PDA

View Full Version : Pressing the clock before promoting



Kevin Bonham
22-10-2004, 01:38 PM
The issue of what to do when a player plays (for instance) Ph7-h8 then presses the clock before replacing the pawn with a queen or other piece has been discussed here before. This is the most relevant part of Gijssen's comment on it in his latest Arbiter's Notebook:


The correct action, when a player promotes without replacing the pawn with a piece and presses his clock, is to stop the clocks and call the arbiter, who must then take appropriate measures. But what are appropriate measures? It goes too far to award a win. The correct action is to compensate the offended player by giving him 1 or 2 minutes of extra time. I do not consider this incomplete promotion as an illegal move, but as an illegal action.

(I have indicated in bold a piece I think is important because in the past I have argued that things like this should be treated as incomplete moves and not as illegal moves, ie what is illegal is pressing the clock before the move is finished.)

Garvinator
22-10-2004, 01:43 PM
The issue of what to do when a player plays (for instance) Ph7-h8 then presses the clock before replacing the pawn with a queen or other piece has been discussed here before. This is the most relevant part of Gijssen's comment on it in his latest Arbiter's Notebook:



(I have indicated in bold a piece I think is important because in the past I have argued that things like this should be treated as incomplete moves and not as illegal moves, ie what is illegal is pressing the clock before the move is finished.)
i know what most players do is not necessarily the correct course of action under the rules, but wouldnt most players just re hit the opponents clock and tell them to put the new piece on the board before hitting the clock?

eclectic
22-10-2004, 01:55 PM
KB,

I suspect that a new rule might be added

"In the absence of an announcement a promoted pawn not substituted shall be deemed to be a queen."

I wonder if the other player in response might be able to deliver checkmate by deciding that his opponent's promoted pawn is a piece which suits his intentions.

Just being facetious ;)

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2004, 03:36 PM
i know what most players do is not necessarily the correct course of action under the rules, but wouldnt most players just re hit the opponents clock and tell them to put the new piece on the board before hitting the clock?

Many do (just as many do the same when a player knocks pieces over and does not put them back before pressing). This is incorrect under the rules; the correct course of action when a player fails to complete a promotion is to stop the clock and get the arbiter. As Gijssen's reply shows, you can even get some free time this way!

Bill Gletsos
22-10-2004, 07:10 PM
Consider the following sequence occurs.

1) White pushes a pawn to the 8th rank.
2) White Presses his clock.
3) White grabs a Queen.
4) Black makes a move and presses his clock.
5) White places his new queen on the Board.
6) White then moves a either the queen or another piece and presses his clock.
7) Black claims illegal move as step 5 occurred no longer as part of Step 1 but as a distinct step due to Black's step 4.

eclectic
22-10-2004, 07:33 PM
Consider the following sequence occurs.

1) White pushes a pawn to the 8th rank.
2) White Presses his clock.
3) White grabs a Queen.
4) Black makes a move and presses his clock.
5) White places his new queen on the Board.
6) White then moves a either the queen or another piece and presses his clock.
7) Black claims illegal move as step 5 occurred no longer as part of Step 1 but as a distinct step due to Black's step 4.

we could have the rules backtrack to step 1) but have instead black chose for white what the new piece will be ... ;)

the legality of black's move or range of legal moves available in 4) might be affected by not having the promoted piece on the board

clearly white is doing 1) and 2) to save time by not selecting then placing a piece and also to confuse the opponent who cannot assume that a queen will necessarily be chosen

it would seem to be the type of stunt that a lightning or blitz player would try to pull

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2004, 08:24 PM
we could have the rules backtrack to step 1) but have instead black chose for white what the new piece will be ... ;)

Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me.

Bill Gletsos
22-10-2004, 08:32 PM
we could have the rules backtrack to step 1) but have instead black chose for white what the new piece will be ... ;)
Sorry but I'm not interested in such folly.


the legality of black's move or range of legal moves available in 4) might be affected by not having the promoted piece on the board
Not valid.
In that case White should have stopped the clock and summoned the arbiter instead of starting Blacks clock.


clearly white is doing 1) and 2) to save time by not selecting then placing a piece and also to confuse the opponent who cannot assume that a queen will necessarily be chosen
I would agree with this.


it would seem to be the type of stunt that a lightning or blitz player would try to pull
True.

At a NSW State Lightning Championship a few years back the following position occurred.

White: Kg3, A Rook somewhere on the "a" file
Black: Kg1, Pawn h2.
It was Black to move.
Black played h1 and pressed his clock.
He neither said anything nor promoted the pawn.
White played Ra1 mate.
Black then replaced the pawn on a1 with a Black Knight and captured whites King which was now in check. (King captures were legal)
As expected an argument broke out between them.
The arbiter appeared.
Whilst the arbiter considered his options Black somehow managed to convince White to call it a draw.
The arbiter accepted this.

This raises a couple of questions.
Firstly what should the arbiters actions be with regards what happened on the board.
Secondly can the players agree to a draw under the circumstances.

Lets look at the game position first.
Clearly Black is trying to pull a swifty and should not be allowed to benefit from his actions.

I think the ruling should be that Black lost the right to promote his pawn as soon as White played the mating move Ra1 and the game ended at that point. Therefore White wins.
What however would have happend if the White rook had been on say a5 and there was a white pawn on a2. White cannot mate now so what if White had played Rb5. Clearly Black should not benefit from his attempted swindle (some may even call it cheating). If White has pressed his clock after moving the rook then I dont believe Black should be allowed to promote the pawn at all. It should remain on a1 as a pawn. If White has not pressed his clock then if Black now makes the pawn a Knight then White should stop the clock and summon the arbiter.

Now lets look at the situation where the players agree to a draw whilst the arbiter is considering his decision. I'm not sure they should be allowed to do this. The game was stopped and the arbiter asked to make a ruling. Whilst the arbiter is pondering his decision the game is in a suspended state hence the players cannot make any binding decision. The arbiter should make a ruling and if he determines the game should continue in some manner then the players can agre to the draw (if of course they would still want to).

Rhubarb
22-10-2004, 08:49 PM
Against Zhao in the Sydney grade matches earlier this year I had about a minute to make 8 moves (no increment). I was about to promote to a second queen but there were no other queens nearby, so I stopped the clock, told Z-Y that I intended to queen, went looking for a queen and eventually found one 30 seconds later, restarted my clock and promoted properly. Z-Y didn't object at all to this, but are my actions correct? It's hard to see what else I could've done since I still had two rooks on the board as well, else I might have tried the old upside down rook.

JGB
22-10-2004, 09:03 PM
Against Zhao in the Sydney grade matches earlier this year I had about a minute to make 8 moves (no increment). I was about to promote to a second queen but there were no other queens nearby, so I stopped the clock, told Z-Y that I intended to queen, went looking for a queen and eventually found one 30 seconds later, restarted my clock and promoted properly. Z-Y didn't object at all to this, but are my actions correct? It's hard to see what else I could've done since I still had two rooks on the board as well, else I might have tried the old upside down rook.

We had the same thing happen in a league game last year, and the guy used the old upside down rook, which the opponent of course allowed knowing that a rook is always a rook regardless of how it stands. The player not knowing he had underpromoted until he made a false rook move which his opponent quickly drew his attention to. So we learnt pretty quickly to just stop the clock and draw the adjudicators attention to the matter of an extra queen not being available.

Bill Gletsos
22-10-2004, 09:14 PM
Against Zhao in the Sydney grade matches earlier this year I had about a minute to make 8 moves (no increment). I was about to promote to a second queen but there were no other queens nearby, so I stopped the clock, told Z-Y that I intended to queen, went looking for a queen and eventually found one 30 seconds later, restarted my clock and promoted properly. Z-Y didn't object at all to this, but are my actions correct? It's hard to see what else I could've done since I still had two rooks on the board as well, else I might have tried the old upside down rook.
I'll be pedantic here Greg. ;)
Given there is no arbiter at the Grade Matches then your actions are entirely correct.
If however this was a tournament with an arbiter present then instead of searching for the queen yourself you should ask the arbiter to provide one. (Make him earn his DOP fee :lol: )

I known Gijssen has mentioned that the use of the old upside down rook is not acceptable.

Rhubarb
22-10-2004, 09:32 PM
I'll be pedantic here Greg. ;)
Given there is no arbiter at the Grade Matches then your actions are entirely correct.
If however this was a tournament with an arbiter present then instead of searching for the queen yourself you should ask the arbiter to provide one. (Make him earn his DOP fee :lol: )

I known Gijssen has mentioned that the use of the old upside down rook is not acceptable.
Okay thanks. Supposing I want to play devil's advocate and ask what happens when there's no extra queen, no arbiter, both rooks are still on the board and an unreasonable opponent?

eclectic
22-10-2004, 09:39 PM
Okay thanks. Supposing I want to play devil's advocate and ask what happens when there's no extra queen, no arbiter, both rooks are still on the board and an unreasonable opponent?

should we then pray that an infamous doeberl cup incident does not repeat itself? ...

;)

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2004, 09:41 PM
Firstly what should the arbiters actions be with regards what happened on the board.

I would do one of the following depending on my impression of how blatant Black's attempt to cheat had been:

(*) declare the game lost for Black for a serious attempt to cheat.

(*) require Black to knight the pawn and award White extra time, with the game continuing with White to move from the position after the pawn was knighted.


What however would have happend if the White rook had been on say a5 and there was a white pawn on a2. White cannot mate now so what if White had played Rb5. Clearly Black should not benefit from his attempted swindle (some may even call it cheating).

As above. Note that while in the former case knighting the pawn was the "best" move (it loses, but it is the only move that forces White to think at all), in this case knighting the pawn is a blunder as Black should have queened it, so making him knight the pawn will be a fairly serious penalty.


If White has pressed his clock after moving the rook then I dont believe Black should be allowed to promote the pawn at all. It should remain on a1 as a pawn.

I don't like this, firstly for the same "it's just not chess" reason as I don't like Barry's game-continues-after-king-capture idea, and secondly because there is bound to be a possible position in which pawning a pawn (!) draws while everything else loses. (The idea would be that after pawning, a stalemate cannot be prevented.) There would also be positions where pawning the pawn still lost but made the win more difficult. Such things should not be encouraged.


Now lets look at the situation where the players agree to a draw whilst the arbiter is considering his decision. I'm not sure they should be allowed to do this. The game was stopped and the arbiter asked to make a ruling. Whilst the arbiter is pondering his decision the game is in a suspended state hence the players cannot make any binding decision. The arbiter should make a ruling and if he determines the game should continue in some manner then the players can agre to the draw (if of course they would still want to).

I agree.

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2004, 09:51 PM
Okay thanks. Supposing I want to play devil's advocate and ask what happens when there's no extra queen, no arbiter, both rooks are still on the board and an unreasonable opponent?

I think you would have to agree on a queen substitute as this situation is not precisely covered under the Laws.


We had the same thing happen in a league game last year, and the guy used the old upside down rook, which the opponent of course allowed knowing that a rook is always a rook regardless of how it stands. The player not knowing he had underpromoted until he made a false rook move which his opponent quickly drew his attention to.

*laughs*

That is brilliant.

Bill Gletsos
22-10-2004, 10:02 PM
I would do one of the following depending on my impression of how blatant Black's attempt to cheat had been:

(*) declare the game lost for Black for a serious attempt to cheat.

(*) require Black to knight the pawn and award White extra time, with the game continuing with White to move from the position after the pawn was knighted.
I'm not convinced.
Article 5.1a says The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.
That fact the pawn on h1 was still a pawn would seem to be immaterial (indeed an illegal position) because Ra1 is certainly a legal move.


As above. Note that while in the former case knighting the pawn was the "best" move (it loses, but it is the only move that forces White to think at all), in this case knighting the pawn is a blunder as Black should have queened it, so making him knight the pawn will be a fairly serious penalty.
In my haste to stop the immediate mate with the rook I totally fogot that the pawn can just queen.



I don't like this, firstly for the same "it's just not chess" reason as I don't like Barry's game-continues-after-king-capture idea, and secondly because there is bound to be a possible position in which pawning a pawn (!) draws while everything else loses. (The idea would be that after pawning, a stalemate cannot be prevented.) There would also be positions where pawning the pawn still lost but made the win more difficult. Such things should not be encouraged.
Unfortunately I dont like this idea.
Where do you draw the line as to when the pawn can be replaced by a piece.
In a different position white may push a pawn to the 8th rank but fail to promote it. Both Black and he then make a number of moves on the board all the time with the pawn sitting on the 8th. White suddenly decides that its time to promote the pawn to a Q and does so.
If its an illegal move at this point then it was an illegal move after Black had originally replied to the pawn going to the 8th rank and Black pressing his clock.
If it wasnt illegal then then its not illegal now.
Blitz certainly does not allow for the back tracking of the game to the point of the pawn moving to the 8th rank.

Therefore although you may say "its just not chess" I would argue that my solution is preferably to yours. ;)

Bill Gletsos
22-10-2004, 10:09 PM
Okay thanks. Supposing I want to play devil's advocate and ask what happens when there's no extra queen, no arbiter, both rooks are still on the board and an unreasonable opponent?
I agree with Kevin that you would need to agree on an acceptable substitute.
Failing that you could attempt to get your team captain to sort it out with your oponents team captain.

If no comprimise could be reached you would just have to either wait for another game to end and a Queen become available (quite possibly this is unacceptable as your opponent may well be in serious time trouble and the delay would benefit him) or more likely record the position and the times and submit it to the Grade Match arbiter for resolution.

Given the onus is on the home team to provide the equipment then there may be a case for arguing they were ill prepared and that the home player should be declared the loser. :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2004, 11:56 PM
I'm not convinced.
Article 5.1a says The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.
That fact the pawn on h1 was still a pawn would seem to be immaterial (indeed an illegal position) because Ra1 is certainly a legal move.

It is, but as previously discussed on another thread, I don't think it is the checkmating player's move, because the opponent's previous move is still incomplete and has to be completed first.


Unfortunately I dont like this idea.
Where do you draw the line as to when the pawn can be replaced by a piece.
In a different position white may push a pawn to the 8th rank but fail to promote it. Both Black and he then make a number of moves on the board all the time with the pawn sitting on the 8th. White suddenly decides that its time to promote the pawn to a Q and does so.

I would rule that once both players have made a move after the non-promotion then the pawn can only be considered a queen, because this is the most common promotion and both players have missed a chance to assert otherwise. The case is not explicitly covered.

Incidentally this raises another option for the case above - to rule that the player failing to specify a promotion before pressing their clock has queened by default and to therefore rule that the rook mate ends the game. However the player who fails to specify a promotion should be immediately penalised if possible.


Blitz certainly does not allow for the back tracking of the game to the point of the pawn moving to the 8th rank.

If the arbiter rules that the situation is not explicitly covered then the arbiter could backtrack if necessary. I would definitely rather not backtrack several moves myself, far too messy for a blitz game.

JGB
23-10-2004, 12:39 AM
I just realised the name of the topic and I apolgoise for earlier posting here as a non Arbiter :uhoh: , oops

Kevin Bonham
23-10-2004, 01:13 AM
I just realised the name of the topic and I apolgoise for earlier posting here as a non Arbiter :uhoh: , oops

Non-arbiters are welcome and encouraged on "arbiter's corner" threads. In particular they can help by giving a player's perspective on a rule - sometimes when only arbiters discuss rules they can become biased in favour of whatever is easiest to implement.

The title is just to warn off those not interested in rules debates (some of which can go for ages and be very technical and pedantic.)

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 01:16 AM
(some of which can go for ages and be very technical and pedantic.)
this has never happened before surely :P ;) :lol:

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 01:20 AM
I do have a question though about this promotion situation. Black has failed to promote correctly, this would mean that black has played an illegal move. Therefore shouldnt black be subject to the normal illegal move penalties?

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 01:40 AM
It is, but as previously discussed on another thread, I don't think it is the checkmating player's move, because the opponent's previous move is still incomplete and has to be completed first.
Yes, but in Gijssen's answer you quoted where he calls it an illegal action the opponent stopped the clock and claimed illegal move. In the case I cited White did not claim illegal move but has instead made a mating move on his own time. Why should White have hesitated from making this move. He does not know if Black was too lazy to queen, did not consider making it a knight, overlooked the mating move or something else entirely.
In fact if Whites next move was not a mating move perhaps Black would have picked up the pawn and moved it like a Queen (a clearly illegal move).

On deeper thought I'm not so sure I really like Geurt's idea of illegal action. Geurt notes that if a player promotes a pawn to a piece of his opponents color and presses his clock the opponent can then claim illegal move and win the game. Surely this is just as much an illgal action as not promoting in the first place.

Blitz isnt like normal or rapid chess. Virtually anything goes. Blacks failure to carry out the move in the correct sequence is his problem as is his failure to complete it. Black pressed the clock. White makes his move and presses his clock. Its too late now for Black to promte his pawn.


I would rule that once both players have made a move after the non-promotion then the pawn can only be considered a queen, because this is the most common promotion and both players have missed a chance to assert otherwise. The case is not explicitly covered.
I would argue that this is totally incorrect. There is no justification for intereprating any Article that the pawn in such a circumstance must be considered a queen. In fact in his August 2003 column Gijssen says in reply to Rodrigo Nascimento's situation where the following occurred White promoted a pawn and grabbed a queen to replace it. Meanwhile, his opponent captured the promoted pawn with a rook. Then, the white player
captured the rook with the queen that was in his hand! The black player didn't notice it and completed his next move. Only then he realized what happened and demanded a victory. The white player argued that as black had already completed his move he couldn't claim a victory anymore and the actual position - with the queen in play - should be maintained.
that
The situation is in my opinion quite easy. After a player has completed his move, he has no possibility of claiming an irregularity of his opponent, committed the previous move.
In Rodrigo's situation the capture of the Rook by a Queen that was not legally on the board would also once again be just as much an illegal action as an illegal move (it cannot be a move since the Queen even if it had been placed on the board correctly was captured so cannot just appear on the following move to capture the rook).

Incidentally this raises another option for the case above - to rule that the player failing to specify a promotion before pressing their clock has queened by default and to therefore rule that the rook mate ends the game. However the player who fails to specify a promotion should be immediately penalised if possible.
Sorry cant go along with this. I see no reason to consider an unpromoted pawn is a queen.



If the arbiter rules that the situation is not explicitly covered then the arbiter could backtrack if necessary. I would definitely rather not backtrack several moves myself, far too messy for a blitz game.
Again I dont agree.
As Geyrt says above if an iregularity occurs in blitz and it is not claimed before the player himself makes a move then the game continues, you dont get to backtrack.

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 01:44 AM
I do have a question though about this promotion situation. Black has failed to promote correctly, this would mean that black has played an illegal move. Therefore shouldnt black be subject to the normal illegal move penalties?
This illegal action is a thing of Gijssen's and I'm not sure would be supported by the other Rules Commission members.
The reason I say this is because as far as I am concerned it can be open to interpretation and cause more anomalies than it attempts to solve.

Kevin Bonham
23-10-2004, 03:44 PM
Yes, but in Gijssen's answer you quoted where he calls it an illegal action the opponent stopped the clock and claimed illegal move.

Presumably if Gijssen thinks it is not an illegal move when illegal move is claimed he also thinks it is not an illegal move when illegal move isn't claimed. And he certainly can't think it's a legal move, because it isn't one. So I don't think this makes any difference. Surely if a move is neither a legal move nor an illegal move it must be something else, which I would suggest is an incomplete move (my term) or "illegal action" (his).


On deeper thought I'm not so sure I really like Geurt's idea of illegal action. Geurt notes that if a player promotes a pawn to a piece of his opponents color and presses his clock the opponent can then claim illegal move and win the game. Surely this is just as much an illgal action as not promoting in the first place.

I don't agree because h7-h8=P is still part of a legal move that has not been completed before pressing the clock whereas h7-h8=Black Knight cannot be part of any legal move.


Blitz isnt like normal or rapid chess. Virtually anything goes.

Then why not playing on with one king on the board as Barry suggests as well?


I would argue that this is totally incorrect. There is no justification for intereprating any Article that the pawn in such a circumstance must be considered a queen. In fact in his August 2003 column Gijssen says in reply to Rodrigo Nascimento's situation where the following occurred White promoted a pawn and grabbed a queen to replace it. Meanwhile, his opponent captured the promoted pawn with a rook. Then, the white player
captured the rook with the queen that was in his hand! The black player didn't notice it and completed his next move. Only then he realized what happened and demanded a victory. The white player argued that as black had already completed his move he couldn't claim a victory anymore and the actual position - with the queen in play - should be maintained.

Again, the situation is not equivalent because queen from hyperspace takes rook is a totally illegal move and not potentially part of an incomplete legal move. If Gijssen's concept of "illegal action" includes "pressing the clock before all the relevant actions of an otherwise legal move have been completed" then I see no problem. So I don't believe Gijssen has contradicted himself yet, although I shall not be surprised if you find evidence of him doing so very shortly. :D

It's also a question of gravity. Bringing a piece onto the board from off it is probably deliberate cheating, is worse than making an illegal move on the board and should certainly be punishable by loss of game if the opponent claims. However it is not clearcut whether pressing the clock before completing a promotion (or, for instance, playing Ke1-g1 - press clock - Rh1-f1 to castle) is as serious as an "illegal move" and needing the same punishment.


In Rodrigo's situation the capture of the Rook by a Queen that was not legally on the board would also once again be just as much an illegal action as an illegal move (it cannot be a move since the Queen even if it had been placed on the board correctly was captured so cannot just appear on the following move to capture the rook).

There is really no definition of "move" in the Laws. You can work out that some things are legal moves, that some things are parts of legal moves, and that knocking pieces over by accident is not a move at all, but apart from that there is nothing to explicitly say that queen-from-hyperspace-takes-rook is a non-move action as opposed to an illegal move.


Sorry cant go along with this. I see no reason to consider an unpromoted pawn is a queen.

My main reason for doing so is that when players are playing informally, and sometimes even in tournaments, quite often both players will accept that an unpromoted pawn is a queen - for instance in a situation where it is obviously going to be taken right away. Although the arbiter must always interfere when this occurs, I'd assume that when no arbiter is watching this kind of thing goes on without comment quite a lot.


Again I dont agree.
As Geyrt says above if an iregularity occurs in blitz and it is not claimed before the player himself makes a move then the game continues, you dont get to backtrack.

That's not exactly what he said - what he said was that a player has no possibility of "claiming an irregularity of his opponent, committed the previous move". It says nothing about a situation where an arbiter wishes to rectify an irregularity or to force a player to rectify his own irregularity. All he is saying is that the player loses the opportunity to make a claim and take advantage.

This is fairly academic from my perspective as I don't think the position should be wound back anyway. But if an arbiter did so, I would not be certain they were "wrong".

Kevin Bonham
23-10-2004, 03:47 PM
I do have a question though about this promotion situation. Black has failed to promote correctly, this would mean that black has played an illegal move.

This is what we're debating - whether it is an "illegal move" or not.

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 03:52 PM
My main reason for doing so is that when players are playing informally, and sometimes even in tournaments, quite often both players will accept that an unpromoted pawn is a queen - for instance in a situation where it is obviously going to be taken right away. Although the arbiter must always interfere when this occurs, I'd assume that when no arbiter is watching this kind of thing goes on without comment quite a lot.

Kevin, on this point and the previous one you make about deeming an unpromoted pawn as a queen, i cant agree with this. the rules dont state which piece is should be, it is up to the player to choose which piece they want. A player knowing that an unpromoted pawn is to be a queen, could just promote the pawn and press the clock, saving time if they wanted the pawn to be a queen.

I would say that just because an action occurs informally is not a reason to encourage an action in competition. What players do in social games is their business. Encouraging an action to occur in tournaments is just a recipe for a type of anarchy and lack of knowledge for the laws of chess.

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 03:57 PM
My main reason for doing so is that when players are playing informally, and sometimes even in tournaments, quite often both players will accept that an unpromoted pawn is a queen - for instance in a situation where it is obviously going to be taken right away. Although the arbiter must always interfere when this occurs, I'd assume that when no arbiter is watching this kind of thing goes on without comment quite a lot.
Apparently Shirov lost a Blitz game where he failed to promote a pawn then lost to an illegal move claim when he moved the pawn like a queen on the following move. Certainly his opponent in this case did not consider it a queen.
I dont think that the assumption that an unpromoted pawn on the 8th rank that isnt replaced is automatically a queen is in any way valid.


That's not exactly what he said - what he said was that a player has no possibility of "claiming an irregularity of his opponent, committed the previous move". It says nothing about a situation where an arbiter wishes to rectify an irregularity or to force a player to rectify his own irregularity. All he is saying is that the player loses the opportunity to make a claim and take advantage.
I think you a being a little pedantic ;) and that what you are claiming is not what he meant. :lol:


This is fairly academic from my perspective as I don't think the position should be wound back anyway. But if an arbiter did so, I would not be certain they were "wrong".
I agree it is fairly academic.
I'd be more inclined to think the arbiter was wrong if he backed it up than if he didnt.

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 04:03 PM
Does this section of the laws of chess apply to this situation:

7.4 1. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been made, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity.
The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 04:29 PM
Ok I believe I have discovered where Geurt shoots himself in the foot.

In the new propsed FIDE rules that will be discussed and ratified at the current olympiad the following is stated:

7.4 a. If during a game it is found by the arbiter or one of the players that an illegal move, including not exchanging a pawn who reached the last rank for a queen rook, bishop or knight and capturing the opponentís king, has been completed

It would seem from this that the rules are clariying that an unpromoted pawn or a king capture is considered an illegal move.

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 04:33 PM
Does this section of the laws of chess apply to this situation:

7.4 1. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been made, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity.
The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.
No because C3 of the Blitz rules overrides the current 7.4 (a) rules.
BTW you mean 7.4 (a) not 7.4 1

Kevin Bonham
23-10-2004, 04:50 PM
A player knowing that an unpromoted pawn is to be a queen, could just promote the pawn and press the clock, saving time if they wanted the pawn to be a queen.

But then if the opponent complains the player can be penalised heavily on the clock.


I would say that just because an action occurs informally is not a reason to encourage an action in competition.

I'm not encouraging it - except to the extent of avoiding the harshest possible penalty.


What players do in social games is their business. Encouraging an action to occur in tournaments is just a recipe for a type of anarchy and lack of knowledge for the laws of chess.

What I am saying is that this kind of action quite frequently occurs in low-level tournaments anyway - not just casual games.

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 04:55 PM
Of course it could be argued that C3 is confusing.

C3 states: C3. An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. However, the opponent is entitled to claim a win before making his own move. If the opponent cannot checkmate the player's King by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then he is entitled to claim a draw before making his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected

Lets look at this sequence:
a) white make s an illegal move and presses his clock.
b) black claims illegal move before making his own move.
c) black is declared the winner.

Now if we look at this sequence:
a) white makes an illegal move and presses his clock.
b) black makes a move without claiming illegal move.
c) the illegal move stands and is not corrected and the game continues with white to move.

These would be the two normal situations

However an unexpected third one exists which is:
a) white makes an illegal move and presses his clock.
b) black starts to make a move but has not yet made it. As such White in accordance with the last sentence of C3 attempts to correct his illegal move even though he had pressed his clock.

The last sentence of C3 seems to imply that white could correct his illegal move even after pressing his clock but only before black makes a move. Clearly if white attempted to do this black would immediately be aware that white had made an illegal move and would still be able to claim a win as the first part of C3 states he can as soon as white made the illegal move and started blacks clock.

It would seem to make more sense if the last sentence said: "an illegal move cannot be corrected once the player has started his oppoents clock".

Kevin Bonham
23-10-2004, 05:08 PM
Apparently Shirov lost a Blitz game where he failed to promote a pawn then lost to an illegal move claim when he moved the pawn like a queen on the following move. Certainly his opponent in this case did not consider it a queen.

I think that's fair enough. If the player does move the pawn to the back rank then press the clock one would expect it is because the player is about to exchange it for a new queen or else because they expect the opponent to recapture immediately. If the player both presses the clock before completing the promotion and fails to complete the promotion at all before moving the supposed queen they have done enough wrong to deserve to lose.


I think you a being a little pedantic ;) and that what you are claiming is not what he meant. :lol:

I don't agree based on his past track record of saying surprisingly different things in seemingly similar situations.


Ok I believe I have discovered where Geurt shoots himself in the foot.

In the new propsed FIDE rules that will be discussed and ratified at the current olympiad the following is stated:

7.4 a. If during a game it is found by the arbiter or one of the players that an illegal move, including not exchanging a pawn who reached the last rank for a queen rook, bishop or knight and capturing the opponentís king, has been completed

It would seem from this that the rules are clariying that an unpromoted pawn or a king capture is considered an illegal move.

OK, he is proposing that from now on a failure to promote be ruled as an illegal move. If that is accepted then from then on there will be no argument.

I have no problem with that - it's another situation where a clear rule will be preferable to a lack of clarity. While that lack of clarity remains I would not like to punish a player too harshly in an ambiguous situation.

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 05:27 PM
Then why not playing on with one king on the board as Barry suggests as well?
I wasnt happy with barry's argument but that did not mean I could not see what I considered a situation in which it could reasonable occur.

I argued that King captures should be legal and be recognised as they were previously as a means of winning the game.

The problem with making king captures illegal and especially in the proposed rules is as follows which I mentioned elsewhere on the board.

1) the taking of the king is explicitly forbidden at the start of the Rules.
2) 7.4 a now specifically mentions king captures with regards illegal moves.
3) The blitz rule is changed to say that you lose the right to claim an illegal move as soon as you touch a piece.

Therefore the following scenario could transpire:
1) The Black King on g7 has been left in check from a white Bishop on f6.
2) White instead of immediately claiming illegal move touches the White Bishop.
3) He therefore can no longer claim illegal move but must move the Bishop if legally possible.
4) Obviously he would not capture the Black King or he would immediately lose the game to an illegal move claim by Black, so he has to make any other legal move with the Bishop. If the Bishop cannot move to any other square other than g7 then White would be free to choose to move any other piece.
5) However what would happen if White did actually capture the Black King and now Black touched one of his own pieces instead of claiming a win by illegal move because he had failed to notice the King capture.
6) Since he now cannot claim illegal move, Black would apparently be forced to play a move with the touched piece and the game would have to continue.
7) Black of course can no longer lose this game because he cannot be checkmated nor can he even lose on time as White cannot construct a mating position since in both cases Black no longer has a King. The only way Black could lose would be if he made an illegal move in the future with one of his remaining pieces.

I seriously doubt that Gijssen even considered this scenario as he likely never would believe that a player who had his King captured would not claim illegal move.

This situation could never happen in the past when king captures were a legal means of winning a blitz game.

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 05:35 PM
I don't agree based on his past track record of saying surprisingly different things in seemingly similar situations.
I would think it is exactly for that reason that you cannot necessarily interpret his comments the way you did. ;)


Ok, he is proposing that from now on a failure to promote be ruled as an illegal move. If that is accepted then from then on there will be no argument.

I have no problem with that - it's another situation where a clear rule will be preferable to a lack of clarity. While that lack of clarity remains I would not like to punish a player too harshly in an ambiguous situation.
Remember I wasnt saying the player loses because he fails to swap the pawn for a piece, I was saying he should not be allowed to complete the promotion if his opponent makes and completes his move prior to the player placing a promoted piece on the board. I dont think this is too harsh. ;)
Of course if the move the player makes and completes is a mating move that when he loses. ;)

Kevin Bonham
23-10-2004, 07:50 PM
I seriously doubt that Gjissen even considered this scenario as he likely never would believe that a player who had his King captured would not claim illegal move.

This situation could never happen in the past when king captures were a legal means of winning a blitz game.

I agree with this concern.

It would also seem that under his proposed changes if a player fails to promote and the opponent touches a piece without claiming the illegal move then the pawn must remain on the 8th rank (which is what you would do about it under the current rules anyway.)


I would think it is exactly for that reason that you cannot necessarily interpret his comments the way you did.

Did I?
What I meant to say was that it does not necessarily follow that he extends the same principle to other "similar" cases. He may or may not. We can't tell.


Remember I wasnt saying the player loses because he fails to swap the pawn for a piece, I was saying he should not be allowed to complete the promotion if his opponent makes and completes his move prior to the player placing a promoted piece on the board. I dont think this is too harsh.

I don't think it's too harsh either, I just don't think there should be pawns sitting on the back rank, unless there is evidence that that is what those writing the rules had in mind.

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 08:10 PM
Did I?
What I meant to say was that it does not necessarily follow that he extends the same principle to other "similar" cases. He may or may not. We can't tell.

Ok maybe we do agree then.
With him you cannot always tell. ;)



I don't think it's too harsh either, I just don't think there should be pawns sitting on the back rank, unless there is evidence that that is what those writing the rules had in mind.
In the case of normal chess I would agree.
However when it comes to blitz, I'm not sure those writing the rules like Geurt have really considered many of the strange situations that not only can occur but frequently do occur.

Unfortunately I dont think these guys have enough experience with the handling of non international tournaments with non titled domestic players.

e.g. It was mainly thru Stewart Reuben that Article D (regarding 10.2 when no arbiter is present) made it into the rules because of his experiences with team events similar to our grade matches. Apparently Geurt and others on the Rules Commission could not envisage an event where no arbiter was present.

Kevin Bonham
24-10-2004, 01:54 AM
In the case of normal chess I would agree.
However when it comes to blitz, I'm not sure those writing the rules like Geurt have really considered many of the strange situations that not only can occur but frequently do occur.

I'm fairly sure they haven't - hence my reluctance to allow for outcomes they may well have prevented had they forseen them.


Unfortunately I dont think these guys have enough experience with the handling of non international tournaments with non titled domestic players.

e.g. It was mainly thru Stewart Reuben that Article D (regarding 10.2 when no arbiter is present) made it into the rules because of his experiences with team events similar to our grade matches. Apparently Geurt and others on the Rules Commission could not envisage an event where no arbiter was present.

I agree with this and Geurt's continual bewilderment at why he gets asked so many questions about 10.2 is more evidence of him not being fully familiar with the club-level real world in which people try to implement these rules.

Thunderspirit
03-01-2005, 11:37 AM
Greg's concern of a spare queen is very valid. But players are ALWAYS allowed to stop the clock and call over the DOP. In the grade matches, there are no DOP's watching games. But stopping the clock and calling over both team captains, which would have been Brett Tindall and Charles Z there should have been no problem. If Charles and Brett aren't there, and you fear your opponent is dodgy. Stop the clock, state the desired but unavailable peice, and then direct a spectator/team mate/ etc... to grab the piece. If they player tries to restart the clock, they are clearly breaking the rules, and would deserve disaplinary action...

pax
05-01-2005, 02:25 PM
Again I dont agree.
As Geyrt says above if an iregularity occurs in blitz and it is not claimed before the player himself makes a move then the game continues, you dont get to backtrack.

Surely evidence of deliberate cheating (e.g the queen takes rook thing) must be an exception? But perhaps you don't backtrack - the cheating player simply loses (and maybe is disqualified from the tournament depending on how you're feeling).

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2005, 11:01 PM
Surely evidence of deliberate cheating (e.g the queen takes rook thing) must be an exception?
I dont beleieve I was commenting at all on deliberate cheating.
In the case of provable deliberate cheating then the game should not only be declared lost for the cheater but also the arbiter should seriously consider expelling them from the event.