Rant about chess rules OTB in real life: Hanging Kings

No one would intentionally make an illegal move hoping that you don't notice, so the only case that matters is when someone does it unintentionally. In that case the "penalty for his mistake" is in the fact that he loses more games than he should in the long run because if he is missing King pins then he is also missing other pins and tactics. IMO, insisting that illegal moves are an auto-loss in casual slow games just makes you a bit of a dick.

reallylost#11 I agree that in chess a large majority of players would not intentionally make an illegal move... *sigh if only the same were true of big business... but i disagree that NO ONE would... there are some seriously shady players out there as to that i can attest!

Aside from that in a casual game am i dick if i take a hanging queen and they have no compensation? The answer to that is yes... yes i am... in a casual game if someone makes an egregious error early in the game potentially ruining the beauty the game might become I am a dick for insisting they play a queen down or resign. Which is why the same should be true of hanging kings. As the person wronged i should have the right to claim victory or allow the take back without fear of persecution. All blunders in chess are unintentional. It is said the 2nd to last person to blunder always wins. So why can't it just be generally agreed upon in a casual game that if you hang your king you are not automatically granted a free takeback.

Can't we all just agree that hanging your king is a terrible move. So terrible that it is illegal and if you make it your opponent shouldn't even have to take it you should just resign out of pure shame? Have some pride people lol

I agree on the shame part; especially if a player is experienced. Blunders are blunders, no need to let people take them back it's all part of the game. I just think this king thing is on another level (for casual play at least since there are actually rules about it lol). There's a reason we have to say "check" when we attack the king - why have people say check, why not see if people forget to move their king and then u can capture. I think it's out of the spirit of the game and against the rule. 1. If you are in check you have to handle that before anything else. 2. you can't move into check. If you catch someone doing either thing you have to say nope, against the rules.. and that's the end of it.

on a sci-fi time travelish sort of note --- if you aren't allowed to move your king into check, then it never actually happened did it :-)

thetasquared #13 i love sci fi but im not sure where you are going with that one :)

and you do know you don't have to say check right?

USCF rule 12F: Calling check not mandatory
Announcing check is not required. It is the responsibility of the opponent to notice the
check.

My opinion is:

It's an illegal move. Correct the person, unless you like playing illegal games. Doesn't mean you won! Ask the person to resign, or make a legal move if you'd like to continue playing.

Here's a poll if we want to vote:

http://strawpoll.me/5680637

thanks for the poll, i'd change the wording more specifically to hanging your king but meh... w/e potato po-tato