Weird Chess Rules You Probably Didn't Know About
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2024
- Odd Chess Rules You Didn't Know Existed!
Make sure you subscribe for mittens!
I make chess videos like this one, how magnus carlsen beat bill gates, levy rozman and more weekly so subscribe! - Розваги
Magnus lost due to that? I thought a more senior judge overruled the decision that Magnus lost and said he won
Yes, there was actually a second judge who declared Magnus the winner and overruled the first one. Absolute chad.
@@hemidactylusfrenatus173 He was a senior arbiter not judge!
@@_The_Roooook_ Well, he judged someone. ☺️
@@hemidactylusfrenatus173 ya know what, that’s a good point
@@hemidactylusfrenatus173 Well, if that's the case then most of us are judge beacuse we keep judging people 😂
In USCF accidental touches don’t count. Only touches “with intent to move” require you to move the piece
I wish that applied for me too
That’s what it should’ve been
Even in FIDE a clear accident can be excused. Rule 4.2.2 “Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.”
@@CleoGlory nah 💀💀
thats the correct way in my eyes
These are generally well known rules, let me tell you something few people know:
In the past the castle rule was something like "if the king has never moved, nor one of your rooks and the king is not in check, you can move the king two steps toward the rook (given that the king does not put itself in check during this move) and put the rook on the other side of the king".
In a chess puzzle a player has to promote his king's pawn to a rook and then castle with that rook!
At the time it was a perfectly legal move!
The rules changed after this event to have only the two kind of castles we know today.
(I thought it was in a tournament but it's interesting anyway)
One youtuber said that it never was that way, and person claiming that made it up.
I am not sure, but most likely it was video of Levi from Gothamchess.
@@a_few_species Levy*
This is misinformation and was. Never true
Yeee
It was never actually played. It was the trick solution to a chess puzzle, and the rules got changed before anyone could actually try it.
3:00 how did the bishop move there 😂
Skill issue
Magic
Plot twist:
The board is black on the bottom instead of white; and it isn’t a stalemate, because the pawns can move
Might be chess 960
@@Musement1hz9oj how would white pawn appeared to be in front of the black pawn then?
3:02 Don't tell that bishop can teleport there 😂
It was probably chess 960
Don’t think that position is possible.
@@matthewstupecki9374 that position is possible if Black is moving up the board, but it wouldn't be stalemate. It must've been Chess960.
No, it's possible. White promoted a pawn to a black bishop, of course.
@@JivviCouldn’t it just be a custom position?
En Passant isn't confusing if you know why the move exists.
It came shortly after the rule that pawns can move forward 2 on turn one. This rule was added to speed up the game.
However, when they made it, they didn't want it to affect board states, just speed up the game. The way to achieve that was to allow pawns to capture as if the pawn had only moved once.
And thats why you can only En Passant if the pawn had just moved the previous turn.
In short, knowing the intention makes it easier to remember how En Passant works.
Although, that may imply any piece could capture the pawn as if it moved 1 space.
@@Mathhead2000 oh… huh
That never occurred to me
@@Mathhead2000 I guess it would've been too confusing to apply it on every pieces than just pawn to pawn interaction. Also other pieces can catch a pawn who ran two squares past it. A pawn cannot as it can't move backward, so that could also be a reason.
Attempt to speed up the game with the Bishop and Queens going mad, the pawns double move, and casting, all added kludge to Chess.
@@samuellinn But for example if the pawn moving 2 steps passes through a square controlled by a bishop, then that bishop can't capture the pawn, so the "en passant" should apply.
We should take this to the FIDE and see what they say ^^'
Carlsen didn't lose, though his opponent claimed a win. Also, accidentally touching a piece is not always enough to force you to move that piece. It's up to the opponent and then the arbiter to decide, based on how it happened. You also should have mentioned the threefold repetition rule, which can be very confusing because it's based on the actual positions repeating, and not the moves themselves. Castling has another quirk, the king cannot be in chess, pass a square under attack or end in chess, but the rook can. World champion Anatoly Karpov once asked an arbiter if he was allowed to castle because his rook was attacked. He was told "of course" and then did.
Nice additions, the only thing is you said "chess" instead of "check", which took me a minute to figure out lol
the king cannot be in chess
lmao
@@mitchratka3661 I wrote it fast. In Norwegian it's the same spelling for both.
In hungarian, we use the word "sakk" for both, chess, and check. Maybe its called the same, in his language too :D
@@imredorogi3409 in my language (German) 2! Just Schach 😂
About En Passant: the intent is to ensure that if two opposing pawns are on adjacent files, they cannot pass eachother without an opportunity for the opponent to take except by moving away. Previously, people would wait until the opponent had gotten to the fourth rank to move their pawn two steps, "jumping" over the square the pawn controls on that file and passing without risk of getting taken. En Passant was created to nullify this strategy.
That's only valid in competitive chess. In casual chess, we allow infinites takebacks, unlimited time, and the right to blame ping in an offline match for our loss.
The thing is that there are rules. U can make other rules, then it's still chess, but different chess... Like a "variant" but not so special rules😂
infinite tackbacks is icky
I prefer semi-casual over the board.
Aka: No takebacks, and there is a timer. But there are no touch move rules: simply, the position you leave when you press the chess clock is the move you made.
In a tournament my opponents sleeve touched his king as he was about to move his knight and the king fell over. He was horrified and I said it was okay, he could move the knight. Luckily I went on to win.
That was very sportsmanlike of you. There is no way I would force my opponent to move a piece he accidentally touched if it weren’t an obvious attempt at cheating.
As far as I know, touchmove applies when your fingertips touch the piece, not anything else
@@claudiusmax1 this wasn't a touchmove example, this is a part of the fact that if you knock your king over, it is taken as a sign of resignation.
@@comm_gtthis is flat out not true. USCF rules state that the touch has to be intent to move. FIDE Laws of Chess states that clearly accidental contact is to be excused. If I knock my king over by brushing it with my sleeve, I will say “adjust”, return the king to an upright position, and make any legal move.
@@kenconnelly773 oh ok.
To add a little: the touch rule also applies to your opponent's pieces. If you touched your opponent's piece and can capture it with any your piece you should do it.
Nd it is still in force
In olympiad usa lost due to it
@@shobhanbhattacharya506 maybe it was just autocorrect, but "in force" should be "enforced", in case you didn't know
@@Rostam. No. He's saying that the move is forced. Enforce is a verb and wouldnt make sense in his sentence anyway, "it is still enforce"? Makes zero sense. He's saying that the player who touches the piece is forced to capture. Next time just stfu please.
@@Rostam. "In case you didn't know"
@@Ken-gs6ie No, he’s saying the rule is still enforced. Instead of asking others to quiet down, you should think first, and then speak… Ever heard of this?
One rule that is really rare is the "theoretically possible mate"
If your time runs out while you have a king and a queen while the opponent has only a king, it's a draw by "timeout vs insufficient material"
HOWEVER
There are some cases where insufficient material is enough to mate after a series of terrible moves by the opponent
In that case, the one without time actually loses, it's not a draw
ua-cam.com/users/shortsroyLnF03Dd4?feature=share this is an example of that, btw
If insufficient material is "enough to theoretically mate after a series of terrible moves by the opponent," then it's not insufficient material. E.g. 2 knights vs bare king
@@dmytrotsvyntarnyi799 exactly!! That's the reason why it's not a draw
Another example is endgame king+bishop vs king+bishop (opposite colored bishops).
@@isaacpianos5208 Yeah but ... This is just normal. Your sentence was very confusing because you start it by "insufficient material" when nobody should call it like that
Actually some positions exist where you have more than just a king, but you are still not able to checkmate (but your opponent may checkmate you). But it requires some weird stuff like having 2 bishops of the same color, and your king jailed behind your pawns and your bishops
Btw, you have to stop the clock timer with the same time you move the pieces. Yes that is a rule.
That makes sense because you might touch your clock before you are even finished moving
Yeahh that is also a rule
*hand
@@rookmovesFor some reason, you cannot touch the timer with a pawn/piece
@@lostingames3OOO you can, as long as you're holding it in the same hand. It's very common for players to capture an opponents piece, and then use that piece to press the clock before putting it down.
1:07 You need the intention to move the piece, so no. There is even an opening checkmate where one of the steps is to ask your opponent to look at the fabric on the bottom of his king. When he picks it up to look at the bottom, you tell him that now, he has to move his king. However, he didn't have the intention to move the king, and you might get into trouble with the judge if you try to pull that one off.
A lot of people suspect that Ernesto actually played dirty to claim the win against Magnus.
The backing for this idea is that most people won't just miss a rook check like that because the king is right next to the rook, so Ernesto decided to play dirty and ignore the check, hoping to confuse Magnus into playing an illegal move himself, to which Ernesto called out, and the person overseeing the match ruled in favor or Ernesto because magnus's illegal move was the one called out.
Magnus still got the win though. An arbiter gave Ernesto the choice to restart the game from the last legal position or forfeit, but he chose to file an appeal instead. Long story short, Magnus won by default. There's actually another comment thread here that explains the situation better than I do, and I think it's one of the top one.
The last situation is impossible. The pawn on g7 has never moved an there is no legal way the bishop got stuck behind it.
chess 960 maybe
3:03 the problem is that the position is impossible to reach in a normal game
Not many people know about the 75 move rule nor 5 move repetition which both result in an immediate draw
Wait how was that last board even possible? There’s no way the black bishop could have gotten into that corner with the pawn in the way, and the pawn had to have always been there because they can’t move backwards.
"En passant" in french basically means "while on the way", so it's like the attacking pawn intercepts the opposite side's pawn as he is traveling the two squares
your one of my favourite UA-camr's! thanks for all the good content!
The worst thing to happen in chess: stalemate
😂😂
Salvaging a stalemate out of a seemingly lost position can be a brilliancy, though.
I always teach the 'En Passant' rule by saying, "If you move your pawn two squares past an opponent's pawn to avoid being captured by that pawn -- it won't work. You can still be captured."
3:02 how the hell is that bishop there
2:55 I have 2 questions:
1. How is bishop occured on h8?
2. Why white not took the king?
1: THE bishop was most likely there for an example, also showing that black cannot move anything
2: I assume you mean when magnus lost to it, that was because he missed it. if it was the last part where the king is trapped, the queen cannot move to the square that the king is on
maybe chess 960
@@dxrkthunder he is saying in the example position for stalemate, it is somehow White's move despite the black king being in check, so the white queen could technically just take the king
@@mitchratka3661 actually no, cause taking a king is an illegal move!😂
@@Ludwig-MariaAKern-yz2vs so is having that position, that's the whole point
"En passant" is much easier to explain like that : if a pawn moved for two squares on the preceding move, you can take it as if it moved for only one square.
You make me confuse more than him
@@Wutheheooooo hahaha oops
i taught my mom to play chess about five months ago and she is still in denial that en passant is a real and legal move😂
some rules many actual players don't know.
3 fold repetition and 50 moves with no moved pawns or captured are not automatic draws, they need to be claimed.
But theres also a 5 move rule, and a 75 move rule.
At 5 repetitions it is automatically a draw, even if neither party claims it. And at 75 moves with no pawn moves or captures, it is an automatic draw.
This video mentions Magnus, but it doesn't mention the "Magnus Rule".
The Magnus Rule is, when you play magnus, you lose.
I needed a moment to figure out how that last position was even possible lol
blacks bishop swapped with the rook, obviously
@@Qaptyl and they are playing the old "take the king" rules but white decided not to
@@mitchratka3661 after all, everyone deserves a second chance
Simplest explanation for en passant:
If you moved your pawn one square, and it could be taken by your opponents pawn, it can still be taken if you move it two squares.
3:02 How did that dark bishop get there?🤔
Thank you for the upload. The last diagram with a king is stalemated, you have found an impossible position :) How did the bishop get to h8?
In The first one the first arbiter was soooo stupid but then finally magnus won
I mean the opponent meant 'I cheated and magnus didn't see so I should win' literally makes no sense and that is why magnus was declared winner afterwards
You forgot the one about a pinned piece still being able to cause check/checkmate even though it can't move. I had to look that one up once.
In the tournaments I played you had to record every move unless you have less than 5 minutes left. I recall a king rook vs king rook endgame where my opponent had 21 seconds on the clock, he offered a draw and I accepted, partly out of respect but mostly because I didn't want to record up to 50 moves trying to flag him.
i saw your video about how levy rozman help popularize chess recently and hoped you would upload more videos, i just foumd you channel and watched some videos and wemt to subscribe, only to realise im already subbed. keep up the great content.
1:59
Useful to add that the two-squares-move for the first move of a pawn is there simply to accelerate start of play in a game but that it may not be used to avoid capture…
Not gonna lie, I feel a bit disappointed that there's nothing in this video about the legality of surrounding a king with four bishops that are all on the same colour squares, as advertised in the thumbnail.
there is also another rule, you can actually move 2 pawns at the same time but only 1 square and it has been taught by bobby fisher hope it helps the knowledge
That's not another rule, that's another variation of chess, not standard chess.
The white queen just un-checked the king💀
Also interesting to note that if your phone rings during a tournament game, you instantly lose! I believe it's in place to prevent people from cheating by signaling with phone calls et cetera. Ruslan Ponomariov (World Champion from 2002-2004) became the first high-profile player to forfeit a game because of his mobile phone ringing during play. This happened in round one of the European Team Chess Championship in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, when Ponomariov was playing Black against Swedish GM Evgenij Agrest.
1:20 if you touch the rook, then can’t you just castle in reverse order by putting the rook in its castling position and then hop the king over
No, that's an illegal move.
Castling is considered a king move. If you touch the rook first, you must move the rook, and castling is not possible. If you touch the king first, then you can choose to castle (if possible) or make some other move with the king.
I still remember being able to so the En Passant move while playing against the computer on Windows 7, and was unable to figure out why it was happening or how it worked... until I saw this video. Haven't played chess in years, but I might just go back to it after seeing this.
I like Morphy’s rules - enjoy chess and quit while you’re ahead - and never give up your day job: it interacts with many more types of people and ranges of life!
The more senior ref said magnus won
I’m confused on stalemate cause you already have the queen checking the king then you moved the queen to slatemate I don’t think that’s possible
The queen shouldnt be checking the king in that position, its a mistake, but the second position is the stalemate, the king has no legal move to play, and all his other pieces are blocked, so its stalemate
2:55 what the black king moved into check 💀💀
In the example at 2:55, How did the bishop get into the top right corner?
because the pawn would be blocking it from getting there
Maybe it's chess 960?
@@tacosatism yeah, or its just an example position
Magic!
It’s the French bishop 💀
3:04 I’ve been looking at this position for over 4 minutes now HOW TF DID THAT BLACK BISHOP END UP ON G8???????
Nice video I think you forgot about Il Vaticano, La Bastarda and Bounce Bros
The pawns just become Samurai and unsheath their katanas💀
3:03 how in the absolute hell did that bishop manage to mess up that badly
That's a pawn promoted to a bishop
@@dawidwojacki5049 it would have been promoted on white's back rank. How would it get in to the corner of his own back rank with the knight's pawn unmoved?
Stalemate is literally one of 3 main ways to end a game (as you rarely see the other forms of draw) literally none of these rules were that odd
0:47 number 2 named number 1 lol (btw good content)
If the opponent ignores a check and makes a different move you should be able to manually take the king
In blitz chess that was a thing for a long time.
Now the illegal move gets a time penalty
3:02 The bishop: "New achievement unlocked: How did we get here"
You must only move a piece if you touched it with the intent of moving it. If the touch was obviously accident or the piece was touched with the intent of adjusting then it don't have to be moved. Also It is just to not confuse the opponent. If the opponent is not at the board it is free real estate, as long as the piece was not lifted up or slided to an other square.
Also I think the first one is changed so in case of opponent making an illegal move only extra time can be claimed not victory, unless you are Gaari Kasparov.
wait a minute, in your last example when showcasing the stalemate, how did the bishop get there?
Another lesser known chess rules is that if both you and a homie are wearing socks, you don't need to say no homo after questionably gay actions
The most odd and annoying chess rule for me is remis, when the opponent can't move anymore.
Thats stalemate
damn the "touch move" is a menace 😬
I ain’t never played by no touch to move rule. If someone expects me to play by that, I just don’t play against them because it makes you unable to think with your hands well and it makes you unable to do one of the most important things in chess: *Make sure every single piece is centered properly.* 💀
2:55 Wait, it cannot be white's turn now unless black moved into check or ignored the check on the prior turn, in which case, the players should be subject to the first rule you mentioned in the video. For this example, the Queen should have been on d6, not c6 .
It's also an impossible position to begin with. There's no way for the black dark square bishop to get to h8 while the g7 pawn remains in its starting square, nor any way for that pawn or any other black pawn to go back to that square after letting the Bishop go there.
@@martenkahr3365 Well, yes, there's also that. Other comments have addressed the impossible bishop. Iirc, Rook Moves replied to one such comment that the bishop is there for the fun of it since its presence/absence has no relevancy on explaining the stalemate rule.
Can’t believe bro forgot il vaticano
1) You can not claim win after illegal move, not in classical chess. After the move was discovered, the position has to be restored and game resumed from the last legal position. Once upon a time, the penalty was that you had to make a king move if possible (There was a game 1. e4 e5, 2. Qh5 - illegal move that forced Ke7, 3. Qh5 mate), but it is long gone. The rule applies to blitz and rapid, AFAIK.
2) "No touch rule", better known as "piece touche", states that you have to play with the piece you touched or take the piece if you touched oponents piece. However, clearly accidental touches (with your slieve for example) have no consequences, except that you have to restore the pieces on your own time.
"King first" castling - there was an atempt to introduce this rule in 1990s. It was abandoned because in practice it was impossible to determine that the Rook played first and castling was clearly intended move, no matter which piece was touched first. Castling with both hands at once is still forbiden.
4) 50 moves rule apply in most types of positions. There are some types of position where 75 or 100 moves rule was introduced, but this changed over time and I don't know if there are any positions in which 100 move rule apply today.
5) You example at 2:55 is illegal. Black bishop - not even a promoted one - could never get to h8 with black pawn on g7.
Tha arbiter can also adjust the time on the chessclock to the best of his judgement when restoring the board.
I actually knew all of these, so proud!
The stalemate rule always confused me. If the opponent cant make a move that doesnt cause a loss, then you should just win. That being a draw makes no sense
Remember that the end of the game is to *_attack_* the enemy king in a way he can't avoid. If there's no more moves because there's none possible, the game obviously ends, 'cause otherwise one side would play twice (at least) *_in a turn_* to attack, which is illegal. So no attack, no win (or loss). Draw is then the only remaining option
@@deleatur That still doesnt make sense to me. The opponent should just be forced to walk into a check which ends in a loss
@@Snaps12345 But that violates a basic rule that the king must not walk into a square that puts him in check. Creating rules that contravenes other rules just confuses the game when the easiest thing to do is result in a stalemate, thus a loss.
Why does the game have to result in a win/loss scenario? Chess is emulating a battle, stalemates happen in battles. You'd also have to look at the rules for draws. If the game must end in a win/loss, what happens if that is literally impossible and/or both players agree to one?
@@KurtisICT Why is the king not allowed to walk into check in the first place? Why does that have to be a rule?
@@Snaps12345 Because the whole idea of chess is to capture (but not kill) the king .
Magnus didnt loose, his opponent did, because they called in a more senior referee who said that who made the first illegal move looses
Another odd rules: if you have an insufficient material (but your opponent has enough), you can't win by flagging either. If you try to do that, you get a draw instead.
Or when they run out of time.
@@AlbertTheGamer-gk7sn Flagging means making the opponent run out of time.
The illegal move one is usually for speed chess only. In long form game time would be added back and the move reset.
You can touch a piece without moving it if you say "adjust".
I believe the 50 move rule was recently updated to be longer.
Huh?? I remember that in blitz, illegal move = lose
And 50 move rule can be claim only if the player know, they don't care if it over 50 but the player doesn't know that and losing
@@Wutheheooooo yea, in blitz or bullet. But not in standard time. Like e.g. In a 30 min game.
I believe 50 moves rules is optional, but 75 moves rule is a must
@@thejelambar82 I mean if both players agree to a draw, any number of moves is "optional".
I think the stalemate rule is weird. In just about every other game if you can't take a legal move you skip a turn, but in chess you can be on the back foot and loosing the game but it gets declared a draw because your king is put in a position where nothing can move on your next turn? That is like having the blade sitting at your throat and saying "good game, let's just call this a draw and go home", it is absolute BS. There is no battle that will end like that, the blade is at your neck, you are dead, they aren't going to remove the sword saying "hmm, your right, this was a loss on both sides, let's just go our separate ways now".
I think if one side can still make legal moves the game is still on. If somehow neither side can make a legal move then sure, at that point both sides have a blade at their neck and are holding the opposing king hostage, that is a stalemate, and they both decide living is the better part of valor and leave.
The last example board is impossible. You had a bishop in the corner blocked by a pawn in its starting position. The bishop could not get there unless the pawn were to move, but pawns cant go backwards
If someone checkmates you, you should be able to draw the game if you can checkmate next move
Maybe not, as your king would die before you get to kill your opponent's king.
there is another missunderstood rule of draw by repetition, its not repeated move that count, but the state of the board (all pieces at the same square) repeated is what counted
Its not the state of the board that needs to be repeated, its the complete Position. Maybe you meant that, but your example just refers to the positions of pieces. The difference is that for the position the moves a piece could be made are also relevant. May it be that another player is to move, maybe en passant or casting isnt possible anymore. The board looks the same but isnt the same and thus does not count as repetition
Does the "J'adoube" rule still apply if you want to position a piece in the centre of its square?
knew everything except using illegal move, pretty much every chess player is familiar with those lol
For that stalemate rule, i want to know how the bishop got there in ge first place
Me who is a national player Watching this to pass time: *Visible Confusion*
up date, when the rules gets in the books, you can touch the rook 1st. We voted on 4 different rules in chess. This was a invite only to chess directors.
In high school I down in a game. My opponent castled by grabbing his rook first. I felt like an ass, but called him on that rule. Winning is nice, but I did not feel too good after that game.
"if you touch the kid you must move the kid"
1:24 holy hell
In the last clip, how did that bishop reach that position? It's impossible.
What if I accidently touch two or more pieces at the same time? I mean my hands are quite big :/
Did you know that you aren‘t allowed to move a piece using both your hands?
😂😂😂
Why on earth would someone do that?
Tho ones that play chess in park with giant pieces have no other choice.
I hate stalemates, the person who cannot move anywhere without check should have to move and then face the consequences
That would be against the rules.
Why is en passant rule only vallid for enemy pawns? Why cant other, if possible, pieces caputure the "dashing" pawn?
3:03 I'd be interested to hear how that bishop got to h8.
"Rules you didnt know exist" meanwhile: pretty much any player above 1000 elo knows all of these things
Above 700
I absolutely hate the touch move rule, and dont fully understand why it exists. Very happy online chess does not have this rule
well I will inform my friend about the touch rule when I play him next cause we had no clue that existed
The important thing to remember is that there is a rule that supercedes all other rules of chess: It is the rule of a gentleman's game. "No player may take any move or action that is unsportsmanlike or constitutes behavior unbecoming a gentleman of noble rank or stature."
So would accusing your opponent of using a vibrating sex toy to cheat to beat you with no evidence fall as violating that rule?
@@qwilliams1539 hans literally admitted to cheating
@@joturttle6556 He admitted to cheating 2 times when he was younger, but not in that match, which he adamantly denies. Magnus just can't stand that he embarrassingly lost.
@@qwilliams1539 doesnt matter a cheater is a cheater
2:40 That was just hilariously true for me when i get stalemated...🤣
The first thing is blitz only and actually this isn't the way anymore.
2:55 In this example, it's black's turn, or else white could just eat the king
Of Course That’s Illegal!!! You Only Get 2 Bishops! Not 4.
3:03 how did the bishop got in corner AND blocked by pawn?!
Also in some tournaments second ilegal move loses not first.
Funny, the picture to illustrate Stalemate shows a black bishop on h8 behind a black pawn on g7. How did it get there? 🤔😅
It also has the black king in check but somehow it's White's move