The thing is that that's no penalty at all UNLESS the other player can mate on the move.

<He reads chess books. What a shock. I assumed he was into gardening.>

Okay, but how many people read chess books about games and positions that are no longer possible according to the modern rules?

Quite a lot of people. It's a well known story, that's been told by every writer of chess curiosities from Soltis to Chernev. It's not that I misunderstood the point, but that the point was wrong.

<Quite a lot of people. It's a well known story, that's been told by every writer of chess curiosities from Soltis to Chernev. It's not that I misunderstood the point, but that the point was wrong.>

And just what percentage of people would you say fall into the category? Probably no more than one in a million. It was a new story for me and I enjoyed it, so sue me. Sally Simpson was just telling an amusing anecdote and you have to "contradict" him with some pedantic hair-splitting arguments that are completely beside the point because you can't even bother to click on a link takes all of 10 seconds to read. Then when you miss the point because you're too lazy to click on the link, you have the chutzpah to blame HIM for it! By the way, your "point" about having to include everything in the post instead of providing a link is too silly to comment on, but especially in that case, because it was in graphic format and couldn't be pasted into the post.

4.B x King on e8 highlights how stupid the rule was and it was soon abolished, if indeed it was ever taken seriously. The rules at that time were a miss-mash differing from country to country, region to region, town to town, club to club.

Staunton laid down 90% of the bones of the rules we use today in the 1850's. FIDE and other at the time governing bodies have been tweaking them ever since.

"....are there any games extant in any database showing this rule in operation? "

Of course no PGN reader would accept leaving a King in check or the taking of a King though countless OTB blitz game have been lost this way. (there probably a few unexplained resignations in Blitz games on this site where a King was left in check.)

Here is a game forcing a King move resulting in a mate in 3.

Lindemann vs Echtermeyer, 1893

I was not telling a story, I was using facts from a book for beginners written in 1835 which I recently happened to be going through looking for something completely different.

There are a few games with illegal moves in them, and I'm not sure how PGN Readers handle them. But I have seen a few engines recently with a check box for whether or not to enforce legal moves, so maybe that's the way they're going.

They're probably going to have to do that because recent rule changes have ensured that there will be more illegal moves in games. You may recall, the old rule was that when an illegal move was discovered while the game was in progress, the position would go back to the point where the illegal move was made. But that was probably impractical, holding up a tournament just because of one game, so a few years back, the rule was changed to where you had to notice the illegal move within 3 moves.

"If a king can be taken, then Carlsen could have taken black's king after Qf1."

The whole set of rules is a farce.

Following Lewis's rules in the example given if Carlsen never said 'check' then Karjakin (in 1835) could have played Qf1 announcing 'checkmate' which ends the game. Carlsen cannot take the Black King, the game is over.

Remember, before someone happens along and does not read the whole thread, not my rules, Lewis's rules for Beginners from 1835. Not guidelines, actual rules of the game.

Of course all kinds of rows would have broken out (and probably did) till this rule and the others mentioned were tidied up. Lewis should have been more careful how he worded the rules. (you guys were not around then to correct him!)

One can just imagine the blazing arguments taking place up and down the country. One player clutching Lewis's book.

"You never said 'check' so I am not in check!"

And situations like this are possible. White has just played Ba4 but not announced check.

click for larger view

So Black ignores the unquoted check and play Rc8 White now plays Rh8 which is checkmate. If he does not announce the checkmate then Black can, according to Lewis, play Rc1 and as long as he said 'check' and despite the fact the Black King is in double check White would have to play Bd1.

click for larger view

Black wanted to play Re1++, and an argument resulted. They got out the rulebook and quoted the bit about how a player can't make a move that exposes his King to attack.

Black argued that he <wasn't> "exposing his King to attack", as the game ended with checkmate, leaving White no time to capture the King. The way the rule was written, they made it sound halfway plausible, and in the story Black was supposed to be an actual lawyer, making it harder to argue with him.

Usual touch move touch stuff, you must move the piece. etc etc.

One funny rule about giving odds. He gives an imaginative scenario.

Rule No.4

If a player gives a piece or pawn odds but the player giving the odds forgets to remove the pawn or piece from the board. (eh?)

Then if the game has lasted more than four moves the game continues with all the pieces on the board

if before 4 moves are played it is discovered the pawn or piece has not been removed the game restarts with the pawn or piece removed.

But...

...and this is the best bit...

If four moves have been played and the player giving odds who forgot to remove the pawn or piece before the start of the game should win the game, then this win is counted as a draw!

<If four moves have been played and the player giving odds who forgot to remove the pawn or piece before the start of the game should win the game, then this win is counted as a draw!

I get the impression he was making up his own set of rules, possibly for a completely different game.>

You think only one in a million chess players are interested in chess history and trivia? If that were true, there would be no market for such books at all. Had you given even a few seconds thought to the matter, you'd have reached that conclusion yourself.

<Sally Simpson took the right approach by just ignoring you and I should have followed his example. Fortunately it's never too late to use the ignore button.>

36... Rxa2 37. Rg7 Ra5 38. Rg8+ Ka7 39. Rg5 Ng4+ 40. Kg3 Nh6 41. Rg6 f4+ 42. Kxf4 Rxh5 43. Rg5 Rxg5 44. Kxg5

And it looks like White has something here, with the g pawn unimpeded, Black's King far away, and Black's pawns both blockadable. But looks are deceiving. Black can't stop the g pawn, but he can delay it just long enough to queen his own pawn by giving up the Knight.

44. ...Ng8 45. g4 a5 46. Kg6 a4 47. g5 a3 48. Nd4 a2 49. Nb3 Kb6 50. Kf7 Kb5 51. Kxg8 Ka4 52. Na1 Ka3 53. g6 Kb2 54. g7 Kxa1 55. Kf7 Kb2 56. g8=Q a1=Q

click for larger view

Black's extra pawn is meaningless and will soon fall. Equal.

GAME 2:

If 42. Kh4 Nf5+ 43. Kg4 Ne3+ 44. Kxf4 Nxg2+ 45. Rxg2 Rxh5

click for larger view

This is Bobby at the end of this match . I do believe at this EXACT moment you could argue he is the most famous chess player ever .

https://youtu.be/MGDhE7otjgg

And this is this game. After Tigran had played Qa5 ...

The Soviets wanted revenge...