They should add a piece called the Prince. You don't start with it, it can only be obtained through promotion. It moves like a king and a knight. If you have a prince you're allowed to leave your king in check. If your king is captured the prince becomes a king.
have you seen Capablanca vs the alien? Capablanca explained the alien the promotion rule but forgot to tell that only is allowed to promote into queen, rook, bishop or night. So he had to mate the three kings of the alien simultaneously.
@@GermanZorba Many implementations are the opposite. Where an extra king is adds an extra liability. Actually a synergistic (for your opponent) liability, since a fork, pin, or revealed attack can often lead to mate. This type of mate doesn't exist in regular chess.
Yeah I think that was technically legal because the rules specified that you could promote to any piece besides the king but it never said anything about what color of piece you could promote to
The reason why en passant was created was because originally pawns only were allowed to move one square.. but to speed up games they let pawns move two squares and made it so they can still be taken but only on the next turn... Changed the game a tiny bit because originally you were not forced to capture on the next move if the pawn moved the one space... Should be as long as the en passant can be played it should be allowed...
The point is you can only take the pawn "in passing" to represent the pawn attacking while the other pawn is moving. You cannot take a stationary piece that is directly to the side of your pawn, so why should en passant apply on any turn?
@@batmann6755 The "privilege" of the pawn moving two spaces must not be abused in order to avoid confrontation by an opposing pawn. All pawns have the "right" to capture an opposing pawn, at least for the one turn. Only one turn I suspect to prevent a lot of confusion and arguments later in the game about whether the pawn moved one or two spaces and which square the opposing pawn was on at the time.
You forgot "dea dei cavalli" which is where a pawn freshly promoted to a queen can also move like a knight, but only to check the king and only on the turn which it promotes. It's also known as "il grazioso pony rosa della principessa" or "la bellissima principessa pony rosa."
One thing was forgotten: On promoting a pawn on the first or 8th rank, the exchange to any piece is allowed, except a king or remaining a pawn. You can thus promote your pawn to a piece of your opponent’s colour, theoretically checkmating your own king. It’s called the Japanese kamikaze promotion. It took place for the first time in 1964 between Tal and Fischer in Tokyo. Hence the name.
@@armitroner thats sad, i dont see how vertical castling is too game breaking and i think giving your opponent a piece is fine as well. It lets me wither go out on my own terms or is an absolute power play
The rule is changed so promoting to an enemy piece is not allowed anymore. But yes this is theoretically useful and you can checkmate the enemy king with it. If you promote that pawn into an enemy piece which obscured its own king it can be a checkmate to the enemy.
"draw by insufficient material" can actually means 2 different things. USA: if you cannot force a checkmate. Rest of the World: if a checkmate is impossible. The only difference is King + 2 knights vs King. You cannot force a checkmate, but there exists checkmate positions.
It's not the only difference. If you would lose on time but your opponent has not enough material left to checkmate it's also draw by insufficient material. If he has only one bishop or one knight it's draw in the usa but not in the rest of the world if you have material left. It's possible to checkmate e.g. with a knight against a rook (your king on a1 and rook on a2 vs king on c1 and knight on b3) so he would win if you have no time left.
surely not all positions where you cannot force are win are automatic draws in the USA. There a plenty of positions that are drawn according to a table base, but should be played out by players. It is only a few extra table base draws that need to be added, like the two knights.
@davidmellish3295 There are in every sport national rules. In football I think the field size isn't exactly the same in every rulebook. In this case it's FIDE rules 6.9 "if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves" In the US 13C.b "The player who properly claims that the opponent has not completed the game in the allotted time, and has mating material, wins the game" I didn't search for draw by insufficient material, but I think it's the same as when you flag your opponent. In most cases, it's the same, but there're some examples like my comment before where it's not the same.
@@ozelot131 oh OK thanks,I've learned something new today,I'd always assumed there was only one set of rules making the game the same wherever you play.
Il vaticano is not a real chess move, just like the double fianchetto opening (which my friend always plays with people who don't really know the rules, consisting on moving both you b and g pawn to b3 and g3 in one move)
Very nice video! I'm really enjoying these videos!❤️ I have a small correction though, there is a penalty for an incorrect 3 fold repetition, usually the arbiter adds time to the opponent.
Actually you CAN change the target position of your piece from one target tile to another as long as you DID NOT RELEASE the grab of the piece. Also, I've seen arbiters accepting adjusting touch as ok even without announcement if it's obvious that it was just adjusting, e.g. if the piece was obviously crossing two or more tiles so it wasn't clear where it is or the knight was not facing forward and the tough was not a full grabbing+holding+picking kind of touch. These things can be distracting in deep concentration.
Out of "Il vaticano" and the loss of the match for illegal move all rules stated in this video actually exist, however the loss of a match because of the illegal move is not directly stated in the FIDE laws of chess and will be treated as any other illegal move. Il vaticano doesn't exist at all
Agree. I have been a tournament player for years now and know nothing of this il vaticano . Also stuff that these people are talking about "dei dea cavalli" and people are talking about a "third type of castling" and stuff where you promote a pawn to the e file and have a rook there plus castling VERTICALLY I believe none of it
You contradicted yourself. In your first sentence you say both il vaticano and the loss by illegal move rules exist and then you say il vaticano doesn't exist at all.
I started to invent my own chess variant and so far the only rule change i had was no switching sides between games but you gave me so much inspiration for rules to add to my version of chess weather it’s tournament exclusive or general rules for all basic versions
You forgot to mention that it’s allowed to say “adjust” “compongo” or any language reference to adjust a piece so it’s not considered touched before moving
I was told the French term "j'adoube" but I believe any notification "I'm just straightening the pieces" etc must be acceptable. The idea is to avoid a person recanting a move. Obviously you could argue that straightening pieces on the back row (except for the knight) would be allowed when no legal move was possible. And most players straighten the pieces at the start of the game before the clock starts.
To add to your list: a player cannot "pass" their move. They are required to move even if all of their available moves are disadvantageous. aka the player that wants to pass is "in zugzwang" Also, a lot of amateur players aren't aware that you can "under-promote" a pawn instead of changing it for a queen at the end of the board. This is useful in niche cases such as when getting a queen would create an immediate stalemate, or when a knight could be used to deliver an immediate checkmate or king/queen fork to rescue a position. (and you can't leave it as a pawn or make yourself a second king) Adding a little history - the pawns didn't used to be able to move 2 squares on their first move. when that rule was added (to speed up the games), en passant was added along with it, to prevent players from abusing it to get around their opponent's pawns. Another rule (tradition?) that I think belongs here is one player holds a piece (king usually?) of each color in closed hands and the opponent picks a hand. that hand is opened, revealing the color that the picker gets to play Of course in tournaments, they take turns, but this is how who gets white and gets to go first is traditionally determined. Thanks for the video - I did learn a few new things. Namely, that the triple-repetition draw need not be sequential, that the 50 move rep can be declined, and I didn't know the 75 rep rule existed.
we should have more meme moves, like my example, Belagarung der letzten rang (using online translators so it might not be accurate) siege on the last rank. where if a black rook is on the 2nd rank, or a white rook is on the 7th rank and for black another black piece is on the same file but 3rd rank and white same file but 6th rank, the 3rd/6th rank piece can catapult over its respective rook, but as soon as that's done the rook is turned upside down to note that it has been jumped over.
"A piece on its sixth rank, one square vertically behind a rook of the same color, may leap two squares vertically forward. On the same move, the rook that was leaped over is turned upside-down." Does turning the rook upside-down have any effect on it?
it was a hoax made up on reddit. there's an entire "know your meme" page on it. stuff like this is a good reminder to fact check things. I believed it at first too
@@mirrortarget5729 I was kidding :) Thanks though. Appreciate you telling me if I didn't know. If you watch till the end of the video, he comes clean right away about it being a meme/joke.
Corrections/errata: Castling: 1) you also can’t castle into check, either. 2) you must move the king first. Talking: 1) You can also call checkmate, since it is - by definition - a check, which you can call. I don’t know if there’s a penalty for calling checkmate if it’s not really checkmate. 2) You can say, “I adjust” (or the French equivalent) on your move. This indicates that you’re just repositioning the pieces closer to the center of the square they’re on, not that you’re moving that piece, thus, the “you touch it, you move it” rule doesn’t apply. 😊
If you illegally call a win, you lose. This is common in sports, where if you score a point after being called a foul, your opponent gets the point. Also, your opponent will take offense as you fouled, as if your opponent scored normally, you would get offense and your opponent will have to defend.
The condition that a king cannot castle into check is redundant if we already take it for granted that the king cannot move into check under any circumstances. If the intent of this video was to fill in the gaps in the knowledge of some chess players, then that seems like a reasonable thing to leave implicit.
@@isavenewspapers8890 Well, if you made an illegal move to checkmate someone (toppling one's king on purpose and saying, "Checkmate! I win!"), you will lose due to the illegal win.
@@AlbertTheGamer-gk7sn An illegal move in itself does not result in the loss of a game; the first infraction results in your opponent getting extra time, and the second infraction is what loses the game. You are probably correct about the specific scenario you described, though, since that would constitute spectacularly poor sportsmanship.
3:16 I never heard about chess having turns, do you maybe mean moves? I.e. if white played, for example, 16.d4, then black can play 16...exd3, as it's the same "move"/turn, but it's illegal for White to play 20.gxh6 after 19...h5, as it's the different turn/move? It's really confusing, as I play chess for over 25 years and I never heard anyone speaking in terms of "turns". Can you explain what the "turn" in chess is? Thanks! 🙂
Your explanation of 3-fold repetition is wrong. I must be the same position with the same available moves (castling, en-passent). What do you think, ist he difference between an illegal move and a wrong move?
Anyone know if you can resign if you have king and pawn vs king (where you have the extra pawn) in a theoretical draw to force a draw if your opponent refuses to accept rather that letting your clock run out or playing to stalemate
If it's a theoretical draw and you want to force a draw, march the pawn alone up the board. The second the opponent takes it then it's an actual, verifiable draw. If they don't take it then enjoy your K+Q vs K easy checkmate / stalemate. Running out of time was within your control, don't run out of time. Sorry but you also need to play slightly more quickly to avoid time issues. If you resign, you lose. That's the definition of resign.
Lol, I was going to lose it at “IL Vaticano.” Seriously though you actually did a good job explaining touch move, and how announcing adjust or j’adoube excuses it
So, lighter color pieces move first, but what if you have a set with bright blue and neon orange pieces of the exact same brightness? What happens then?
The 50 and 72 rule should be changed as in our time there positions that need more than 50 or 72 moves to win, example with 2 knights and some pawns as it forces mate, with our days computers the machine should tell what the number or moves needed so why they don’t change it if I not mistaken it needed 82 as seen in some games, yea it not happen often but it should be this rule.
Fun fact: there was a time when FIDE would make exceptions to the fifty-move rule for certain endgames that took a long time to win. Eventually, they accumulated too many exceptions for their liking, so they declared, "You know what? If you end up having to deal with one of these endgames, it's your own fault." And that was the end of that.
There are also much longer examples, over 200 moves, and we don't know the limit. For enjoyment reason we don't want people to be able to drag a drawn endgame on for that long and without allowing players to check table bases a line must be drawn somewhere. It is rare that these situations happen, but we can't make them impossible without drastically changing the game.
#10 is misleading. The King cannot pass through check is stated correctly, but then incorrectly adds "on any file between the King and Rook", but those squares nearest the Rook do not count.
you probably missed that at 7:00 white has no king, my message covered both your fact and this fact. this is u dont blame stockfish when you didnt even notice that.
@@dantedelodenna, The king just went 300 miles away from the board, chilling with bishop.. YOU probably missed that at 7:00 and reasons like this is why stockfish can said to be blind
We always wondered: WHAT IF you promote a pawn on the e file for a rook, and your king hasn't moved; can you castle with that vertically or does the rule state that it HAS to be horizontally with one of the original rooks?
@@AlcyonEldara That it was changed in 1972 is a myth. The original FIDE Laws from 1930 explicitly stated that castling must be done with a king and a rook on the same rank.
@@lukepopple Lol an unmoved king cannot be on the same rank as any piece that's been newly promoted. Promotions occur on the 8th rank and the unmoved king is on the first rank.
There is an exception to this rule. The king may have moved if the promotion takes place on the 7th rank instead of the 8th rank. But castling has to take place immediately. It’s part of the same move. The notation is 0-0-7 or 0-0-0-7. So, e.g. the white king has to be on e7 and either the a or h pawn promotes to a rook and there are no pieces between both nor attacks on the squares between the king’s initial and end position, including these both (like on the first rank). It‘s called the Chinese Fast Promotion Castling. It was first officially played in 1987 between Karpov and Kasparov in Peking. Hence the name.
Just for completness: There are three types of casteling. The short casteling to the king side rook, long casteling to the queen side rook and an extra long casteling to a rook on the e file. For the last mentioned option a pawn has to be promoted on the e file to a rook and must not be moved as well as the king. If there is no check and the square in front of the king is not under the opponent's controle, all conditions for this extra long casteling move are obsereved. For white the king moves to e3 and the rook to e2.
@@miniepicnessIt was absolutely legal move. It was "discovered" in 1972 and eventually the official check rules were changed to disallow it. It's called Pam-Krabbé casting.
rule 10: correction, you can't castle if one of the square where the king go is controled by the opponent piece. it is more clear if castle on the Queen side, the king move two squares, only if on of the two squares is controled, then you can't castle. if it is the square next to the rook that is controled by the opponent, then you can castle.
No correction needed: what you are referring to is called "castling through check" and he certainly did mention it. It's called that because if the king moved fewer squares it would have ended up in check.
@@trueriver1950 maybe I wasn’t clear enough. If b1 is controled by the opponent you can still castle queen side. With what he said, you can’t. My pleasure to clarify what I tried to explained
8:00 That is not a rule. In a standard game, the position prior to the illegal move would be reinstated and the opponent would be penalized, the fact that you made a move is irrelevant. In a rapid or a blitz game, you have forfeited your right to claim the opponent's illegal move, but as long as the move itself was legal, you will not be punished and the game will continue, unless both players agree to correct the move without any intervention of the arbiter. I have no idea how the arbiter was thinking in the Carlsen-Inarkiev incident and the chief arbiter of course overturned the decision as it was based on a nonexistent rule. Also, intentionaly making a move to gain an unfair advantage would probably get you forfeited for bringing the game of chess into disrepute.
I guess when you're a chess arbiter at a GM tournament, you generally don't get a lot of questions like "how does the horsey move again?" so the junior arbiter are inclined just to believe the players.
Very good video. One important thing that you missed is that the 3 fold repetition is not just visual position. It has to be EXACTLY the same. For example, if I moved a tower from its starting point and then back to its place, then you can say it is the same visual position than before. BUT! Before that move, I was able to castle and now I can't, so it doesn't count as the same position and it can not be counted for the 3 fold repetition. This also aplies, for example, if the same visual position is repeated but the player's turn is different. You can not count thay as a repetition because it isn't the same game position, even if it is the same visually.
In my opinion, I think that the rules should be like an on and off switch, where both players decide if they want a certain rule or not eg, the touch rule
I love how 3:20 and 3:23 are both Hikaru but one says when you play it on new chess players and he’s rubbing his hands and the next one says the look and their faces and again he’s looking confused after apparently just playing it himself 😂😂😂
You should be precise about the explanation of rule #10. Castling through check. You had said if they control "any square in between the king and rook". That is true for casting short/king side. However, in a long castle scenario, if your opponent controls the square immediatly to the right of the queen's rook, the king may still castle, since it's not passing through that square. Better to phrase it that If an opponent's piece controls a square that the King would need to pass through or land on, it's not permitted. Cheers.
It is best if you don't say it. If your opponent makes a move that keeps it in check then you win by illegal move (or the opponent have a second chance after a warning from the arbiter)
A few things. 1. You can checkmate by en passant, even a forced one. 2. You can checkmate by your king and 1 knight if your opponent has a pawn. It would be a smothered one in a corner with your king blocking the exit one way and the knight above the pawn. 3. You can checkmate by castling also. It is extremely rare and never has been done in a tournament game. All conditions apply. 4. You can get a smothered checkmate while having only 1 or 2 pieces besides your king and being down by more than 10 or more point material. It is rare and hard. 5. You didn’t mention opposition and the ability to have tempo in pawn and king end games via the opponent king. Otherwise great video. Knew all the rules. 5.
Note that stalemate has nothing to do with the king as such, other than his inability to move into check. Indeed, there are ways to stalemate without the king being able to move even into check.
I don't entirely understand your comment. The basic condition is the player whose turn it is cannot make any legal move, and that includes the king. That seems consistent with what was stated in the video. In what respect does it have nothing to do with the king? If you mean that it does not necessarily involve the king exclusively, he did explain that in the video as well.
@@eclecticexplorer7828 Simply put, the video somewhat implies that a stalemate only applies when the only available option is to move your king into check. Or at least, that is how the person you're responding too seems to have interpreted it. But like you explained, a stalemate applies to any situation where you cannot make a legal move and are not in check. Including situations in which your own pieces prevent the king from moving. Although thinking about it, I cannot think of a single board position in which all your pieces are prevented from moving without the threat of moving into check. Maybe if your king is in the corner on the back rank with a knight next to it, 2 pawns behind it and all available positions for the knight occupied by blocked pawns. But that board position cannot come about by accident.
@@rendomstranger8698: No, it does not imply that at all. The definition given at the start is when "your king is not in check, and you have NO OTHER LEGAL MOVE you can play, whether your king piece OR YOUR OTHER PIECES ON THE BOARD." He then gives an example where black has no other pieces, so it is strictly about the king in that case, but it is explicitly mentioned that he has no other piece he can move. The second example places a black pawn which is also unable to move. There is absolutely nothing in the explanation given that says the rule applies only to the king being unable to move.
@@eclecticexplorer7828 Next time, read the full comment you're responding to before typing a response. You contributed nothing that I didn't already mention in my response to you.
Imagine if each player constantly had one hand hovering over the clock, using their other hand to move the pieces. You'd have to make sure they weren't pressing the clock just before actually finishing their move. This rule exists to prevent that.
When he said in the starting ! Abt the bishop move which he told in the last it is joke 😢 I literally watch the whole video for that 😢😢😢😢😢😢 PEOPLE LIKE ME LIKE! 🤙
The most important rule is missing..... We have seen up there very nice rules + definitions, incl. stalemate. But what is a mate?! My definition is that "this is such a state (position) when the one king is in check and in the same time this check cannot be covered by any pawn or piece of king's color and the king itself has no legal moves (i.e. each potential move - if any - of the king lands on a square where it is under check again). In that situation the player who gave its opponent such a check - wins the game!"...... :) Perhaps it worth to mention another rule too - it says that ALL moves in the game should be done within the provided time interval, i.e. should no reason for finishing the game (there are many such reasons - see the video above) appear, incl. a mate (check-mate) and time of one of opponents runs away - he loses the game by time while the other opponent wins the game by time!!! :) :) :) Of course, the "time rule" varied over years and centuries, but nowadays - it is basically as described in this comment here :) :) :)
another rule is that you cannot capture your own pieces
chatGPT did that a lot of times
Capturing five of your own pawns should promote a bishop into a queen.
@@keaton718 mmm canbalism
"Rule 45: no drawing 6 fingers"
Stockfish : *Capture the king*
They should add a piece called the Prince. You don't start with it, it can only be obtained through promotion. It moves like a king and a knight. If you have a prince you're allowed to leave your king in check. If your king is captured the prince becomes a king.
what is prince
Interesting idea
Nice ❤
@@padmavathy7165prince is king's son
there is already a piece that moves like that. its called the general
9:45 that's actually mate
Ty
yea I think the editor forgot that there was a pawn there 💀
🤓
Why yes it is 😂😂😂
@@fishfreakss the editor should keep playing video games
now explain why the thumbnail move is illegal
It might be a stalemate
@@akhurathprathamravula Nope. Not a stalemate. The king can take any of the knights. It is pure clickbait of the most dishonest kind.
@@rendomstranger8698 correct, and a move that blunders stalemate is bad, but not illegal. Illegal would be pushing a pawn three squares.
because there's 4 knights on the same team, duh
@@robloxarchiverI was just wondering if I was the only one who saw that 😂😂😂
There was a legal move back in the day in which you could promote your own pawn to an opponent's piece
have you seen Capablanca vs the alien? Capablanca explained the alien the promotion rule but forgot to tell that only is allowed to promote into queen, rook, bishop or night. So he had to mate the three kings of the alien simultaneously.
@@GermanZorba Many implementations are the opposite. Where an extra king is adds an extra liability. Actually a synergistic (for your opponent) liability, since a fork, pin, or revealed attack can often lead to mate. This type of mate doesn't exist in regular chess.
I guess that could have been used to prevent stalemates!
Yeah I think that was technically legal because the rules specified that you could promote to any piece besides the king but it never said anything about what color of piece you could promote to
The reason why en passant was created was because originally pawns only were allowed to move one square.. but to speed up games they let pawns move two squares and made it so they can still be taken but only on the next turn... Changed the game a tiny bit because originally you were not forced to capture on the next move if the pawn moved the one space... Should be as long as the en passant can be played it should be allowed...
The point is you can only take the pawn "in passing" to represent the pawn attacking while the other pawn is moving. You cannot take a stationary piece that is directly to the side of your pawn, so why should en passant apply on any turn?
@@batmann6755 The "privilege" of the pawn moving two spaces must not be abused in order to avoid confrontation by an opposing pawn. All pawns have the "right" to capture an opposing pawn, at least for the one turn. Only one turn I suspect to prevent a lot of confusion and arguments later in the game about whether the pawn moved one or two spaces and which square the opposing pawn was on at the time.
You forgot "dea dei cavalli" which is where a pawn freshly promoted to a queen can also move like a knight, but only to check the king and only on the turn which it promotes. It's also known as "il grazioso pony rosa della principessa" or "la bellissima principessa pony rosa."
i love how it translates to goddess of horses
I never heard of or seen it
That’s a thing??? I’ll have to try it some time
Surely you’re trolling
Everyone, please rest assured that this comment is a joke.
abaut 18th rule : originally the peices were even ofter black and red
You said the illegal move rule twice to make the video longer
One thing was forgotten: On promoting a pawn on the first or 8th rank, the exchange to any piece is allowed, except a king or remaining a pawn. You can thus promote your pawn to a piece of your opponent’s colour, theoretically checkmating your own king. It’s called the Japanese kamikaze promotion. It took place for the first time in 1964 between Tal and Fischer in Tokyo. Hence the name.
that rule was changed, just like the vertical castle
@@armitroner thats sad, i dont see how vertical castling is too game breaking and i think giving your opponent a piece is fine as well. It lets me wither go out on my own terms or is an absolute power play
The rule is changed so promoting to an enemy piece is not allowed anymore. But yes this is theoretically useful and you can checkmate the enemy king with it. If you promote that pawn into an enemy piece which obscured its own king it can be a checkmate to the enemy.
1:26 Wesley forgot the rules
7:50 Magnus crushes the opponents defense
"draw by insufficient material" can actually means 2 different things.
USA: if you cannot force a checkmate.
Rest of the World: if a checkmate is impossible.
The only difference is King + 2 knights vs King. You cannot force a checkmate, but there exists checkmate positions.
It's not the only difference. If you would lose on time but your opponent has not enough material left to checkmate it's also draw by insufficient material. If he has only one bishop or one knight it's draw in the usa but not in the rest of the world if you have material left. It's possible to checkmate e.g. with a knight against a rook (your king on a1 and rook on a2 vs king on c1 and knight on b3) so he would win if you have no time left.
surely not all positions where you cannot force are win are automatic draws in the USA. There a plenty of positions that are drawn according to a table base, but should be played out by players. It is only a few extra table base draws that need to be added, like the two knights.
How can chess ( a world game ) have different rules in the usa ? Surely the rules should be the same no matter where you play?
@davidmellish3295 There are in every sport national rules. In football I think the field size isn't exactly the same in every rulebook.
In this case it's FIDE rules 6.9 "if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves" In the US 13C.b "The player who properly claims that the opponent has not completed the game in the allotted time, and has mating material, wins the game"
I didn't search for draw by insufficient material, but I think it's the same as when you flag your opponent. In most cases, it's the same, but there're some examples like my comment before where it's not the same.
@@ozelot131 oh OK thanks,I've learned something new today,I'd always assumed there was only one set of rules making the game the same wherever you play.
Il vaticano is not a real chess move, just like the double fianchetto opening (which my friend always plays with people who don't really know the rules, consisting on moving both you b and g pawn to b3 and g3 in one move)
r/woooosh
Its a meme
Very nice video! I'm really enjoying these videos!❤️ I have a small correction though, there is a penalty for an incorrect 3 fold repetition, usually the arbiter adds time to the opponent.
Thank you man 🙏🙏
Actually you CAN change the target position of your piece from one target tile to another as long as you DID NOT RELEASE the grab of the piece. Also, I've seen arbiters accepting adjusting touch as ok even without announcement if it's obvious that it was just adjusting, e.g. if the piece was obviously crossing two or more tiles so it wasn't clear where it is or the knight was not facing forward and the tough was not a full grabbing+holding+picking kind of touch. These things can be distracting in deep concentration.
9:44 is not a draw, but a checkmate
Actually youre right
Stunning video, thank you for the basic tutorial of chess, we loved it
Out of "Il vaticano" and the loss of the match for illegal move all rules stated in this video actually exist, however the loss of a match because of the illegal move is not directly stated in the FIDE laws of chess and will be treated as any other illegal move. Il vaticano doesn't exist at all
Holy hell! What are you on about? "Il vaticano" is a legal move, the bishop should be able to go on vacation.
@@PiecieRoneJones New response just dropped!
Agree. I have been a tournament player for years now and know nothing of this il vaticano . Also stuff that these people are talking about "dei dea cavalli" and people are talking about a "third type of castling" and stuff where you promote a pawn to the e file and have a rook there plus castling VERTICALLY I believe none of it
@@PiecieRoneJones Holy hell! What are you on about? It's not
You contradicted yourself. In your first sentence you say both il vaticano and the loss by illegal move rules exist and then you say il vaticano doesn't exist at all.
Question, is it legal to castle on an under promote rook across the board in opponent castle?
I started to invent my own chess variant and so far the only rule change i had was no switching sides between games but you gave me so much inspiration for rules to add to my version of chess weather it’s tournament exclusive or general rules for all basic versions
You forgot to mention that it’s allowed to say “adjust” “compongo” or any language reference to adjust a piece so it’s not considered touched before moving
I was told the French term "j'adoube" but I believe any notification "I'm just straightening the pieces" etc must be acceptable. The idea is to avoid a person recanting a move. Obviously you could argue that straightening pieces on the back row (except for the knight) would be allowed when no legal move was possible. And most players straighten the pieces at the start of the game before the clock starts.
you had me with the vaticano
How to do the Bishop move special?
To add to your list: a player cannot "pass" their move. They are required to move even if all of their available moves are disadvantageous. aka the player that wants to pass is "in zugzwang"
Also, a lot of amateur players aren't aware that you can "under-promote" a pawn instead of changing it for a queen at the end of the board. This is useful in niche cases such as when getting a queen would create an immediate stalemate, or when a knight could be used to deliver an immediate checkmate or king/queen fork to rescue a position. (and you can't leave it as a pawn or make yourself a second king)
Adding a little history - the pawns didn't used to be able to move 2 squares on their first move. when that rule was added (to speed up the games), en passant was added along with it, to prevent players from abusing it to get around their opponent's pawns.
Another rule (tradition?) that I think belongs here is one player holds a piece (king usually?) of each color in closed hands and the opponent picks a hand. that hand is opened, revealing the color that the picker gets to play Of course in tournaments, they take turns, but this is how who gets white and gets to go first is traditionally determined.
Thanks for the video - I did learn a few new things. Namely, that the triple-repetition draw need not be sequential, that the 50 move rep can be declined, and I didn't know the 75 rep rule existed.
we should have more meme moves, like my example, Belagarung der letzten rang (using online translators so it might not be accurate) siege on the last rank. where if a black rook is on the 2nd rank, or a white rook is on the 7th rank and for black another black piece is on the same file but 3rd rank and white same file but 6th rank, the 3rd/6th rank piece can catapult over its respective rook, but as soon as that's done the rook is turned upside down to note that it has been jumped over.
"A piece on its sixth rank, one square vertically behind a rook of the same color, may leap two squares vertically forward. On the same move, the rook that was leaped over is turned upside-down."
Does turning the rook upside-down have any effect on it?
Does the one hand rule apply when performing El Vaticano ? Sounds difficult to execute.
it was a hoax made up on reddit. there's an entire "know your meme" page on it. stuff like this is a good reminder to fact check things. I believed it at first too
@@mirrortarget5729 I was kidding :) Thanks though. Appreciate you telling me if I didn't know. If you watch till the end of the video, he comes clean right away about it being a meme/joke.
Corrections/errata:
Castling:
1) you also can’t castle into check, either.
2) you must move the king first.
Talking:
1) You can also call checkmate, since it is - by definition - a check, which you can call. I don’t know if there’s a penalty for calling checkmate if it’s not really checkmate.
2) You can say, “I adjust” (or the French equivalent) on your move. This indicates that you’re just repositioning the pieces closer to the center of the square they’re on, not that you’re moving that piece, thus, the “you touch it, you move it” rule doesn’t apply. 😊
If you illegally call a win, you lose. This is common in sports, where if you score a point after being called a foul, your opponent gets the point. Also, your opponent will take offense as you fouled, as if your opponent scored normally, you would get offense and your opponent will have to defend.
The condition that a king cannot castle into check is redundant if we already take it for granted that the king cannot move into check under any circumstances. If the intent of this video was to fill in the gaps in the knowledge of some chess players, then that seems like a reasonable thing to leave implicit.
@@AlbertTheGamer-gk7snI looked into this, and this doesn't actually seem to be true. A false checkmate call seems to incur no penalty at all.
@@isavenewspapers8890 Well, if you made an illegal move to checkmate someone (toppling one's king on purpose and saying, "Checkmate! I win!"), you will lose due to the illegal win.
@@AlbertTheGamer-gk7sn An illegal move in itself does not result in the loss of a game; the first infraction results in your opponent getting extra time, and the second infraction is what loses the game. You are probably correct about the specific scenario you described, though, since that would constitute spectacularly poor sportsmanship.
3:16 I never heard about chess having turns, do you maybe mean moves?
I.e. if white played, for example, 16.d4, then black can play 16...exd3, as it's the same "move"/turn, but it's illegal for White to play 20.gxh6 after 19...h5, as it's the different turn/move?
It's really confusing, as I play chess for over 25 years and I never heard anyone speaking in terms of "turns". Can you explain what the "turn" in chess is? Thanks! 🙂
Turn is move
im a chessplayer by one year and the last one got me laughing
Your explanation of 3-fold repetition is wrong. I must be the same position with the same available moves (castling, en-passent).
What do you think, ist he difference between an illegal move and a wrong move?
Anyone know if you can resign if you have king and pawn vs king (where you have the extra pawn) in a theoretical draw to force a draw if your opponent refuses to accept rather that letting your clock run out or playing to stalemate
If it's a theoretical draw and you want to force a draw, march the pawn alone up the board. The second the opponent takes it then it's an actual, verifiable draw. If they don't take it then enjoy your K+Q vs K easy checkmate / stalemate.
Running out of time was within your control, don't run out of time. Sorry but you also need to play slightly more quickly to avoid time issues.
If you resign, you lose. That's the definition of resign.
Lol, I was going to lose it at “IL Vaticano.” Seriously though you actually did a good job explaining touch move, and how announcing adjust or j’adoube excuses it
It is Fake Lmao Its From The AnarchyChess subreddit
Edit: for those who don't know, AnarchyChess is a place for chess memes.
@@Roronora09 I wonder if someone would actually put chess, but only that move is added as (weird rules)
Id be down for it becoming an official rule, objectively funny imo
I just looked up IL Vaticano and it said it is not a valid rule
So, lighter color pieces move first, but what if you have a set with bright blue and neon orange pieces of the exact same brightness? What happens then?
The player with the king to the right of the queen moves first.
"Nigel, get the light spectrometer..."
The 50 and 72 rule should be changed as in our time there positions that need more than 50 or 72 moves to win, example with 2 knights and some pawns as it forces mate, with our days computers the machine should tell what the number or moves needed so why they don’t change it if I not mistaken it needed 82 as seen in some games, yea it not happen often but it should be this rule.
Fun fact: there was a time when FIDE would make exceptions to the fifty-move rule for certain endgames that took a long time to win. Eventually, they accumulated too many exceptions for their liking, so they declared, "You know what? If you end up having to deal with one of these endgames, it's your own fault." And that was the end of that.
There are also much longer examples, over 200 moves, and we don't know the limit. For enjoyment reason we don't want people to be able to drag a drawn endgame on for that long and without allowing players to check table bases a line must be drawn somewhere. It is rare that these situations happen, but we can't make them impossible without drastically changing the game.
#10 is misleading.
The King cannot pass through check is stated correctly, but then incorrectly adds "on any file between the King and Rook", but those squares nearest the Rook do not count.
Those are the a, b and h files. (ab for long castling, h for short castling) But really only the b file is "between".
Promotion to pieces other than queen is another relatively obscure one.
I tryed paying the last rule on a computer and it diden,t work😂
Man missed Qh1 😢 mate in 1 7:00 and reasons like these is why stockfish makes me get so many misses😂
you probably missed that at 7:00 white has no king, my message covered both your fact and this fact. this is u dont blame stockfish when you didnt even notice that.
@@dantedelodenna, The king just went 300 miles away from the board, chilling with bishop.. YOU probably missed that at 7:00 and reasons like this is why stockfish can said to be blind
I think you mean Qh8.
7:53 That’s a loophole right there.
Is Il Vaticano fake or do you need to take two pawns who already captured via en pessant?
We always wondered: WHAT IF you promote a pawn on the e file for a rook, and your king hasn't moved; can you castle with that vertically or does the rule state that it HAS to be horizontally with one of the original rooks?
Ahah this is the Pam Krabbé castling.
The rule was changed in 1972, the king and rook have to be on the same rank.
@@AlcyonEldara That it was changed in 1972 is a myth. The original FIDE Laws from 1930 explicitly stated that castling must be done with a king and a rook on the same rank.
@@linsqopiring6816 if the king is on the same rank with the newly promoted rook is it possible though
@@lukepopple Lol an unmoved king cannot be on the same rank as any piece that's been newly promoted. Promotions occur on the 8th rank and the unmoved king is on the first rank.
There is an exception to this rule. The king may have moved if the promotion takes place on the 7th rank instead of the 8th rank. But castling has to take place immediately. It’s part of the same move. The notation is 0-0-7 or 0-0-0-7. So, e.g. the white king has to be on e7 and either the a or h pawn promotes to a rook and there are no pieces between both nor attacks on the squares between the king’s initial and end position, including these both (like on the first rank). It‘s called the Chinese Fast Promotion Castling. It was first officially played in 1987 between Karpov and Kasparov in Peking. Hence the name.
Just for completness: There are three types of casteling. The short casteling to the king side rook, long casteling to the queen side rook and an extra long casteling to a rook on the e file. For the last mentioned option a pawn has to be promoted on the e file to a rook and must not be moved as well as the king. If there is no check and the square in front of the king is not under the opponent's controle, all conditions for this extra long casteling move are obsereved. For white the king moves to e3 and the rook to e2.
thats quite an idea but I dont think is normal chess rules
@@miniepicness This is not my idea. It's part of the solution of a chess puzzle. But it strictly observes casteling rules.
@@miniepicnessIt was absolutely legal move. It was "discovered" in 1972 and eventually the official check rules were changed to disallow it. It's called Pam-Krabbé casting.
there´s a rule that prevents the third option
@@lowenburg1989 Can you tell me this rule and where I can find it?
For castling and attacks that are cutting it off.. it’s actually the path the king moves through and not the rook itself
rule 10: correction, you can't castle if one of the square where the king go is controled by the opponent piece.
it is more clear if castle on the Queen side, the king move two squares, only if on of the two squares is controled, then you can't castle. if it is the square next to the rook that is controled by the opponent, then you can castle.
No correction needed: what you are referring to is called "castling through check" and he certainly did mention it.
It's called that because if the king moved fewer squares it would have ended up in check.
@@trueriver1950 maybe I wasn’t clear enough. If b1 is controled by the opponent you can still castle queen side. With what he said, you can’t. My pleasure to clarify what I tried to explained
Imagine if you can mate in 1 opponent but he moved his pawn allowing for il vaticano.
A hard choice if i was honest.
The last move is not a real one.
That's why he said it's not a real move...
woosh
7:30 did the guy in the background just capture a piece on the white square with a queen on a black square????
8:00 That is not a rule. In a standard game, the position prior to the illegal move would be reinstated and the opponent would be penalized, the fact that you made a move is irrelevant. In a rapid or a blitz game, you have forfeited your right to claim the opponent's illegal move, but as long as the move itself was legal, you will not be punished and the game will continue, unless both players agree to correct the move without any intervention of the arbiter. I have no idea how the arbiter was thinking in the Carlsen-Inarkiev incident and the chief arbiter of course overturned the decision as it was based on a nonexistent rule. Also, intentionaly making a move to gain an unfair advantage would probably get you forfeited for bringing the game of chess into disrepute.
I guess when you're a chess arbiter at a GM tournament, you generally don't get a lot of questions like "how does the horsey move again?" so the junior arbiter are inclined just to believe the players.
Very good video. One important thing that you missed is that the 3 fold repetition is not just visual position. It has to be EXACTLY the same. For example, if I moved a tower from its starting point and then back to its place, then you can say it is the same visual position than before. BUT! Before that move, I was able to castle and now I can't, so it doesn't count as the same position and it can not be counted for the 3 fold repetition. This also aplies, for example, if the same visual position is repeated but the player's turn is different. You can not count thay as a repetition because it isn't the same game position, even if it is the same visually.
In my opinion, I think that the rules should be like an on and off switch, where both players decide if they want a certain rule or not eg, the touch rule
The IL VATICANO is probably a meme for sure otherwise why can' we play it on the analysis board
It is Il vaticano is a fake chess move invented by the AnarchyChess subreddit
Edit: for those who don't know, AnarchyChess is a place for chess memes.
@@Roronora09 Thanks for telling
i once had a 52 point advantage and tried to get a position for memes, and it caused a draw by 50 move rule on move 152 lol
I have never heard about several of these rules.
are you sure you didn't make them up?
haha, no, look them up
I love how 3:20 and 3:23 are both Hikaru but one says when you play it on new chess players and he’s rubbing his hands and the next one says the look and their faces and again he’s looking confused after apparently just playing it himself 😂😂😂
You should be precise about the explanation of rule #10. Castling through check.
You had said if they control "any square in between the king and rook". That is true for casting short/king side. However, in a long castle scenario, if your opponent controls the square immediatly to the right of the queen's rook, the king may still castle, since it's not passing through that square.
Better to phrase it that If an opponent's piece controls a square that the King would need to pass through or land on, it's not permitted.
Cheers.
I had no clue what il vaticano was
Thanks
Don’t try it for real. Not a real move.
Genuinely thought il Vaticano was a real move for a second til I looked it up
you forgot the draw rule “timeout vs insufficient material”
ahhh, let me look into it, what is the rule about?
9:45 this is not a draw...
Well done. The only reason I watched this entire video was to hear about a rule that isn't actually a rule.
in thailand first rule is really fun because most thai peoples don't know about this and rate every chess game 1star
The stock footage at 6 made an illegale move, queen from a black square diagonaly to a white square
Do we have to say check loudly when giving a check
You don't have to say it at all, it's optional and even frowned upon.
It is best if you don't say it. If your opponent makes a move that keeps it in check then you win by illegal move (or the opponent have a second chance after a warning from the arbiter)
Petition to make a B-O-O-B move legal cause it looks fun
7:30 stock footage capture looks very wrong to me. x)
5:02 I don't do either, I grab the king, use it to slide the rook to it's place, then set my king in it's place
I know all of them except il vaticano
My friend knew en passant existed but didnt know what it was so when i did it to him he was like
OOOOOOOOOOOOOH THATS WHAT IT IS
my favorite move. #1 "IL VATICANO"! LOL
Is vaticano a meme or next one?????
De todos os 20, eu só não conhecia o 5, o 2 e o 1.
A few things.
1. You can checkmate by en passant, even a forced one.
2. You can checkmate by your king and 1 knight if your opponent has a pawn. It would be a smothered one in a corner with your king blocking the exit one way and the knight above the pawn.
3. You can checkmate by castling also. It is extremely rare and never has been done in a tournament game. All conditions apply.
4. You can get a smothered checkmate while having only 1 or 2 pieces besides your king and being down by more than 10 or more point material. It is rare and hard.
5. You didn’t mention opposition and the ability to have tempo in pawn and king end games via the opponent king.
Otherwise great video. Knew all the rules.
5.
Ahhh. Thank you for the info. Honestly didn’t know a couple of them
@@rookmoves My dad played chess in high school and with his brothers. I follow a few chess channels like Chess Vibes here on YT.
Note that stalemate has nothing to do with the king as such, other than his inability to move into check. Indeed, there are ways to stalemate without the king being able to move even into check.
I don't entirely understand your comment. The basic condition is the player whose turn it is cannot make any legal move, and that includes the king. That seems consistent with what was stated in the video. In what respect does it have nothing to do with the king? If you mean that it does not necessarily involve the king exclusively, he did explain that in the video as well.
@@eclecticexplorer7828 Simply put, the video somewhat implies that a stalemate only applies when the only available option is to move your king into check. Or at least, that is how the person you're responding too seems to have interpreted it. But like you explained, a stalemate applies to any situation where you cannot make a legal move and are not in check. Including situations in which your own pieces prevent the king from moving.
Although thinking about it, I cannot think of a single board position in which all your pieces are prevented from moving without the threat of moving into check. Maybe if your king is in the corner on the back rank with a knight next to it, 2 pawns behind it and all available positions for the knight occupied by blocked pawns. But that board position cannot come about by accident.
@@rendomstranger8698: No, it does not imply that at all. The definition given at the start is when "your king is not in check, and you have NO OTHER LEGAL MOVE you can play, whether your king piece OR YOUR OTHER PIECES ON THE BOARD." He then gives an example where black has no other pieces, so it is strictly about the king in that case, but it is explicitly mentioned that he has no other piece he can move. The second example places a black pawn which is also unable to move. There is absolutely nothing in the explanation given that says the rule applies only to the king being unable to move.
@@eclecticexplorer7828 Next time, read the full comment you're responding to before typing a response. You contributed nothing that I didn't already mention in my response to you.
@@rendomstranger8698 : I read the full comment, and I explained why I disagreed with your conclusion. No need to be rude about it.
Number one was new to me
The double hand move I's stupid like what is it even going to achieve doesn't mattter much either
Imagine if each player constantly had one hand hovering over the clock, using their other hand to move the pieces. You'd have to make sure they weren't pressing the clock just before actually finishing their move.
This rule exists to prevent that.
Gives a slight time advantage
Actions must be performed in a defined order, not simultaneously.
Vertical castling though,
number 6 for me castle then king makes more sense for me bocouse castle can move 2 spaces lagally king not (in any other moves)
"Talking on the board" ... yeah, tell that to the chess pigeons in the park
As I'm sure some have pointed out that example you put as draw by insufficient material was a checkmate...major fail
3:03 white is winning jf he plays Ke2 but we all know en passent is forced
Only idiot thinks en passant is forced.
Funny joke, I was already typing! Well done, you got me!
Now i know how to preform B-O-O-B, Thanks!
Youre welcome!
You forgot the crossaint move where you can promote a horse to a queen and the queen can teleport
Very nice move
El vaticano is new to me
2:00
I've never heard that!
Someone claimed it is a draw if only the king can be moved after fifteen moves. True or false? TY
False
@@fatih3806 ok ty much :)
Number 10,you put a king shadow instead of a queen
All the years I played chess I didn't know that one about the two bishops and the two pawns
It's fake.
0:22 why is this stalemate?
Cool
Thanks i have a chess tournament
10:42 that bishop on the left looks very sus
5:48 "queen"
*proceeds to show a king*
When he said in the starting ! Abt the bishop move which he told in the last it is joke 😢 I literally watch the whole video for that 😢😢😢😢😢😢 PEOPLE LIKE ME LIKE!
🤙
Il vaticano is the only rule i didnt kniw
The most important rule is missing..... We have seen up there very nice rules + definitions, incl. stalemate. But what is a mate?! My definition is that "this is such a state (position) when the one king is in check and in the same time this check cannot be covered by any pawn or piece of king's color and the king itself has no legal moves (i.e. each potential move - if any - of the king lands on a square where it is under check again). In that situation the player who gave its opponent such a check - wins the game!"...... :) Perhaps it worth to mention another rule too - it says that ALL moves in the game should be done within the provided time interval, i.e. should no reason for finishing the game (there are many such reasons - see the video above) appear, incl. a mate (check-mate) and time of one of opponents runs away - he loses the game by time while the other opponent wins the game by time!!! :) :) :) Of course, the "time rule" varied over years and centuries, but nowadays - it is basically as described in this comment here :) :) :)
#19 @1:16 neither king is in check, they are both one move off being in check
Oops! You made a slight mistake, or just said the rule not precisely. In queen-side castling the rook may pass through a square held by the opponent.
You can slap your opponent if he slaps you first.. but no harder than he slaps you