Answers.Body: <p>The official FIDE laws of chess do not know about a queen check. Announcing a  &quot;queen check“ might even be considered a case of &quot;to distract or annoy the opponent“ (11.5). Even announcing a &quot;king check“ is not recommended.</p>
  <p>That’s for tournament chess. In informal games, it is not unusual in some groups to announce a check and a &quot;queen check“ (by &quot;gardez“, French for &quot;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.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T03:11:02.577Z
Answers.Text: 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)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Christopher Berman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T08:04:32.287Z
Answers.Text: @ChristopherBerman There are so much different sorts of informal games that i don’t dare to have a rule of thumb :-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Christian H. Kuhn
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T11:20:21.097Z
Answers.Text: 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))
Answers.UserDisplayName: WoJ
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T17:52:56.027Z
Answers.Text: @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).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kevin
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T21:31:30.077Z
Answers.Text: @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.
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T09:20:55.523Z
Answers.Text: 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?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lars Kristensen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T12:19:11.997Z
Answers.Text: The point of announcing "check" is to give the other person the opportunity to stop it, otherwise they will lose.
Answers.UserDisplayName: jastako
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T17:33:43.207Z
Answers.Text: @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.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kevin
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T17:34:46.467Z
Answers.Text: @LarsKristensen: No, definitely not. Indeed, sometimes putting your queen "in check" is the best move.
Answers.UserDisplayName: TonyK
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T18:41:16.453Z
Answers.Text: @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 :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: warren
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T18:46:33.130Z
Answers.Text: @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
Answers.UserDisplayName: WoJ
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T20:56:34.267Z
Answers.Text: @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
Answers.UserDisplayName: warren
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-28T20:10:52.790Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-29T00:38:10.343Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-09-29T00:38:10.343Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Christian H. Kuhn
Answers.Body: <p>No.</p>
  <p>Some people think it is polite to say 'gardez' to alert a player that the Q can be  taken.</p>
  <p>But no rule says you have to say check nor gardez and in serious games with good players it is not done.</p>
  <p>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.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T07:33:32.253Z
Answers.Text: 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?
Answers.UserDisplayName: user3482749
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-28T18:18:54.403Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-28T18:18:54.403Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: pro writer
Answers.Body: <p>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.</p>
  <p>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.</p>
  <p>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 &quot;no&quot;.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T07:40:41.677Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-29T07:40:41.677Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Stig Hemmer
Answers.Body: <p>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.</p>
  <p>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!</p>
  <pre><code>[fen &quot;1r3k2/p4pp1/8/8/8/P7/KPQ3P1/6q1 w - - 0 1&quot;]
  
  1. Qc5+! Kg8 2. Qxg1
  </code></pre>
  <p>I wished they had a Q alert.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T15:23:53.123Z
Answers.Text: "And in one blitz game, my opponent took advantage of that annoying sound!" Just play muted.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mast
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T04:55:11.560Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-30T04:55:11.560Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jf328
Answers.Body: <p>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.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T02:37:47.167Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-30T02:37:47.167Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Loren Pechtel
Answers.Body: <p>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.</p>
  <p>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.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T19:29:28.573Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-29T19:29:28.573Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ramon Melo
Answers.Body: <p>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 &quot;Are you sure you want to let me capture the queen?&quot;, 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.</p>
  <p>Beginners should play a mixture of &quot;friendly&quot; 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 &quot;friendly&quot; 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.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-10-01T17:03:30.907Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-10-01T17:03:30.907Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.Body: <p>No because the whole point is to capture the King, so it's not necessary, &amp; 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 <em>necessary</em>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T12:22:18.417Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-30T12:22:18.417Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jastako
Body: <p>I was playing a friend and I took her queen. She said that I didn't say &quot;queen check&quot; beforehand. I have never heard of this. Is it a rule?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T09:12:59.760Z
Comments.Text: At the very least, I never encounter this while playing with software-based games... only check for king.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andrew T.
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T17:40:50.850Z
Comments.Text: Offcourse the most fun is when you say "king and queen check".
Comments.UserDisplayName: Konerak
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-29T23:01:53.867Z
Comments.Text: 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.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Joshua
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T12:36:52.617Z
Comments.Text: 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)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Charlie S
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T13:33:02.833Z
Comments.Text: @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."
Comments.UserDisplayName: warren
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-30T15:20:29.727Z
Comments.Text: I had never heard about this before either, nor do any of my books mention it. I'd consider her action poor sport.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mast
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-10-02T23:59:28.490Z
Comments.Text: I used to play someone who always said "courtesy queen check"  I've never been that courteous.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-25T09:42:37.217Z
Comments.Text: @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.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Tags: <rules><queens><check>
Title: Must one say "queen check" before capturing a queen?
ThreadText: # Must one say "queen check" before capturing a queen?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-09-28)
  
  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?
  
  **Tags:** rules, queens, check
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: At the very least, I never encounter this while playing with software-based games... only check for king.  
  > **username_2**: Offcourse the most fun is when you say "king and queen check".  
  > **username_3**: 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.  
  > **username_4**: 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)  
  > **username_5**: @username_3 - 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."  
  > **username_6**: I had never heard about this before either, nor do any of my books mention it. I'd consider her action poor sport.  
  > **username_7**: I used to play someone who always said "courtesy queen check"  I've never been that courteous.  
  > **username_8**: @username_5: 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.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 8 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2020-09-28. Score: 49
  
  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.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: 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)  
  > **username_9**: @username_10 There are so much different sorts of informal games that i don’t dare to have a rule of thumb :-)  
  > **username_11**: 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))  
  > **username_12**: @username_11: 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).  
  > **username_13**: @username_12: 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.  
  > **username_14**: 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?  
  > **username_15**: The point of announcing "check" is to give the other person the opportunity to stop it, otherwise they will lose.  
  > **username_12**: @username_14: 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.  
  > **username_16**: @username_14: No, definitely not. Indeed, sometimes putting your queen "in check" is the best move.  
  > **username_5**: @username_11 - 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 :)  
  > **username_11**: @username_5: 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  
  > **username_5**: @username_11 - 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  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_17 on 2020-09-28. Score: 31
  
  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.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_18**: 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?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_19 on 2020-09-29. Score: 14
  
  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".
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_20 on 2020-09-30. Score: 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.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: "And in one blitz game, my opponent took advantage of that annoying sound!" Just play muted.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_21 on 2020-09-30. Score: 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.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_22 on 2020-09-29. Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_13 on 2020-10-01. Score: 0
  
  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.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_15 on 2020-09-30. Score: 0
  
  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*.
  
  
  ---
  
  