Must one say "queen check" before capturing a queen?

Question

I was playing a friend and I took her queen. She said that I didn't say "queen check" beforehand. I have never heard of this. Is it a rule?

At the very least, I never encounter this while playing with software-based games... only check for king. — Andrew T., Sep 29 '20 at 09:12
It is a question that comes up every now and then and has done so for a very long time. A quick look in Staunton's chess column in _Illustrated London News_ finds it on February 10, 1844, where the editor, briefly, responds to two correspondents: "You are not obliged to say check to the queen". — , Sep 29 '20 at 13:04
Offcourse the most fun is when you say "king and queen check". — Konerak, Sep 29 '20 at 17:40
At least you don't have opponents trying to castle the queen. I'm tempted to allow it just because it's a bad move. — Joshua, Sep 29 '20 at 23:01
When I used to play chess with my grandfather, he used to say "Garde" when my queen was in danger (presumably a reference to the fencing term "En Garde"). It is a neat little piece of chess trivia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_(chess) — Charlie S, Sep 30 '20 at 12:36
@Joshua - I played with a guy 20 years who had a house rule of "any two pieces that haven't yet moved on the back row may castle"...he'd do it with the queen and knight, and say things like, "There goes Guinivere to see Lancelot again." — warren, Sep 30 '20 at 13:33
I had never heard about this before either, nor do any of my books mention it. I'd consider her action poor sport. — Mast, Sep 30 '20 at 15:20
I used to play someone who always said "courtesy queen check" I've never been that courteous. — Michael West, Oct 02 '20 at 23:59
@warren: Arthur a grammar, exactly. :-) You're spot on, I daresay the "Gardez" phased out together with the chivalry novel. Would be an interesting question for chess historians. — Hauke Reddmann, Dec 25 '20 at 09:42

score 50 · Answer 1 · edited Sep 29 '20 at 00:38

50

The official FIDE laws of chess do not know about a queen check. Announcing a "queen check“ might even be considered a case of "to distract or annoy the opponent“ (11.5). Even announcing a "king check“ is not recommended.

That’s for tournament chess. In informal games, it is not unusual in some groups to announce a check and a "queen check“ (by "gardez“, French for "keep attention“). Even there it is not a rule, but a courtesy. Not announcing a check or gardez is considered impolite, but you may take the queen anyway.

edited Sep 29 '20 at 00:38

Rewan Demontay

16,942
4
65
109

answered Sep 28 '20 at 20:10

Christian H. Kuhn

1,735
6
18

7

For informal games, my rule of thumb is to not announce a check unless they announce checks, or fail to realize they're in check a few times (IE, by trying to make an illegal move) – Christopher Berman Sep 29 '20 at 03:11
8

@ChristopherBerman There are so much different sorts of informal games that i don’t dare to have a rule of thumb :-) – Christian H. Kuhn Sep 29 '20 at 08:04
3

Ha, I had no idea (as a basic, very low-level casual player with my children) that announcing a king check is optional. I always thought it was part of the rules (which, in retrospection, does not make much sense as it is not like this is something that may be missed by the opponent (possibly after a few tries of illegal movements)) – WoJ Sep 29 '20 at 11:20
@WoJ: The formal rules were designed for tournament settings. In a tournament, you write down every move on your score sheet, and you traditionally write a + after any move which gives check (the FIDE rules say that this is "not mandatory," but they also say that you do not have to indicate capturing, which I found rather surprising). – Kevin Sep 29 '20 at 17:52
1

@Kevin: In a tournament, the purpose of a game is to establish an official winner, and if an opponent blunders one would be entitled to claim the victory. In other contexts, where the purpose of a game is for both players to have fun, having an opponent blunder will likely make the game less fun for both players than if the opponent hadn't blundered; if saying "gardez" will help accomplish that, great. – supercat Sep 29 '20 at 21:31
Chess-noob here: In games where a "queen check" is required, would it be considered an illegal move, if a queen is moved to a position where she can be captured? – Lars Kristensen Sep 30 '20 at 09:20
The point of announcing "check" is to give the other person the opportunity to stop it, otherwise they will lose. – jastako Sep 30 '20 at 12:19
2

@LarsKristensen: There are no formal, written, official rules which require "queen check." So if you play with that house rule, it's up to you to decide how it works. – Kevin Sep 30 '20 at 17:33
2

@LarsKristensen: No, definitely not. Indeed, sometimes putting your queen "in check" is the best move. – TonyK Sep 30 '20 at 17:34
@WoJ - used to play one of my coworkers years ago, and we didn't announce check ...which also let you be clever/sneaky if the other player wasn't paying attention, and move your king *into* and then back *out of* check! Of course, if one of us saw the other do it, we'd take the king - ending the game :) – warren Sep 30 '20 at 18:41
@warren: retrospectively as well? (say, two moves later you realize that the king was checked at some point). Would the game stop then? I now wonder what the rules say about that – WoJ Sep 30 '20 at 18:46
@WoJ - nope, if you moved *into* "check" this turn, so long as you're not noticed, you could move *out* of "check" any time in the future. Kinda like wandering into No Man's Land in WWI ... if no one saw you, you could make it in and out. If you were seen ... well ... that's part of the risk of doing a "risky" move – warren Sep 30 '20 at 20:56

score 31 · Answer 2 · answered Sep 28 '20 at 18:18

No.

Some people think it is polite to say 'gardez' to alert a player that the Q can be taken.

But no rule says you have to say check nor gardez and in serious games with good players it is not done.

This gardez for Qs is just a very informal rule amongst some low level players that I have not seen in actual use for 60 years but have read about as being more common (where?) in the past. It is possible that I never played at such a low level to encounter it; but I still believe it is rare perhaps because it is very old and now obsolete as even relative newish players do not need that alert.

Even playing with literal children (in the UK) a lot, I've never come across it.Seems like it either never made it here or is becoming obsolete? — user3482749, Sep 29 '20 at 07:33

score 14 · Answer 3 · answered Sep 29 '20 at 07:40

The important part is that you and your friend agree on what to say and when. If you both agree that queen check (or gardez) is a nice thing to say, then go ahead and say it.

I suggest taking the time before your next game to clear this up. Also, if you play any friends of your friend then ask them too what they prefer.

That being said, if your friend want to play strangers, online, in tournaments, or whatever, then they will have to get used to people not saying it. If they try to make non-friends say gardez, they are likely to be met with a simple "no".

score 2 · Answer 4 · answered Sep 30 '20 at 02:37

2

I've been playing for more than 40 years and never heard the term, casual or tournament. Admittedly, I have less than a dozen in-person games in the last 20 years.

answered Sep 30 '20 at 02:37

Loren Pechtel

197
1
4

score 2 · Answer 5 · answered Sep 30 '20 at 04:55

2

No, as others have said, not even (king) check needs to be announced. Queens can be traded or sacrificed. It's not possible to define precisely when the Q is under threat and needs response.

However chess softwares usually have a sound effect when king is checked. And in one blitz game, my opponent took advantage of that annoying sound!

[fen "1r3k2/p4pp1/8/8/8/P7/KPQ3P1/6q1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qc5+! Kg8 2. Qxg1

I wished they had a Q alert.

answered Sep 30 '20 at 04:55

jf328

2,438
13
25

2

"And in one blitz game, my opponent took advantage of that annoying sound!" Just play muted. – Mast Sep 30 '20 at 15:23

score 1 · Answer 6 · answered Sep 29 '20 at 19:29

It is just a courtesy designed to ease new players into a game with multiple rules, and your friend might have mistaken it for an actual one. Or maybe she's used to it and wanted to establish it as a common rule between the two of you. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone. Talk it out.

When I was a little kid, my parents would always say it to me when they were teaching me how to play. They still do, nowadays, but mostly as a means to tease me.

score 1 · Answer 7 · answered Sep 30 '20 at 05:46

Well, there is no official FIDE rule about saying 'Queen-check', so you don't.

However, I've got something to add about chaturanga, an ancient form of chess. In it, the rook is the most powerful piece, and when it is attacked, it is considered good etiquette to call out, 'Check-rook'.

score 0 · Answer 8 · answered Sep 30 '20 at 12:22

No because the whole point is to capture the King, so it's not necessary, & has never been an official rule as far as I know. If you do it with the Queen, why not with any other piece which ultimately has little to do with you winning? I was taught that you should announce a King check to give your opponent an opportunity to fix it, but I don't know if it's necessary.

score 0 · Answer 9 · answered Oct 01 '20 at 17:03

Although the official rules of chess don't allow for takebacks in tournament or rated games, and expect players to notice when their queen is in danger, people who are playing for purposes of mutual enjoyment should adjust those rules when doing so would enhance that enjoyment. If a game has reached an interesting position but one of the players makes a silly move that would drop the queen, having the opponent take advantage of that would render the game up to that point essentially meaningless. If the opponent instead says "Are you sure you want to let me capture the queen?", and allows the first player to make a better move, the players may then be able to get more enjoyment out of the interesting position.

Beginners should play a mixture of "friendly" games which allow generous takebacks, and strict games with no takebacks, since the two kinds of game will impart different lessons. A novice who plays only strict games with other novices may place too much focus on encouraging and exploiting the kinds of blunders that experienced players would never make, and would thus be unable to formulate any kind of strategy that would have any hope against experienced players. Playing "friendly" games may allow players to get more experience against how to handle good moves by opponents (even if it takes the opponent a few tries to find a good move), but may fail to teach the discipline necessary to avoid blundering in rated or tournament games.

Must one say "queen check" before capturing a queen?

9 Answers9