first move would’ve resulted in a forced queen move to block the check, because you have to move the piece you touched (“Touch Rule”). So white would win the queen, and win the game anyway.
This isn’t unfair at all. He’s still in check by the bishop, so he can’t get out of check by taking the queen. He messed up, he has to play the position. Even if white had pointed out the initial illegal move, under the “touch rule” black would still have to move his queen to f7 or e6 to block the bishop check. White’s bishop would take black’s queen and check the king, king would take the bishop, and white’s pawn would take b7 and queen on the next move. Black was toast after touching his queen.
Truly one of the endgame strategies
The only unfair rule is draw by no legal moves.This is completely fine lol
How is this unfair? if you dont respond to a check it's your problem, even if the bishop was the only one checking the king and the opponent didnt realize it, it should be a win for white
The Arbiter was so stunned that he went on to become a waiter after this game.
What this guy is trying to say is that it's unfair that black lost the game, because he should've gotten a warning or lost time. Doesn't make sense since official rules say you lose the game if you play an illegal move.
That doesn't look unfair at all, back in the day the goal was to take the king anyways and just evolved into checkmate to make games one move faster
Шахматист от бога
Isn't white supposed to say check when a discovered check is made?
i think this is where magnus learned chess, this is something deep man. thank you for such content or i woundn't even know such a thing exist in chess
This seems fair to me. Black played an illegal move that was also a blunder even if it had been legal, because it allowed mate in 1, and was punished for it.
If it had been White who played the illegal move and then benefited from it, then maybe that would be unfair.
My opinion has always been that if a player fails to get out of check then the opponent should be able to take the king, winning the game immediately. If he fails to do so then the game continues.
What if you just take the king
This is not unfair, this is just funny
I don't think that's unfair at all
I mean in theory white could literally capture the king in that position, so black deserves to lose.
In this position, even if White called the arbiter immediately after the illegal Qxc6, Black loses on the spot. Because, after the move is taken back, Black is obliged to play with the queen if possible (touch move rule), and here it is possible to play with the queen and get out of check. Black would have to play either Qf7 or Qe6. Both moves lose the queen. According to FIDE rules, Black cannot move the king to f8 or h8
I mean black should have paid attention to his own king but i think white should at least point it out if black makes an illegalmove
Yes in such cases illegal moves are ignored If the opponent ignores it and then the player plays another move, at least I think.
I'm confused. Didn't the white player say "check" when he played pawn takes revealing discovered check. Do you HAVE to say it?
hm
i think it's hard to decide what would've been fair here if you're taking rewinding off the table
what do you think?
That's so fucking stupid
So everyone, MAKE SURE THAT EVERY MOVE YOU PLAY IS A CHECK ON NOT
the definition of "sounds like a skill issue"
to the waiter, lol
So, if white just claims the illegal move, white will only get several seconds. So instead, white went Qd8 to do a checkmate. What a lesson.
I don't see anything unfair here.
0:37 black could claim white did an illegal move and win, since it's white problem he didn't notice black's one
How is this unfair? The black player made the first illegal move wthell?!?!? What's your problem?
Whats the app
Kings Gambit: illegal variation
Most normal bishop sniping