PDA

View Full Version : Promotion to pawn...



michael.mcguirk
12-11-2009, 08:51 PM
How does this rule apply in the following situation?

Game is not blitz, but significantly important game.
1. Player A moves the pawn to the back rank. Hits clock.
2. Player B would much prefer the pawn to remain a pawn instead of getting time penalties in such a game, and as such does not claim the illegal move. Makes move. While making move, opponent grabs a queen and replaces the pawn.

How should you claim this so that the pawn has to remain a pawn.

- Stop the clock, call the arbitor and explain the situation; or,
- Finish your move first, then call the arbitor.

Thunderspirit
12-11-2009, 09:13 PM
How does this rule apply in the following situation?

Game is not blitz, but significantly important game.
1. Player A moves the pawn to the back rank. Hits clock.
2. Player B would much prefer the pawn to remain a pawn instead of getting time penalties in such a game, and as such does not claim the illegal move. Makes move. While making move, opponent grabs a queen and replaces the pawn.

How should you claim this so that the pawn has to remain a pawn.

- Stop the clock, call the arbitor and explain the situation; or,
- Finish your move first, then call the arbitor.

Michael, very creative.

Firstly to your last question, the pawn can't remain a pawn. It must be promoted to a piece of the same colour and not a second King.

If player B doesn't complain as an arbiter I wouldn't be grumpy, but I would point out it serves both players to promote properly so to avoid suspicion.

Your other questions are a little odd, in regards to stopping the clock. If player B objected, she/he would stop the clock normally and the game would continue, but Player B doesn't have a problem, so there is none.

If player B complained about the replacing of the Queen in Player B's time, I wouldn't award two minutes to player B, as both of them are at fault and it cancels it out.

michael.mcguirk
12-11-2009, 09:21 PM
Michael, very creative.

Firstly to your last question, the pawn can't remain a pawn. It must be promoted to a piece of the same colour and not a second King.

If player B doesn't complain as an arbiter I wouldn't be grumpy, but I would point out it serves both players to promote properly so to avoid suspicion.

Well bugger, I was under the impression that if the piece wasn't exchanged in the persons move, it was technically a promotion to a pawn. As such it's an illegal move. Hence if the person doesn't technically claim it's an illegal move and the position is played on, isn't it to remain as a pawn forever more?



Your other questions are a little odd, in regards to stopping the clock. If player B objected, she/he would stop the clock normally and the game would continue, but Player B doesn't have a problem, so there is none.

If player B complained about the replacing of the Queen in Player B's time, I wouldn't award two minutes to player B, as both of them are at fault and it cancels it out.

What more my question is, isn't that the Queen is being replaced in Player B's time(because it isn't a queen), nor are they claiming the illegality of the previous move, but instead that Player A has decided to, lets say, 'replace a piece on the board that should not be replaced, with a Queen' :rolleyes: .

Bill Gletsos
12-11-2009, 09:32 PM
How does this rule apply in the following situation?

Game is not blitz, but significantly important game.
1. Player A moves the pawn to the back rank. Hits clock.
2. Player B would much prefer the pawn to remain a pawn instead of getting time penalties in such a game, and as such does not claim the illegal move. Makes move. While making move, opponent grabs a queen and replaces the pawn.

How should you claim this so that the pawn has to remain a pawn.

- Stop the clock, call the arbitor and explain the situation; or,
- Finish your move first, then call the arbitor.You noted it wasnt blitz.
In normal or rapid the pawn promotion as described is illegal. As such the arbiter would reset the position back to immediately prior to player A moving his pawn to the 8th rank, give player B an additional 2 minutes on his clock and have the game continue.

Obviously player A will move his pawn to the 8th rank and promote it before pressing his clock.

Thunderspirit
12-11-2009, 09:33 PM
Well bugger, I was under the impression that if the piece wasn't exchanged in the persons move, it was technically a promotion to a pawn. As such it's an illegal move. Hence if the person doesn't technically claim it's an illegal move and the position is played on, isn't it to remain as a pawn forever more?



What more my question is, isn't that the Queen is being replaced in Player B's time(because it isn't a queen), nor are they claiming the illegality of the previous move, but instead that Player A has decided to, lets say, 'replace a piece on the board that should not be replaced, with a Queen' :rolleyes: .


Oh I get it now. Once upon a time you could promote to one of your opponents pieces, but this rule went out, years and years ago. I don't think you've ever been allowed to keep the pawn there. I'm not sure about a second King either?

michael.mcguirk
12-11-2009, 09:35 PM
You noted it wasnt blitz.
In normal or rapid the pawn promotion as described is illegal. As such the arbiter would reset the position back to immediately prior to player A moving his pawn to the 8th rank, give player B an additional 2 minutes on his clock and have the game continue.

Obviously player A will move his pawn to the 8th rank and promote it before pressing his clock.

So basically all the 'put the piece on before hitting the clock' thing is good for now is for getting 2 extra minutes outside of blitz...

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification :)

Bill Gletsos
12-11-2009, 09:39 PM
If player B doesn't complain as an arbiter I wouldn't be grumpy, but I would point out it serves both players to promote properly so to avoid suspicion.In fact in a normal game of chess even if there is no claim by a player of illegal move if you as the arbiter see that there is an unpromoted pawn on the 8th rank then you are required under the laws to stop the clocks and restore the position to that immediately prior to the illegal move.

If player B complained about the replacing of the Queen in Player B's time, I wouldn't award two minutes to player B, as both of them are at fault and it cancels it out.This decision would be incorrect. Under the laws of chess the awarding of 2 minutes to the opponent of a player who makes an illegal move is no discretionary on the part of the arbiter but mandatory.

Bill Gletsos
12-11-2009, 09:44 PM
Well bugger, I was under the impression that if the piece wasn't exchanged in the persons move, it was technically a promotion to a pawn. As such it's an illegal move. Hence if the person doesn't technically claim it's an illegal move and the position is played on, isn't it to remain as a pawn forever more?Your belief is incorrect. ;)

What more my question is, isn't that the Queen is being replaced in Player B's time(because it isn't a queen), nor are they claiming the illegality of the previous move, but instead that Player A has decided to, lets say, 'replace a piece on the board that should not be replaced, with a Queen' :rolleyes: .The move is illegal irrespective of whether the opponent claims. Hence once the arbiter becomes aware of it he must intervene and correct it.

Thunderspirit
12-11-2009, 09:45 PM
In fact in a normal game of chess even if there is no claim by a player of illegal move if you as the arbiter see that there is an unpromoted pawn on the 8th rank then you are required under the laws to stop the clocks and restore the position to that immediately prior to the illegal move.
This decision would be incorrect. Under the laws of chess the awarding of 2 minutes to the opponent of a player who makes an illegal move is no discretionary on the part of the arbiter but mandatory.

Bill, in the first case I didn't say I would leave it there, I would step in if I see it, but while dopey isn't worth getting grumpy about.

On the second case, both players are at fault and have technically made illegal moves. Player A, by leaving the pawn on the 8th and Player B for not enforcing it, I wouldn't give Player B two minutes. I would put this is under the common sense arbitering school. Player B, doesn't deserve two minutes, but feel free to take it to appeal...;)

Bill Gletsos
12-11-2009, 09:48 PM
So basically all the 'put the piece on before hitting the clock' thing is good for now is for getting 2 extra minutes outside of blitz...

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification :)Of course when the arbiter arrives at the board if the player claims he promoted the pawn correctly then if there is no independent witness the arbiter has no option but to declare play on and not award the extra 2 minutes.

Bill Gletsos
12-11-2009, 10:13 PM
Bill, in the first case I didn't say I would leave it there, I would step in if I see it, but while dopey isn't worth getting grumpy about.I wasnt implying it was. I was just spelling it out for others who maybe reading this thread.

On the second case, both players are at fault and have technically made illegal moves. Player A, by leaving the pawn on the 8th and Player B for not enforcing it, I wouldn't give Player B two minutes.Sorry Lee but that is just rubbish. Player B has not made an illegal move by any stretch of the wording of the laws of chess.
Also it is not illegal not to claim an illegal move.

I would put this is under the common sense arbitering school. Player B, doesn't deserve two minutes, but feel free to take it to appeal...;)You are in complete breach of the FIDE laws of chess if you do not give player B an additional 2 minutes due to the illegal move of player A.

Ian Rout
13-11-2009, 10:42 AM
I agree with Bill on this one. There is no concept in the Laws of illegal move time penalties "cancelling out". This one is no different from other positions where players carry on for some moves after an illegal move which subsequently is set back to the position before the illegality; change the scenario to, say, A playing Qe1-h5+ and B replying Ke8xe7 and this becomes obvious. (Player A subsequently "promoting" his pawn is a red herring, except that it even kills the "cancelling out" argument as A has committed two illegailities.)

Considering that it is the arbiter's responsibility to call the illegal move it is entirely reasonable for B to "play to the whistle" rather than run any risks trying to claim the illegal move.

Denis_Jessop
13-11-2009, 07:35 PM
Oh I get it now. Once upon a time you could promote to one of your opponents pieces, but this rule went out, years and years ago. I don't think you've ever been allowed to keep the pawn there. I'm not sure about a second King either?

I'm not aware of its ever having been possible to promote your pawn to one of your opponent's pieces (I'm not even sure what that means) and can find no mention of it in Murray's "History of Chess". Murray says that over the centuries there were various versions of the promotion rule, for example deeming that promotion was possible only to a queen, or forbidding promotion if it would give you more pieces than you had originally and there were concerns expressed about the morality of a pawn becoming a queen, some on grounds of a change in sex and others because it did not seem proper. In some European countries there were two words for the queen piece and the moral problem was overcome by using one word for the original queen and the other for a promoted pawn.

DJ

Jesper Norgaard
23-11-2009, 03:25 PM
Michael, very creative.

Firstly to your last question, the pawn can't remain a pawn. It must be promoted to a piece of the same colour and not a second King.

Michael was perhaps creative, but it actually it happened in a Blitz game between Mamedyarov and Ivanchuk, check it out for yourself on
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/some-videos-of-the-tal-memorial-blitz/#more-18830 {the next last video}

The only difference is that while Ivanchuk did no attempt to find a queen, not because he wanted it to stay a pawn, but because he was so absorbed in the position, Mamedyarov after 56...Kg3 57.Qb8+ took mercy on him and replaced his sad black pawn on h1 with a black queen. The arbiter first goes in and waves the black queen around for Ivanchuk, but he doesn't notice. No wonder he never gave any attention to the IOC officials wanting to test his coffeine level (or whatever) after the Olympic game against Kamsky which he lost.

Since these games were played with adequate supervision, they were in fact following the laws of chess for normal games, an illegal move must be corrected etc. I think the arbiter was a bit shy there, he should have stopped the game after 55...h1=P or at most 56.a8=Q. In a blitz game without adequate supervision this would be different, the move 55...h1=P stands and can't be corrected, unless both players mutually agree among them. Also as Bill mentions earlier, it is mandatory to add 2 minutes to Mamedyarov's clock, which did not happen either. Anyhow the position was pretty drawn so they soon shook hands peacefully.

Jesper Norgaard
06-08-2012, 10:28 AM
The video is now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YY22cOwpGk and what I had not discovered before is that Mamedyarov is ALSO promoting incorrectly by placing the queen on a8 and removing the pawn from a7, which is illegal under current rules. We badly need a rewrite of the laws that would make Mamedyarovs promotion legal. All the same, Ivanchuk's promotion just keeping the pawn on h1 will remain illegal, and in a non-supervised game could not be corrected unless both players agree to it without intervention from the arbiter. In fact when Ivanchuk hit the clock with the pawn on h1, Mamedyarov could have claimed the game for illegal move if it had not been supervised with one arbiter per game, before promoting himself.

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2012, 12:08 PM
The current 2013 Laws draft has:


The player has the choice: to remove the pawn from the penultimate rank and then immediately to put the new piece on the square of promotion; or to move the pawn to the last rank, then to remove the pawn from the chessboard and then immediately to put the new piece on the square of promotion. Thus the pawn can be removed from the board and the new piece be put on the appropriate square in any order.

I only just noticed now that this is sloppy drafting. The final sentence implies that you can put the new piece on the square then remove the pawn (which I think is the intention), but the "Thus" suggests that this follows from the previous sentence - which it actually doesn't.

I'll see if I can get this fixed.

road runner
06-08-2012, 07:29 PM
I read it that it would not be permitted to place the new piece on the promotion square and then remove the pawn from the seventh.

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2012, 08:28 PM
I read it that it would not be permitted to place the new piece on the promotion square and then remove the pawn from the seventh.Where did you read that?

road runner
06-08-2012, 08:36 PM
Where did you read that?I meant I interpret Kevin's quote that way.


to remove the pawn from the penultimate rank and then immediately to put the new piece on the square of promotion
but not in the reverse order, i.e. place the new piece first and then remove the pawn. Seems ambiguous to me.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2012, 12:30 AM
I read it that it would not be permitted to place the new piece on the promotion square and then remove the pawn from the seventh.

It's terrible drafting. The player is given two choices, both of which involve taking the pawn off the board before the piece. Then it is stated that the order in which these events occur doesn't matter. Blatantly contradictory.

ER
07-08-2012, 12:46 AM
It's terrible drafting. The player is given two choices, both of which involve taking the pawn off the board before the piece. Then it is stated that the order in which these events occur doesn't matter. Blatantly contradictory.

I thought that the order of promotion was


to place the pawn by either pushing on the same file to the eighth rank

or by capturing piece on the adjacent file to the eighth rank

then declare the piece one wishes to promote to.

then, to replace the pawn by the declared piece (upturned rook is not a queen)!

Adamski
07-08-2012, 12:53 AM
It's terrible drafting. The player is given two choices, both of which involve taking the pawn off the board before the piece. Then it is stated that the order in which these events occur doesn't matter. Blatantly contradictory.
Agreed. Good luck KB in your endeavours to get the law redrafted. I suspect it is not the only proposed new law of chess that requires redrafting...

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2012, 02:16 AM
I thought that the order of promotion was


to place the pawn by either pushing on the same file to the eighth rank

or by capturing piece on the adjacent file to the eighth rank

then declare the piece one wishes to promote to.

then, to replace the pawn by the declared piece (upturned rook is not a queen)!


In FIDE laws there has never to my knowledge been "then declare the piece one wishes to promote to". One simply moves the pawn to the back rank (including capturing a piece if that is what happens) and then takes it off the board and replaces it with the chosen piece. At present, actually moving the pawn to the eighth rank is technically compulsory but few arbiters enforce it.

And yes, upturned rook is a rook, and if an opponent moves an upturned rook diagonally that is an illegal move, which in blitz can equal loss of game. Many arbiters do enforce this and a game was lost in the Aus Junior lightning in 2010 by a player who made this mistake.

Jesper Norgaard
07-08-2012, 04:44 AM
Perhaps a little nitty-gritty, but when you move the pawn (if you do it) you just need to move it to the last rank (any square on the last rank?) according to the draft. Instead when you replace it with the promotion piece, you need to put that new piece on the promotion square. Shouldn't both in fact use only the promotion square, and not any other last rank square?

Otto
07-08-2012, 07:54 AM
Even with the today’s rules it’s not an illegal move to for instance put a queen to a8 and then remove the pawn on a7. It’s not a promotion according to the rules, but it’s not an illegal move. When the move is completed you have a queen on a8 and the pawn is removed. The rules say that if you have done an illegal move, you may correct it before the move is competed (before you press the clock). So if this was an illegal move it will be corrected by putting the queen on a8 and removing the pawn. So nothing is changed!
It has been a lot of fuzz about this rule, so the new rule must accept all variants of promotion, push the pawn, remove the paw and insert a queen or insert a queen and remove the pawn.
In fact you have the same choice when a piece is captured. You can move your own piece first or you can remove the opponent’s piece first. What’s matters is that the position when the move is completed is the same.

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2012, 10:38 AM
Even with the today’s rules it’s not an illegal move to for instance put a queen to a8 and then remove the pawn on a7. It’s not a promotion according to the rules, but it’s not an illegal move. When the move is completed you have a queen on a8 and the pawn is removed. The rules say that if you have done an illegal move, you may correct it before the move is competed (before you press the clock). So if this was an illegal move it will be corrected by putting the queen on a8 and removing the pawn. So nothing is changed!The proposed new rule makes a significant difference in Blitz.

Otto
07-08-2012, 03:26 PM
The proposed new rule makes a significant difference in Blitz.
I can't see why. Please explain.
If you indicate that a player should be punished if he put a queen to a8 before he removes the pawn from a7, I disagree.

Rincewind
07-08-2012, 03:51 PM
I can't see why. Please explain.
If you indicate that a player should be punished if he put a queen to a8 before he removes the pawn from a7, I disagree.

It is probably a matter that is debatable but the rules as they stand today say that the pawn has to reach the last rank and be replaced on the same square. Thus you are not allowed to remove from the 7th and place the promoted piece on the eighth. According to Article 4, a move which does not meet all the requirements is not legal. So in blitz a player could certainly make a claim of illegal move and the game adjudged lost tot he player who made the faulty promotion.

To correct the illegal move before clocking, the player would have to remove his queen from the eighth rank and replace it with a pawn, and then remove the pawn and replace it again with a queen, and then clock. If a player did this little spell then they would satisfy Article 3 and hence would have made a legal move.

Just noting the position is unchanged is not the same as declaring the move legal since Article 3 not only prescribes the final position but also the mechanics by which the final position is obtained and those mechanics are a part of the requirements for a legal move since they are prescribed by Article 3.

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2012, 04:48 PM
I can't see why. Please explain.Refer to Rincewind's post above.

If you indicate that a player should be punished if he put a queen to a8 before he removes the pawn from a7, I disagree.You can disagree all you like, you would still be wrong as that is an illegal move under the current laws of chess.

Otto
07-08-2012, 04:55 PM
According to Article 4, a move which does not meet all the requirements is not legal. So in blitz a player could certainly make a claim of illegal move and the game adjudged lost tot he player who made the faulty promotion.
3.

No, Article 4 says: The move is called legal when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled. Article 3 is about "The moves of the pieces". Article 4 is about: The act of moving the pieces". Article 3 describes that a pawn can be promoted, and one method to do this on the board. Article 3 is about how pieces can be moved, not a detailed description of how to move a piece. Article 3 can be used to check if a move is legal after the move is completed. If the laws of chess should provide a description of how to promote a pawn, it should be put in Article 4.
I have seen the arbiters decision in the Women Blitz event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=T2wVy_52EJw
I think the arbiter's decision is horrible. (assuming that the game was lost due to not pushing the pawn to the eight rank before promoting).

Sergio Pagano
07-08-2012, 05:12 PM
I agree, I think that how to execute the promotion should be described in the Article 4, not in 3, and a wrong execution should be considered an ireegular move, not illegal. Furthermore, it is not so clear the statement that an illegal move can be corrected when not completed. The definition of illegal move currently is in the Article 4, referring to the Article 3; before introducing the clock in the Laws, and before introducing the definition of completion of a move. So, currently a move is illegal when "made", not when "completed". I think that the laws should be changed to better clarify if a penalty should be applied only when an illegal move is completed, or even when it has been made and then corrected before completing it.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2012, 05:38 PM
[EDIT: I'm not so sure about the first three paragraphs of this response now; see #36. The issue is: what is a relevant requirement?]


No, Article 4 says: The move is called legal when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled.

One of the requirements of Article 3 is "it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour." So if the pawn does not reach the final square then there cannot be an exchange on that square and therefore the requirement for exchange on the same square is not met. This is not "one" method of promoting a pawn, but the only method, as indicated by the word "must".

And there is 7.4a: "If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn [..]"

So reading the current Laws literally, if a pawn is not exchanged on the same square then an illegal move has occurred (if it is completed). And to be exchanged on the same square it must reach the square where the exchange occurred.

In my view it was not intended that this rule catch out people who promote by taking the pawn off the seventh and putting the new piece on the eighth. And I do not think arbiters should enforce it as literally written given that it is probably just bad drafting.

I think that 7.4a is really designed to catch people who move the pawn to the back rank, press the clock and then change it to another piece on their opponent's time. (Before the current wording it was possible to claim that was just an incomplete move and not an illegal move.) And in blitz I think players who do that deserve to lose as they are gaining unfair advantage by pressing the clock without finishing their move or even without having made it clear what they are promoting to. I don't see why anyone deserves to lose by failing to touch their pawn down.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2012, 05:47 PM
So, currently a move is illegal when "made", not when "completed".

Penalties for an illegal move only apply when it is "completed":


7.4 a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed [..]

A4c and B3c both have:


An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is then entitled to claim[..]

An illegal move cannot technically be "made" because:


4.6 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is then considered to have been made:[..]

While there is nothing stating directly that a player can retract an illegal move after releasing their hand and before pressing the clock, there is also nothing that says that they can't.

Rincewind
07-08-2012, 06:48 PM
No, Article 4 says: The move is called legal when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled. Article 3 is about "The moves of the pieces". Article 4 is about: The act of moving the pieces". Article 3 describes that a pawn can be promoted, and one method to do this on the board. Article 3 is about how pieces can be moved, not a detailed description of how to move a piece. Article 3 can be used to check if a move is legal after the move is completed. If the laws of chess should provide a description of how to promote a pawn, it should be put in Article 4.
I have seen the arbiters decision in the Women Blitz event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=T2wVy_52EJw
I think the arbiter's decision is horrible. (assuming that the game was lost due to not pushing the pawn to the eight rank before promoting).

I did indicate it may be debatable but I think there is a problem with the argument you give above.

If the description of the mechanics of promoting a pawn was included in Article 4 then I would agree. However as the rules stand, Article 3 prescribes how a pawn may move including promotion which states the pawn that is moved to the last rank must be exchanged and thus reads as a requirement and not an example of possible promotion practice. The present wording of Article 4 also assume the pawn reaches the last rank before being replaced.

A minor problem with allowing plonking a piece on the eighth is that Art 4 states when a pawn moves to the eighth the player loses the right to move to a different square on the eighth although the player is still free to promote to any legal piece. With plonking players avoid committing to a square potentially making plonking a more attractive option. For example if a piece is not available a player is allowed to stop the clock and seek the assistance of an arbiter to source the required piece. If the pawn is on the seventh or even in a worse case scenario there are more than one pawn on the seventh and plonking was allowed then a player could stop the clock and seek the arbiters assistance (say to find a spare queen) even though they haven't yet committed to moving to a particular square or perhaps even a particular pawn. I think a re-drafting of the rules should address this issue by prescribing that a player that needs to stop the clock for this assistance must move the pawn to the promotion square before stopping the clock.

Otto
07-08-2012, 09:14 PM
If promotion without moving the pawn is an illegal move and lost in a blitz game, then you must consider to also punish two hand castling equally. Art 3 says: ": the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed." Thus two hand castling is an illegal move. Art 4 describe that "Each move must be made with one hand only.", but there is also Art 4.4.c describing what to do if a player has touched the king and rook at the same time, but castling on that side is illegal. Art 4.4.c does not make two hand castling valid.

In my opinion two hand castling is an irregularyty, like not pushing the pawn from 7th to 8th rank, and like capture a piece with two hands (left on opponents piece, right on own piece).

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2012, 09:26 PM
Good point. Actually I overlooked something here.

Art 4.6 had "The move is called legal when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled."

It might be argued that while "on the same square" is a "requirement" of Article 3, it is not a "relevant requirement" to determining the legality of a move and should therefore be disregarded.

This strengthens the case that an incorrect promotion method (in a situation where the promotion move is otherwise legal) is not even literally an illegal move.


In my opinion two hand castling is an irregularyty, like not pushing the pawn from 7th to 8th rank, and like capture a piece with two hands (left on opponents piece, right on own piece).

I certainly agree with this in practice and would never deem an opponent lost because of the method they used to promote - provided that they didn't "promote to pawn" and press the clock.

Rincewind
08-08-2012, 01:12 AM
Art 4.6 had "The move is called legal when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled."

It might be argued that while "on the same square" is a "requirement" of Article 3, it is not a "relevant requirement" to determining the legality of a move and should therefore be disregarded.

I think the purpose the the word "relevant" is to cater for the fact that Article 3 describes lot of different pieces in different situations and only those requirements which are relevant to the move being played need to be met. For example the requirement on the movement of the king is a part of Article 3 but not relevant to the movement of a pawn and so not relevant. It is not intended to excise requirements which are relevant to the move in question like the promotion of a pawn happening on the eighth rank.

So while that case might be argued I don't believe that interpretation is the intention of 4.6.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2012, 02:13 AM
I think the purpose the the word "relevant" is to cater for the fact that Article 3 describes lot of different pieces in different situations and only those requirements which are relevant to the move being played need to be met.

That seems logical. Actually I like the idea of using it to cover both contexts though that may not have been intended.

Considering a mishandled but otherwise legal promotion to be an illegal move seems rather odd. In the situation where a player has done this but not pressed their clock, it's actually still their move despite having released their hand from the pieces, which might be very confusing for the opponent. Indeed, if the opponent makes a move in reply the incorrect promoter might then argue the opponent has moved out of turn.

But it seems although the incorrect promoter has not yet made their move, the only things they can still do are (i) press the clock and cop an illegal move claim or (ii) realise their error, remove the queen from the board, put the pawn back on the seventh rank and promote properly, then press the clock.

Jesper Norgaard
08-08-2012, 01:56 PM
Although the new rule lets the removal of the pawn and the placing of the new piece on the promotion square happen in any order, it does not mention the removal of the captured piece (if applicable) in any order. Isn't that a weakness?

Sergio Pagano
08-08-2012, 05:39 PM
Penalties for an illegal move only apply when it is "completed":


7.4 a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed [..]

A4c and B3c both have:


An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is then entitled to claim[..]

An illegal move cannot technically be "made" because:


4.6 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is then considered to have been made:[..]

While there is nothing stating directly that a player can retract an illegal move after releasing their hand and before pressing the clock, there is also nothing that says that they can't.
All your point do not clarify the question because:
a) 7.4a could be interpreted as the instructions for restoring the correct situation when an illegal move has been completed, so modifying both the position and the remaining time. In principle, it is not excluded that a claim could be raised, and a penalty could be applied, on an illegal move when simply "made", and not "completed", simply because it is an illegal move.
b) A4c and B2c simply defines when an illegal move is completed in rapid and blitz. It could be interpreted that in the normal play an illegal move is completed even BEFORE pressing the clock!
c) 4.6 defines when a legal move is "made", and what is an illegal move.

Of course, I do not mean that penalties should be applied when a player executes an illegal move and corrects it before pressing the clock. I simply noticed that Laws are not clear.

Otto
08-08-2012, 06:30 PM
.... realise their error, remove the queen from the board, put the pawn back on the seventh rank and promote properly, then press the clock.


A move is corrected by moving the incorrect moved piece(s) to the correct square(s). When the position on the board is identical to the position as if the move was correctly done, the move is corrected. Promoting a piece without pushing the pawn to the eight rank is corrected simply by removing the pawn from the board.


The position before the move compared to the position after the move is completed is the only base for determine if a move is legal or not.

Rincewind
08-08-2012, 06:38 PM
The position before the move compared to the position after the move is completed is the only base for determine if a move is legal or not.

What is the basis (in the rules) for that opinion?

Otto
08-08-2012, 09:02 PM
What is the basis (in the rules) for that opinion?

The basis for this opinion is from FA seminar. Art 3 does not describe how to move the pieces, it describes the moves of the pieces.

Our teacher IA Franca Dapiran was very clear on the question about pawn promotion: In a promotion it does not matter if you push the pawn and then promote, or promote and then remove the pawn, since the position on the board is the same when the move is completed.

Rincewind
08-08-2012, 09:19 PM
The basis for this opinion is from FA seminar. Art 3 does not describe how to move the pieces, it describes the moves of the pieces.

Our teacher IA Franca Dapiran was very clear on the question about pawn promotion: In a promotion it does not matter if you push the pawn and then promote, or promote and then remove the pawn, since the position on the board is the same when the move is completed.

The problem with debates about the rules is what the rules say is not what they were intended to mean. I tend to be swayed more by what they say then the intended meaning - perhaps an occupational hazard. But I can see nothing from the rules which says that a move's legality can be determined purely from position on the board and so I would assume that is either a principle derived from what was intended by the rule drafters or inferred by interpreters of the rules sometime later. I just can't see a basis for it explicitly stated in the rules.

Bill Gletsos
08-08-2012, 10:35 PM
The basis for this opinion is from FA seminar. Art 3 does not describe how to move the pieces, it describes the moves of the pieces.

Our teacher IA Franca Dapiran was very clear on the question about pawn promotion: In a promotion it does not matter if you push the pawn and then promote, or promote and then remove the pawn, since the position on the board is the same when the move is completed.This contradicts what Chairman of the FIDE Rules Commission IA Guert Gijssen has said in his columns on ChessCafe.

As such that is why they are now planning on changing the rules and legitimise the common practice of a player promoting without having to move the pawn to the 8th rank.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2012, 11:30 PM
And Gijssen himself has been clearly wrong in many cases in his columns (not saying this is necessarily one of them).

One of the problems in these ambiguous cases that even world-leading IAs frequently hold different views of what the rules actually mean and very likely different IAs will tell people different things even in official presentations. So there is little hope for resolving the matter by appeal to authority like an arbiters' seminar (short of asking FIDE for an official response formally) because what resolution you get depends on which authority you talk to.

Jesper Norgaard
09-08-2012, 03:46 PM
Okay, here is my suggestion for redrafting the pawn promotion. I agree with the principles in the draft, but not the execution. Of course you are free to criticize my suggestion on the same grounds that we have been criticizing the old rules and the draft sent to FIDE.

Old 3.7.e:
"When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour. The player’s choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called ‘promotion’ and the effect of the new piece is immediate."

New 3.7.e of the Draft:
"When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour. The player’s choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called ‘promotion’ and the effect of the new piece is immediate. The player has the choice: to remove the pawn from the penultimate rank and then immediately to put the new piece on the square of promotion; or to move the pawn to the last rank, then to remove the pawn from the chessboard and then immediately to put the new piece on the square of promotion. Thus the pawn can be removed from the board and the new piece be put on the appropriate square in any order.

New 3.7.e by Jesper:
e. When a pawn is moved to the last rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour. The player’s choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called ‘promotion’ and the effect of the new piece is immediate. The pawn must be removed, the new piece must be placed on the promotion square, and optionally a captured piece by the pawn must be removed from the board, in any order. Moving the pawn to the promotion square is optional.

Old 4.4.d:
"4.4 If a player having the move:
...
d. promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has touched the square of promotion."

New 4.4.d of Draft:
4.4 If a player having the move:
...
d. promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square of promotion."

New 4.4.d by Jesper:
4.4 If a player having the move:
...
d. promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched a square of promotion. The choice of the promotion square is finalised when the pawn or the new piece has touched a square of promotion.

Old 4.6.c:
"in the case of the promotion of a pawn, when the pawn has been removed from the chessboard and the player's hand has released the new piece after placing it on the promotion square. If the player has released from his hand the pawn that has reached the promotion square, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to play the pawn to another square."

New 4.6.c of Draft:
"promotion, when the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion."

New 4.6.c of Jesper:
"promotion, when the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion, and the pawn and the optionally captured piece has been removed from the board."

Jesper Norgaard
09-08-2012, 03:58 PM
Note that in the draft of 4.6.c it would be possible for Ivanchuk to play Kg3 right after Mamedyarov had placed the white queen on a8, and before he had removed the pawn from a7. I don't think that should be allowed. It is not an illegal move however, it is just a breach of Article 4, meaning the arbiter may give him a warning, and the opponent can claim a violation of Article 4 to the arbiter.

Note also that leaving the promoted pawn or the captured piece on the board and pressing the clock, is an illegal move, according to the new rules I'm suggesting.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2012, 06:27 PM
New 3.7.e by Jesper:
[..] The pawn must be removed, the new piece must be placed on the promotion square, and optionally a captured piece by the pawn must be removed from the board, in any order. Moving the pawn to the promotion square is optional.

I'd change "optionally a captured piece by the pawn must be removed from the board" to "if a piece is captured by the pawn the captured piece must be removed from the board".

For your 4.6c I'd change "the optionally" to "any".

The word "optionally" might otherwise be misinterpreted as saying that when a player captures a piece while promoting they do not need to remove it.

Jesper Norgaard
09-08-2012, 10:59 PM
I'd change "optionally a captured piece by the pawn must be removed from the board" to "if a piece is captured by the pawn the captured piece must be removed from the board".

For your 4.6c I'd change "the optionally" to "any".

The word "optionally" might otherwise be misinterpreted as saying that when a player captures a piece while promoting they do not need to remove it.
Thanks for the comments! I think you are quite right, and will produce a new version here when I have gotten my head around your suggestions. At a quick glance it looks fine.

For what it's worth, these were the objectives that I was trying to fulfill, apart from changing the description from being too detailed and requiring too much about sequence of the player promoting, to be more focused on the outcome than the way to do it:

===
Objectives: Moving the pawn is optional. Removing the pawn, putting a new piece on the promotion square, and removing an optionally captured piece, can be made in any order. All operations must be made with one hand only as per 4.1. The pawn promoted must not be left on the board when the move is completed.

If a new piece or the pawn to promote is placed on a promotion square, no other promotion square can be chosen. The choice of the new piece is determined when a valid new piece (e.g. queen, rook, knight, bishop) of the same colour is touched to the promotion square. The promotion square is chosen either by moving the pawn to it, or by moving a new piece to it, possibly combined with removing an opponent piece on the promotion square.
===
Just to make it crystal clear, the text between the "===" delimiters above was the objectives used to work out the new suggested rules, and is not a new suggestion of rules. Of course I kept those parts of the draft and the original rules that I was happy about.

If you find something in the objectives that is not fulfilled in the suggested rules, please let me know.

Otto
09-08-2012, 11:09 PM
Article 3 is about how pieces are moved, article 4 describe the act of moving the pieces. The proposed text is a mix of both.

My suggestion is: Keep the old 3.7.e as is.
The paragraph is a good explanation of the promotion move.

Modify article 4.4.d (or make a new 4.x.x) to give the description of how to promote a pawn.

Rincewind
09-08-2012, 11:12 PM
Jesper,

I would recommend a change to 6.12 (b)

Currently it says


A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available.

For reasons I've already went through earlier I think the move of the pawn to the eighth rank should be mandatory if the player needs to stop the clock to source a piece for promotion which is not available. At the very least the player should have committed to moving a particular pawn to a particular square and the simplest way to achieve this is to move the pawn to the eighth before stopping the clock.

This could be appended to 6.12b by


A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available. However, in the case of stopping the clock for the arbiter's assistance in a promotion, the player must move the pawn to the intended promotion square before stopping the clock.

Jesper Norgaard
10-08-2012, 02:03 PM
Article 3 is about how pieces are moved, article 4 describe the act of moving the pieces. The proposed text is a mix of both.

My suggestion is: Keep the old 3.7.e as is.
The paragraph is a good explanation of the promotion move.

Modify article 4.4.d (or make a new 4.x.x) to give the description of how to promote a pawn.

My understanding of Article 3 and 4 are a bit different than yours. I don't care too much about the titles in the Laws of Chess of these 2 articles, but it is clear that Article 3 is about all the obligations and criteria about moves, defining everything that is legal, and everything that is not legal. Article 4 is all the rest of details about the moves, that does not concern legality or illegality of a move. Touch-move and when a move is made and when certain decisions are finalised so that the player is not allowed to make another move.

As such this definition that I add to 3.7.e is really 4 examples of what would be illegal about a pawn promotion move:
"The pawn must be removed, the new piece must be placed on the promotion square, if a piece is captured by the pawn the captured piece must be removed from the board, in any order. Moving the pawn to the promotion square is optional"
Here we can see if you don't remove the pawn from the board, it is an illegal move. If you don't place the new piece on the promotion square, it is an illegal move. If you capture a piece with the pawn, the captured piece must be removed as part of the promotion move, or else it is an illegal move. You may move the pawn to the promotion square, or you may omit it, both are legal.
If any of these were to be moved to Article 4, failing to comply would then only be an unlawful move, not an illegal move. The practical significance is that any violation of Article 3 can lead to an immediate loss in a Blitz game. A violation of Article 4 cannot.

Likewise if you move the pawn to a promotion square, and then change your mind and put it on another promotion square, it is an unlawful move and the opponent or the arbiter (that sees it) can demand that the first promotion square must be used by that player. But that will never produce an illegal move.

Jesper Norgaard
10-08-2012, 02:42 PM
Jesper,

I would recommend a change to 6.12 (b)

Currently it says


A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available.

For reasons I've already went through earlier I think the move of the pawn to the eighth rank should be mandatory if the player needs to stop the clock to source a piece for promotion which is not available. At the very least the player should have committed to moving a particular pawn to a particular square and the simplest way to achieve this is to move the pawn to the eighth before stopping the clock.

This could be appended to 6.12b by


A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available. However, in the case of stopping the clock for the arbiter's assistance in a promotion, the player must move the pawn to the intended promotion square before stopping the clock.

Hi Rincewind, thanks for the suggestion, it certainly has some merit. Perhaps you will then be surprised I don't agree with your suggestion. That has to do with the mechanics applied when a player wants to promote but cannot find the promotion piece around, particularly if he wants a queen, and he already has a queen on the board. In the previous rules he was obliged to move the pawn, but he is not in these new rules. Therefore the rule obliging to move the pawn to the promotion square goes against the spirit of the new promotion rules. Besides I am not sure what good it would do if you give him a time penalty or a warning when not having moved the pawn first, and he asks the arbiter for a new piece (like the queen).

If you as an arbiter is asked to provide a promotion piece, and after you do that he decides to make another move, he will be in breach of 6.12.d and you can punish him in accordance with Article 13.5. That should be sufficient. If you are worried that he decides which promotion square to use while the new piece is obtained, well I think that is OK, after all it is not his fault the new piece is not available. Besides I think that in 95% of the promotions in practical play, there is only one pawn that can be promoted, and there is only one piece that makes sense. You still have the right to evaluate 6.12.d after fetching the new piece. That is resuming why I don't think it is particularly relevance, because it doesn't change much, and gives the arbiter the same rights he has always had about 6.12.d.

However, now you bring it up, I think there is a problem and always has been in 6.12.b. It says when promotion has taken place but then the new piece would already be on the promotion square. Rather it should talk about a promotion move in progress. So I suggest this:

6.12.b A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when he wants to promote a pawn and the new piece required is not available.

Rincewind
10-08-2012, 02:58 PM
If you as an arbiter is asked to provide a promotion piece, and after you do that he decides to make another move, he will be in breach of 6.12.d and you can punish him in accordance with Article 13.5. That should be sufficient. If you are worried that he decides which promotion square to use while the new piece is obtained, well I think that is OK, after all it is not his fault the new piece is not available. Besides I think that in 95% of the promotions in practical play, there is only one pawn that can be promoted, and there is only one piece that makes sense. You still have the right to evaluate 6.12.d after fetching the new piece. That is resuming why I don't think it is particularly relevance, because it doesn't change much, and gives the arbiter the same rights he has always had about 6.12.d.

I don't think it is a difference that will come up a lot however my main concern is the potential for the player with the move being able to decide on his move while the clock is stopped which should be avoided if at all possible. If the player is forced to nominate the pawn and the square before stopping the clock this avoids this situation, and the cost (one sentence appended to the rules on stopping the clock) seems very small.


So I suggest this:

6.12.b A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when he wants to promote a pawn and the new piece required is not available.

I think your suggested rewording makes the situation worse. One straightforward reading of this is that to stop the clock the player only needs to "want to promote". A player doesn't need to touch any piece to "want to promote" and so he may stop the clock and seek the arbiter for a spare queen and once it is supplied he could make another move as he no longer wants to promote. There is no prescribed penalty for changing wants. Of course an arbiter could penalise a vexatious player who did this repeatedly but isn't it better to avoid it explicitly?

Jesper Norgaard
10-08-2012, 04:23 PM
I don't think it is a difference that will come up a lot however my main concern is the potential for the player with the move being able to decide on his move while the clock is stopped which should be avoided if at all possible.
Why do we want to avoid it if at all possible? I don't think you are arguing for what is the objective, why is that desirable? On the contrary, I am arguing why I think it is not desirable. That reason is that is not his fault there is no promotion piece available, so he should not be punished by limiting his options.


If the player is forced to nominate the pawn and the square before stopping the clock this avoids this situation, and the cost (one sentence appended to the rules on stopping the clock) seems very small.

I think your suggested rewording makes the situation worse. One straightforward reading of this is that to stop the clock the player only needs to "want to promote". A player doesn't need to touch any piece to "want to promote" and so he may stop the clock and seek the arbiter for a spare queen and once it is supplied he could make another move as he no longer wants to promote. There is no prescribed penalty for changing wants. Of course an arbiter could penalise a vexatious player who did this repeatedly but isn't it better to avoid it explicitly?

First you are not avoiding it completely, only managing to reduce it a little by having the player choose between possibly several promotion squares - but after he does that he will still be free to think all he likes (next move, tactics, strategy) while the arbiter fetches the piece. My argument is that in 95% there is no gain by this extra sentence you suggest. The administration is another problem, what would be the penalty if he asks for a promotion piece and has not advanced the pawn (which is not a requirement for a promotion in the *new* laws anyhow). While the arbiter is discussing this rule about having to move a pawn to the promotion square first, he has already gotten extra time to consider (next move, tactics, strategy).

A vexatious player who asks for a new piece and then after the arbiter comes back with the piece changes his mind and makes another move, should already be punished for the first and indeed for every violation via 6.12.d

6.12
d. If a player stops the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine if the player had any valid reason for doing so. If it is obvious that the player had no valid reason for stopping the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 13.5.

13.5 The arbiter may award either or both players additional time in the event of external disturbance of the game.

I would suggest it must be within the arbiter's arsenal of actions to consider

13.9 Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:
c. reducing the remaining time of the offending player

especially since the player asking for a promotion piece without using it, is really trying to swindle himself to some extra time. That would only happen if he was short of time, and quite probably his opponent would have no use for extra time, compared to the player breaching 12.6.d

So I think the scenario you mentioned is already handled by the current laws. In your scenario, what would happen when he calls you over to get a new piece and has not moved the promotion pawn yet?

Rincewind
10-08-2012, 04:39 PM
Why do we want to avoid it if at all possible? I don't think you are arguing for what is the objective, why is that desirable? On the contrary, I am arguing why I think it is not desirable. That reason is that is not his fault there is no promotion piece available, so he should not be punished by limiting his options.

I am neither punishing him nor limiting his options but rather forcing him to committing to promoting a particular pawn on a particular square before stopping the clock. If he is going to stop the clock for a promotion piece he should at least commit to those two items before stopping the device which after all is meant to measuring his thinking time while having the move.


First you are not avoiding it completely, only managing to reduce it a little by having the player choose between possibly several promotion squares - but after he does that he will still be free to think all he likes (next move, tactics, strategy) while the arbiter fetches the piece. My argument is that in 95% there is no gain by this extra sentence you suggest. The administration is another problem, what would be the penalty if he asks for a promotion piece and has not advanced the pawn (which is not a requirement for a promotion in the *new* laws anyhow). While the arbiter is discussing this rule about having to move a pawn to the promotion square first, he has already gotten extra time to consider (next move, tactics, strategy).

Yes but he will be allowed to think about about those things provided he has already committed as much as possible to the present move. Likewise he can also be thinking about those things while his opponent has the move.


A vexatious player who asks for a new piece and then after the arbiter comes back with the piece changes his mind and makes another move, should already be punished for the first and indeed for every violation via 6.12.d

6.12
d. If a player stops the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine if the player had any valid reason for doing so. If it is obvious that the player had no valid reason for stopping the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 13.5.

My point is according to the redrafting you were suggesting the status of a valid reason shifted from "when promotion has taken place" to merely "he wants to promote a pawn".

A player could easily argue that he did genuinely want to promote and the piece was not available but subsequently realised to do so was a mistake and so they no longer wanted to. As such his reason for stopping the clock was valid (according to your suggested rewording) and should not be punished.


So I think the scenario you mentioned is already handled by the current laws.

It is handled by the current laws because they require the pawn move to the eighth rank before the exchange of the pawn with the promotion piece. However with your suggestions I believe there is a hole in the area of stopping the clock which the suggestions you have made do not address sufficiently.


In your scenario, what would happen when he calls you over to get a new piece and has not moved the promotion pawn yet?

With my suggested addition to 6.12(b) he would be penalised for stopping the clock without a valid reason. I would likely warn the player who stopped the clock and award his opponent 2 minutes of additional time.

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2012, 04:48 PM
I am neither punishing him nor limiting his options but rather forcing him to committing to promoting a particular pawn on a particular square before stopping the clock.

I agree this should be required. We don't want players stopping the clock because they are in a position to promote and would like some extra thinking time to decide whether to do so or not.

The existing revision requiring that a promotion "has taken place" is clumsy because really the promotion has not concluded until the new piece is on the board.

It could be kept to one sentence via:


A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when a pawn has been moved to a square on the opposing back rank and the piece required for promotion is not available.

but at the cost of this being only an "example" and a player possibly arguing that weaker cases are similar.

Jesper Norgaard
13-08-2012, 06:07 AM
I agree this should be required. We don't want players stopping the clock because they are in a position to promote and would like some extra thinking time to decide whether to do so or not.
No that situation is not relevant to the definition here, because it is already covered by the rules. If he asks for a promotion piece and then don't promote, he should be punished with 2 minutes to his opponent, already from a direct application of 6.12.d where it would be clear he had no valid reason to stop the clock and ask for a promotion piece, if he wasn't going to promote in the first place, so that situation isn't relevant to the wording of 6.12.b



The existing revision requiring that a promotion "has taken place" is clumsy because really the promotion has not concluded until the new piece is on the board.

Completely agree. That's a good reason to change the current 6.12.b



It could be kept to one sentence via:


A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when a pawn has been moved to a square on the opposing back rank and the piece required for promotion is not available.

but at the cost of this being only an "example" and a player possibly arguing that weaker cases are similar.

I think it would be useful to look at a few statistics. I checked my own 1,363 tournament games since I know them well and could quickly recognize the issues discussed here. Unfortunately making statistics from a mega database would be difficult, because current search criteria does not allow for the checking of what we need.

There were 74 promotions in those games. There were 4 knight promotions, 1 bishop promotion and 1 rook promotion, so underpromotion is a real consideration. Out of the underpromotions there were only one single knight promotion where the underpromotion was necessary, e.g. if promotion to a queen it would have been a draw instead of a win. In one game I made an underpromotion to a knight because the knight was available (had been captured) but the queen was still on the board, and after underpromoting the knight had to be taken or else my opponent would be worse off.

There were only one promotion where promotion was possible with another pawn. There were 8 promotions that happened with a capture, when promotion without capture was possible, but in all of these cases the latter possibility was just meaningless because the queen would be captured right away whether capturing a piece or not, so the capture was the only move that made sense.

Okay, armed with these facts let's return to the situations discussed.

You want the promoter to push the pawn first, before he stops the clock and ask the arbiter for a new piece (probably always a queen since otherwise the player has access to that piece, being captured before). I did have a rook promotion in move 20 where I had already the 2 other rooks intact, so in this instance I might well have stopped the clock, and asked for a new rook from the arbiter.
In other words you want a direct reference in the rules that tells the player that wants to promote, that he can only call the arbiter to assist in obtaining the new piece, if he has already pushed the pawn to the last rank, or else he will suffer a 2 minutes penalty added to his opponents time. This would be of potential significance in all 74 promotions I mention here. Suppose both players were very short of time, in a guillotine game, e.g. without increment time per move. Giving a 2 minutes increment to the opponent for a formality "error" is a game result changing action. This should be considered in conjunction with that we are defining rules where pushing the pawn is optional alltogether. Why would it be useful to demand that he had already pushed the pawn if he would otherwise not push it at all (he would promote just removing the pawn)? And then to give his opponent 2 minutes that will potentially let that player win the game on time for no other reason than because we demanded this formality of the promotion?

To me it doesn't make sense. As arbiter we should never ask formality for formality's own sake. Much less if this has game changing relevance to add 2 minutes to the opponents time. However trying to look at the actual games of the 74 promotions above where there was a real alternative, we almost come up empty-handed. The only example of a real alternative in fact happened in 2 games, one where any of 2 pawns could be pushed (there was really no difference) and one game where it *was* necessary to underpromote to a knight, or else it would be a draw. Note in that latter case the alternative was not the pawn push, only the promotion piece, so in fact whether it was pushed or not before asking the arbiter for (a queen or a knight) would both not give an argument for demanding the pawn push. Therefore I think it is not a good idea to lead arbiters to penalise not pushing the pawn first before asking for a new promotion piece.

Of particular relevance is that we don't otherwise demand that the pawn is pushed to be promoted.

Jesper Norgaard
13-08-2012, 08:18 AM
Perhaps there is after all a weakness in the definition I proposed:

6.12.b A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when he wants to promote a pawn and the new piece required is not available.

The problem is the vagueness of the "wants to promote a pawn". He might even want to promote a pawn long before the pawn reaches the second rank, or he might not have the move.

How about this definition:

6.12.b A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example if he has the move, and he is going to promote a pawn in his next move, and the new piece required is not available, and he asks the arbiter for that piece.

I am not too happy about the length of this definition, perhaps you have a suggestion how to express this better in English?

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2012, 01:34 PM
No that situation is not relevant to the definition here, because it is already covered by the rules. If he asks for a promotion piece and then don't promote, he should be punished with 2 minutes to his opponent, already from a direct application of 6.12.d where it would be clear he had no valid reason to stop the clock and ask for a promotion piece, if he wasn't going to promote in the first place, so that situation isn't relevant to the wording of 6.12.b

The problem with your original wording "wants to promote a pawn" is that the player could say his valid reason for stopping the clock was that he wanted to promote a pawn at the time, but that since stopping the clock he has changed his mind.

With the new wording someone might argue "his next move" means the move when he next has the move, eg he might stop the clock when he has the move 47 in order to obtain a queen for move 48. Perhaps "on this move" is better.

I think the important thing here is to make sure the player only stops the clock when they are in some sense committed to promoting and their promotion move is clearly established. I'm not too fussed about the mechanism by which this happens.


In other words you want a direct reference in the rules that tells the player that wants to promote, that he can only call the arbiter to assist in obtaining the new piece, if he has already pushed the pawn to the last rank, or else he will suffer a 2 minutes penalty added to his opponents time.

No. If the player stops the clock incorrectly they are penalised not under the illegal move rule, but under what the draft law says is 13.5 but I think is meant to be actually 13.9. The arbiter would have discretion to decide the penalty. It would probably be a warning or a smaller time bonus to the opponent.

Jesper Norgaard
13-08-2012, 03:55 PM
The problem with your original wording "wants to promote a pawn" is that the player could say his valid reason for stopping the clock was that he wanted to promote a pawn at the time, but that since stopping the clock he has changed his mind.

With the new wording someone might argue "his next move" means the move when he next has the move, eg he might stop the clock when he has the move 47 in order to obtain a queen for move 48. Perhaps "on this move" is better.

Before you answered I thought about "his next move" myself and that perhaps "his current move" would be better. "on this move" works fine as well. So it would be

6.12.b A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example if he has the move, and he is going to promote a pawn on this move, and the new piece required is not available, and he asks the arbiter for that piece



I think the important thing here is to make sure the player only stops the clock when they are in some sense committed to promoting and their promotion move is clearly established. I'm not too fussed about the mechanism by which this happens.
...
No. If the player stops the clock incorrectly they are penalised not under the illegal move rule, but under what the draft law says is 13.5 but I think is meant to be actually 13.9. The arbiter would have discretion to decide the penalty. It would probably be a warning or a smaller time bonus to the opponent.
Yes I agree that 13.5 is a mistake in the draft laws and should be 13.9, meaning all of the available bonus/penalty options to benefit the opponent. I think that the warning only makes sense if they both have "enough" time to call it plenty (open to arbiter discretion, of course).

Well I didn't say under the illegal move rule, but my mentioning of 2 minutes comes from Rincewind's answer, in fact the arbiter is free to choose his penalty (if any). But this should in my opinion not be because he did not push the pawn before calling the arbiter, but rather if he asked for a new piece and then did not promote at all. If he promoted to a different piece that was available before asking for the new piece, I think the same penalty should be applied. I wouldn't have any problem with the arbiter asking which pawn to which square, if there was any doubt, before fetching the new piece, but again since this is not even necessary in say 90% of the cases, I don't want the arbiter to have an excuse to penalise the player for not pushing the pawn. Anything Draconian I hope can be avoided.

To explicit my nightmare scenario. It's a guillotine game (normal, rapid, blitz). Black on the move has 10 seconds, white has 8. White deviously hid the captured black queen behind his coffee cup.

3R4/8/8/8/4k3/8/2p1K3/8 b - - 0 30

Black stops the clock and invokes article 6.12.b, but the arbiter tells him that he has not pushed the pawn and therefore applies 2 minutes extra to his opponent who now has 2:08. The arbiter fetches the queen and starts black's clock. Good luck on even getting the draw! Black offers a draw while queening but white refuses. Play continues 30... c1=Q 31.Re8+ Kf5 32.Rf8+ Kg6 33.Rg8+ Kh7 34.Rg3 Qc2+ 35.Ke1 Qe4+ 36.Kf2 Qf4+ 37.Rf3 black's flag falls in the middle of playing Qxf3+ 1-0. White still has 1:55 on the clock and a big grin on the face.

I don't hope we will design rules that apparently allows or even encourages this scenario. I am sure there will be arbiter's in some places that would rule like this, for instance our arbiter friend in Moscow.

Jesper Norgaard
19-05-2014, 05:38 PM
It seems we have another little incident in the ever interesting rivalry between Anna Zatonskih and Irina Krush in the US Women Ch. - after trailing a full point to Anna, Krush managed to win the direct game between the two players, and they are on equal score before the last round.

Curiously, Irina Krush promoted a pawn on h7 by placing the queen on h8, and then removing the pawn on h7 from the board. This is still an illegal move according to the strict interpretation of the Laws of Chess 2009, e.g. before the July 2014 version is in vigor. You can see for yourself in one of the photos in this report: http://en.chessbase.com/post/us-ch-rd9-everything-wide-open-again

In the new rules this is made legal by 4.6:

4.6 The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
1. the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
2. removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of arrival may
occur in any order.
If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of arrival, it must be captured.

But for the moment, I assume it is still illegal, although widely accepted since a computer promotes like that, without moving the pawn. So it is really a question who is the arbiter to determine if this is punished or not. In the game which was a normal game, the worst that could have happened to Krush was that Anna would be given two extra minutes and Krush obliged to perform a pawn push before the promotion. It would not have any influence on the actual championship. As it were, Anna didn't complain about the move and just resigned.

Thank God we are close to this promotion becoming - perfectly legal!

whatteaux
19-05-2014, 07:19 PM
The current FIDE Arbiters Manual 2013 states, on page 30, "It is acceptable and it is not considered as an illegal move, that a player removes a pawn from the seventh rank and places the promoted piece on the correct promotion square." Only in that order? One might argue that that's different from placing the promoted piece on the eighth rank and THEN removing the pawn from the seventh.

Jesper Norgaard
20-05-2014, 10:49 AM
The current FIDE Arbiters Manual 2013 states, on page 30, "It is acceptable and it is not considered as an illegal move, that a player removes a pawn from the seventh rank and places the promoted piece on the correct promotion square." Only in that order? One might argue that that's different from placing the promoted piece on the eighth rank and THEN removing the pawn from the seventh.

Indeed, as you say these two different ways to promote are similar but only one is mentioned in the Arbiter's Manual, and in fact removing the pawn from the seventh is not specifically mentioned in the Laws of Chess 2009, so I would argue the Arbiter's Manual 2013 is just wrong in your quote. Besides the manual also claims that promoting a pawn to an upside-down rook is considered an illegal move, which also has no support in the Laws of Chess 2009. On the contrary, the conclusion is that it is just a rook whether or not placed upside-down. If you for instance play with your rooks upside-down from the initial position, there seems to be no paragraph that makes that illegal in the Laws of Chess 2009. Only if you move your upside-down rook diagonally like a queen, *then* your are making an illegal move.

I am not particularly in favor of having the Laws of Chess interpreted in an Arbiter's Manual, especially if several of these interpretations are wrong.

In the USCF rules I believe that is legitimate not only to promote to an upside-down rook, and moreover the significance of that is that the rook is to be interpreted to be a queen. That is very unfortunate because you might end up in tournaments in US or in Europe this action will be interpreted highly differently. In the US the moving of an upside-down rook diagonally would instead be a legal move, and starting with your rooks upside-down would consequently be illegal I assume.

Otto
20-05-2014, 04:31 PM
Curiously, Irina Krush promoted a pawn on h7 by placing the queen on h8, and then removing the pawn on h7 from the board. This is still an illegal move according to the strict interpretation of the Laws of Chess 2009, e.g. before the July 2014 version is in vigor. You can see for yourself in one of the photos in this report: http://en.chessbase.com/post/us-ch-rd9-everything-wide-open-again


No, it is not an illegal move according to the current rules. §3 describes "The moves of the pieces", and the intention of this article is not to say how you should push your pieces. You should note that castling where you move the rook before the king is a valid move, but if violates the touch piece rule in article 4.
§ 4 describes "The act of moving the pieces", and rules of how to perform the moves are placed in this article. Note that violation on article 4 is not considered to be an illegal move.
If “promotion where you place a queen on the eight rank before you remove the pawn” is an illegal move, it's either corrected when the move is completed or §7.4 is valid:

If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. …

So if this was an illegal move, and there are no claims, the opponent can play on and try one variant, and if he does not succeed he can call the arbiter and say that the promotion 10 moves earlier was an illegal move and claim that the game shall be restarted from the same position as earlier and try another variant. This is of course a ridiculous way to interpret the rules.

Jesper Norgaard
20-05-2014, 06:55 PM
No, it is not an illegal move according to the current rules. §3 describes "The moves of the pieces", and the intention of this article is not to say how you should push your pieces. You should note that castling where you move the rook before the king is a valid move, but if violates the touch piece rule in article 4.

In general I agree with your comments, except the first one, that "it is not an illegal move to place a queen on h8 and remove the pawn from h7".
In the Laws of Chess 2009 the paragraph 3.7(e) states:
"When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the pawn’s colour."

The only way a pawn can reach the rank furthest from its starting position, is if the player pushes it there. It is not explicit in the rule, but it is assumed. That is why the Russian arbiters are stubbornly insisting that without pushing a pawn to the promotion square, no promotion can take place.

So how is this solved in the 2014 July Laws of Chess?

3.7(e) is now:
"When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival."

This does soften up the definition a bit, but does not make it crystal clear that the pawn can be promoted without actually pushing it. After all the player "plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position".

For that end the new 4.6 definition is in place:

4.6 The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
1. the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
2. removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of arrival may
occur in any order.
If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of arrival, it must be captured.

So now it is made explicit in this rule that it is not necessary to move the pawn to the promotion square, to be able to perform a promotion. However the general idea was always that everything about legality/illegality of a move was defined in § 3, not in § 4. And here the 4.6 rule is actually exonerating the promotion move from including the pawn push. I'm not totally happy with this since it seems that the legality of promoting a pawn without pushing the pawn should be mentioned in § 3, rather than in § 4.

That you can perform several of the actions in 4.6 in any order, is something that also has to do with the legality of the move. The easiest solution to the dilemma is probably to remove 4.6 alltogether from the new Laws of Chess and include all of it's definition in 3.7(e) instead.

Adamski
21-05-2014, 12:44 AM
[long quote for one-line reply snipped - mod]At least it is some improvement, though FIDE seem incapable of framing laws without leaving some small loopholes.

Otto
21-05-2014, 01:46 AM
If you see a player castling in this way: First he moves his king to b1, then the rook to c1, then the rook to d1, and at last the king to c1. Is this an illegal move? The rules are clear: "the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.". In my example the player never moved the king two moves from the original square. Then it's illegal? Of course not because the entire article 3 describes the game, not details of how to move or remove pieces. The same argument is valid for promotions.

A move is legal if the position when it has been completed can be reached based on rules; no matter which pieces were touched, added or removed and in any order.

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2014, 11:03 AM
A move is legal if the position when it has been completed can be reached based on rules; no matter which pieces were touched, added or removed and in any order.


In a castling case, it does depend on whether and when a player lets go of the various pieces involved. For instance if a player moves their king from a1 to b1 and takes their hand off it then their move is Ka1-b1 no matter what else they may pick up afterwards.

Jesper Norgaard
21-05-2014, 01:05 PM
If you see a player castling in this way: First he moves his king to b1, then the rook to c1, then the rook to d1, and at last the king to c1. Is this an illegal move? The rules are clear: "the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.". In my example the player never moved the king two moves from the original square. Then it's illegal? Of course not because the entire article 3 describes the game, not details of how to move or remove pieces. The same argument is valid for promotions.

A move is legal if the position when it has been completed can be reached based on rules; no matter which pieces were touched, added or removed and in any order.


Suppose the white player is about to castle short. The king on e1 and the rook h1 hasn't moved, and no pieces are present on f1 or g1, and no black pieces are threatening f1 or g1 or e1. White moves the rook from h1 to f1, and then the king from e1 to g1. According to 3.8(a) "the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed." I suppose your argument is that no matter if the rule says that the king is moved first, and then the rook, it will still be a legal move. A legal move with the caveat that the opponent (or the arbiter) can demand via 4.4(b) that instead he must move the rook h1.

But according to you, since the two pieces ended up on the right squares, the castling move is legal. I believe that separating substance from mechanics is not that easy.

Take the following position: White - Ke1,Ra1,e7 Black - Kb8
White moves 1.e8=R+ Kc7
White moves the rook from e8 to h1, then his king from e1 go g1, then his rook from h1 to f1, then his king from g1 to e3, then the rook from f1 to e2. Let's examine if this is a legal castling move:

From 3.8(a): "‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed."

These are the undisputed facts:

1. The rook on e8 was on it's original square, because it had not been moved since it was promoted.
2. As part of the move, the white king was transferred along the player's first rank.
3. The king ended up two squares towards the rook (e8) on its original square, and this rook was then transferred to the square between e1 (start position of king) and e3 (end position of king), in other words e2.
4. The castling was done with either rook of the same colour.

My argument is that it is not irrelevant how the move was executed, compared to the 3.8(a) definition. You have to make a literal interpretation of the text of 3.8(a), it is not enough just to check if the end placement of the king on e3 and rook on e2 corresponds with the rule. In your response you made a legal castling move by moving the king to b1 and the rook to c1, then rearranging them to c1 and d1. Here I was rearranging the king from e1 to g1 to e3, and rearranging the rook from e8 to h1 to f1 to e2.

Otto
21-05-2014, 04:52 PM
In a castling case, it does depend on whether and when a player lets go of the various pieces involved. For instance if a player moves their king from a1 to b1 and takes their hand off it then their move is Ka1-b1 no matter what else they may pick up afterwards.

Yes, but only if the opponent (or the arbiter) demand touch piece 4.4.
If the opponent touch a piece he loses his right to claim 4.4, this in contrast to if he had played Ka1-c1 where the opponent can claim illegal move according to 7.4 as long as the game is not ended.

Otto
21-05-2014, 05:02 PM
Suppose the white player is about to castle short. The king on e1 and the rook h1 hasn't moved, and no pieces are present on f1 or g1, and no black pieces are threatening f1 or g1 or e1. White moves the rook from h1 to f1, and then the king from e1 to g1. According to 3.8(a) "the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed." I suppose your argument is that no matter if the rule says that the king is moved first, and then the rook, it will still be a legal move. A legal move with the caveat that the opponent (or the arbiter) can demand via 4.4(b) that instead he must move the rook h1.

But according to you, since the two pieces ended up on the right squares, the castling move is legal. I believe that separating substance from mechanics is not that easy.

Take the following position: White - Ke1,Ra1,e7 Black - Kb8
White moves 1.e8=R+ Kc7
White moves the rook from e8 to h1, then his king from e1 go g1, then his rook from h1 to f1, then his king from g1 to e3, then the rook from f1 to e2. Let's examine if this is a legal castling move:

From 3.8(a): "‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed."

These are the undisputed facts:

1. The rook on e8 was on it's original square, because it had not been moved since it was promoted.
2. As part of the move, the white king was transferred along the player's first rank.
3. The king ended up two squares towards the rook (e8) on its original square, and this rook was then transferred to the square between e1 (start position of king) and e3 (end position of king), in other words e2.
4. The castling was done with either rook of the same colour.

My argument is that it is not irrelevant how the move was executed, compared to the 3.8(a) definition. You have to make a literal interpretation of the text of 3.8(a), it is not enough just to check if the end placement of the king on e3 and rook on e2 corresponds with the rule. In your response you made a legal castling move by moving the king to b1 and the rook to c1, then rearranging them to c1 and d1. Here I was rearranging the king from e1 to g1 to e3, and rearranging the rook from e8 to h1 to f1 to e2.

Position A (before castling):
White - Ke1, Ra1, Re8 (Rook not moved after promotion) Black – Kc7.
Position B (after castling):
White – Ke3, Ra1, Re2 Black – Kc7.

A move is legal if the position when it has been completed can be reached based on rules; no matter which pieces were touched, added or removed and in any order.

Can the position B be reached from position A by a move based on the rules?
No, the rook on e8 was not on the players first rank.
The move is illegal

Jesper Norgaard
22-05-2014, 05:49 AM
Position A (before castling):
White - Ke1, Ra1, Re8 (Rook not moved after promotion) Black – Kc7.
Position B (after castling):
White – Ke3, Ra1, Re2 Black – Kc7.

A move is legal if the position when it has been completed can be reached based on rules; no matter which pieces were touched, added or removed and in any order.

Can the position B be reached from position A by a move based on the rules?
No, the rook on e8 was not on the players first rank.
The move is illegal

It is not an explicit requirement that the rook is on the first rank to be able to castle - it is an explicit requirement that the castling move is along the first rank, which it was (partly). It might be a correct interpretation that the rook must be on the first rank to be able to do that, but an interpretation it is. That leads back to the question whether an interpretation on 3.7(e) on the sequence described is binding for if the move is legal or not. If the promotion move is described using a certain sequence (pawn pushed, then promotion takes place) and then 4.6 describes it is perfectly valid to do it without a pawn push, when 4.6 supposedly can say nothing about the legality of the move, then it is clear a loophole is still present in the rules whether a promotion without pawn push is legal or not.

I am not arguing necessarily that castling with a rook on e8 is legal - rather it is an example that the elements described in paragraph 3 (the legality of moves) will have to be interpreted both in terms of sequence and common sense. Thus if a breach of rules is considered to be a minor breach, it can be described in paragraph 4, but if the move will be illegal because of this breach, it must be described in paragraph 3. That also means that if it is legal to make a pawn promotion without a pawn push, it must be clear from reading paragraph 3 only, without reading paragraph 4.

The way I read 4.6 is
1. It is legal to make a promotion without pushing the pawn.
2. A pawn promotion will have to remove the pawn and place the promoted piece on the square of arrival. It is legal to execute these in any order.

Jesper Norgaard
22-05-2014, 01:20 PM
The new rule for 3.7(e) July 2014 is now:

"When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival."

To me this description obligates the pawn push because he/she "plays a pawn". That makes it difficult how 4.6 can permit that the pawn is actually not pushed/played at all.

Perhaps 3.7(e) could be written like this:

"When a player, having the move, decides to play a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival."

In this case there is no implicit push of the pawn as a requirement to execute the pawn promotion. That means that the order of the act of promotion may be described in 4.6 as it is in the July 2014 version. Also note that the sequence of 1. removing pawn 2. placing new piece has not really been defined in 3.7(e) because it is all an implicit part of the word "exchange". Therefore 1. placing a new piece 2. removing pawn would still accomplish the "exchange" and therefore it is not necessary to describe in paragraph 3 which sequence is legal, because both sequences are legal.

Concerning the definition of 6.12(b):
"A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available."

I have no problem in that definition to include it is necessary to push the pawn to be able to seek the arbiter's assistance, while the current definition is actually contradictory because the promotion has only taken place when the new piece is in fact placed on the square of arrival. Thus it could be defined like this:

"A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when a pawn has been played to the rank furthest from its starting position and the piece required is not available."

This will make the definition clearer and oblige the player to play the pawn before seeking the arbiter's assistance, which also has the advantage of defining the square of arrival and if it is a capture, which piece is captured.

Jesper Norgaard
24-05-2014, 06:38 PM
From post #32

[EDIT: I'm not so sure about the first three paragraphs of this response now; see #36. The issue is: what is a relevant requirement?]

One of the requirements of Article 3 is "it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour." So if the pawn does not reach the final square then there cannot be an exchange on that square and therefore the requirement for exchange on the same square is not met. This is not "one" method of promoting a pawn, but the only method, as indicated by the word "must".

And there is 7.4a: "If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn [..]"

So reading the current Laws literally, if a pawn is not exchanged on the same square then an illegal move has occurred (if it is completed). And to be exchanged on the same square it must reach the square where the exchange occurred.

In my view it was not intended that this rule catch out people who promote by taking the pawn off the seventh and putting the new piece on the eighth. And I do not think arbiters should enforce it as literally written given that it is probably just bad drafting.


I think that "if a pawn is not exchanged on the same square then an illegal move has occurred" is the contentious claim, and I think that it should be rejected.
Take the en passant move. A game continues with 15.c2-c4 d4xc3 e.p. In this case the white pawn was captured on c3 even though the pawn was standing on c4. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that the white pawn was captured on c4. Likewise if white puts a white queen on a8 and removes the pawn from a7, nobody would suggest that the exchange of the pawn by the queen happened on a7, they would say it happened on a8. It follows logically from where the replacing piece settle down.

From post #36


Good point. Actually I overlooked something here.

Art 4.6 had "The move is called legal when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled."

It might be argued that while "on the same square" is a "requirement" of Article 3, it is not a "relevant requirement" to determining the legality of a move and should therefore be disregarded.

This strengthens the case that an incorrect promotion method (in a situation where the promotion move is otherwise legal) is not even literally an illegal move.

I certainly agree with this in practice and would never deem an opponent lost because of the method they used to promote - provided that they didn't "promote to pawn" and press the clock.

I disagree with this view that in some cases something literal in article 3 is not a part of a "relevant requirement" - I think what is referred to is that many parts of article 3 can be relevant (or not) for a specific move, for instance it is also relevant for a promotion move that "3.1 It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour" so for example if you have a pawn on a7 and a king on a8, you cannot make a promotion move to a8. Otherwise each rule in article 3 should be taken literally to a certain extent. But where the exchange physically takes place in a given move, cannot be a decisive factor if the move was executed as described - and it shouldn't.

If someone promotes by replacing the pawn on a7 with a white queen on that square, and then pushes the queen to a8 - would that be an illegal move? I would argue it isn't, because the exchange that apparently to our eyes happened on a7, functionally happened on a8, because the queen settled on a8.

In the evaluation of the moves 1.e8=R+ Kc7 2.0-0-0-0! (with white king ending up on e3, white rook on e2) we also need to evaluate if the move functionally was made along the first rank, not just if the rook and the king were moved to the first rank as part of the execution of the move. Functionally we can say that the move was not at all along the first rank, but rather along the e-file. This is probably the best example that can be given on how much emphasis to put in a literal description in an article vs. the functionality of it.

I don´t like having a description of a promotion move as pushing a pawn when the pawn push never takes place, neither physically nor functionally. I don´t like to have a promotion move "made" where the new piece is not replaced yet. It does not compute. We should be better article drafters!

The solutions I suggest are straight forward:

3.7(e): "When a player, having the move, decides to play a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival."

6.12(b): "A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when a pawn has been played to the rank furthest from its starting position and the piece required is not available."

TomekP
18-05-2016, 06:57 PM
Playing blitz 10 minutes.
White player moves the pawn on d8 and switches the clock. Opponent makes a move. White takes the pawn with d8 and puts queen on e8 mate with. Black advertises incorrect move.

According to the latest regulations: If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn.
If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.
Question: pawn when you press the clock is already the queen, or you can turn it into the next move? So if the move Qd8-e8 is valid if d8 to become a pawn (but in accordance with a queen), and e8 stood queen.

Kevin Bonham
18-05-2016, 07:49 PM
On my reading Black's claim is incorrect. White's move of the pawn to d8 then pressing the clock without replacing the pawn was illegal. Black could have made a claim of illegal move but lost the right to claim because he made a move. Now the Laws require that the pawn be replaced with a queen so white is not breaking any laws by changing it to a queen, nor by moving it like one. Black missed his chance to claim and does not get another one.

Ideally the pawn should be changed to a queen on the square d8 and then the queen moves to e8 but I would not say white should lose the game because he changed it in mid-move.