Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

There is a clear rule which the F.I.D.E. ought to specify:  The
king cannot move to a square under control (check) of an enemy chessman
even if that chessman is pinned. (To be pinned = to be in line between
its
own king and its enemy queen, rook or bishop).  Please tell me how to
clarify this rule according to F.I.D.E. laws?  email:
nigel_j2000@yahoo.co.in

1) You have a king and a knight, and so does your opponent. Your opponent
has no time left on the chess clock. Do you win or is it a draw?

2) You have a king and a knight. Your opponent has a king and a queen.
Your opponent has no time left on the chess clock. There is no theoretical
possibility of checkmating him. Do you win or is it a draw?

1) This rule is ridiculous. I suggest we should use the 'world's worst
chessplayer' rule-that is, if the opponent is out of time and it's
theoretically possible to checkmate him, it's a win, otherwise it's a
draw. Don't you people agree?

2) Also, each chess set should contain two queens for each player, and no
player should be able to have more than two queens! This is reasonable!

3) And one more bright idea from me: here's a way to compensate for the
advantage of being white: one player sets the chess clock (with unequal
times for white and black), whilst the other chooses the side. 

Damn it, I should be in the FIDE rules committee!

To Robert Sclim:

Your opponent is out of time. You have a theoretical opportunity of mating
him if one of the following is true:

1) You have a pawn, a Rook or a Queen
2) You have two of the following {Bishop, Knight} (BB, BK or KK) , except
   when BB are the same color.
3) You have a Bishop and the opponent has one of the following:
   {Bishop with different color, Knight, pawn}
4) You have a Knight and the opponent has one of the following:
   {Bishop, Knight, Rook, pawn}

That's not so much, now is it? This covers everything. Give me an example
if it does not.

I have changed my mind about this.  Overstepping the time limit should lose
no matter what the positon on the board is (excepting the case where the
game has actally ended by checkmate, etc. but the player didn't stop his
clock).

The reasoning is simple--the opponent of the violator observed the time
limit. If he had also violated the limit, he might well have found better
moves.  How much better, who can say?  Certainly it is possible he could
have played enough better to change a loss into a win.

Why is it that if a player squanders his time so as to have insufficient
time (less than 5 minutes) to keep score, he is rewarded by being
alleviated of this responsibility, while his opponent who has conserved
his time to leave enough to keep score is forced to do so?

Either both players should be required to keep score, even if it results
in time-forfeiture, or both players should be relieved of the
responsibility, leaving it to the arbitor, as when both player have less
than 5 minutes.

The current rule allows the time-short player to gain the time to think,
while his opponent writes down the moves, while his opponent does not.
This is rewarding the perpetrator, while punishing the victim.

The desire of the Arbitor, who is the 'owner' of the scoresheets, to
have a complete record of the game should not supercede the rights of the
players, nor impact the result of the games by favoring one player over
the other. 

This is clearly a case of 'I make the rules (count the votes). What are
you going to do about it?' - as favored by New York notorious Mayor Boss
Tweed.

The rule 4.2 should read:

'No piece, except the knight (Article 5.5), may cross a square occupied
by another piece.'
 
instead of:
 
'No piece, except the rook when castling (Article 5.1(b)) and the knight
(Article 5.5), may cross a square occupied by another piece.'
 
-- since there is no legal move in which a rook crosses a square occupied
by another piece -- EVEN WHEN CASTLING.

but it DOES cross an occupied square... occupied by your king.

'Move your king two squares towards your rook, then move the rook to the
other side of the king' (and by doing so, cross the square that the king
is occupying now)

No, you cannot castle Queen-side if the Knight is still there.  See rule
5.1.f.ii on this page.  Also see our Castling FAQ at
http://www.chessvariants.com/d.chess/castlefaq.html

Draw by repetition: A draw occurs if a repitition has occured three times,
and the same player has the move, and both players have the same legal
moves.

Suppose in position 1, a player has not moved his king or rooks, so has
the RIGHT to castle. However, castling is NOT a legal move in this
position for some reason.

Subsequently, he has moved his king and later moved it back befor the
position has been 'repeated' again. Is this a repetition,
assuming the LEGAL moves are the same?

Another example: A player moves his pawn two squares, 'offering'
it to be captured en passent, leading to position 1. However, the other
player cannot take his pawn, because his own pawn is pinned, and would
expose his king to check if moved. So the en passent capture is NOT one
of
his legal moves.

If position 1 is 'repeated' later, with the same player to move,
is this a true repitition, since the legal moves are the same?