PDA

View Full Version : Mating material when pieces are promoted to wrong colour



Kevin Bonham
18-10-2007, 10:10 PM
A beauty of a question from last month's Arbiter's Notebook on chesscafe:


Dear Mr. Gijssen, I witnessed a very curious situation in a 5-minute game:
Player A had a winning position, while Player B only had his king. Player A then promoted one of his pawns
into a queen. However, he chose a queen of the wrong color! (Either by accident or the proper queen was not
available, but I don’t think that matters.) After a couple of more moves Player A then moved his wrong-colored
queen and replaced it with one of the correct color, after which Player B claimed a win because that was not a
proper move. (etc)

Let's assume that after the replacement of the queen, player A made a move, pressed the clock, and it is now B's move. Is B entitled to claim that since there is now a queen of his colour on the board (albeit one that got there in an irregular way), therefore he has mating material and hence A can still lose by the illegal move of changing a piece to a piece of the opposite colour?

Sorry 'bout this one. Well aware it is the sort of question that can spark 100-post arguments about nothing, but curious about what people make of it.

(Gijssen thought it was not claimable.)

Aaron Guthrie
18-10-2007, 10:17 PM
A beauty of a question from last month's Arbiter's Notebook on chesscafe:



Let's assume that after the replacement of the queen, player A made a move, pressed the clock, and it is now B's move. Is B entitled to claim that since there is now a queen of his colour on the board (albeit one that got there in an irregular way), therefore he has mating material and hence A can still lose by the illegal move of changing a piece to a piece of the opposite colour?

Sorry 'bout this one. Well aware it is the sort of question that can spark 100-post arguments about nothing, but curious about what people make of it.

(Gijssen thought it was not claimable.)This is the same question as, can player B move the queen after the strange promotion. In blitz if an illegal move isn't claimed, the game just goes on, right? If so, I don't see why the queen isn't his. Also, upside down rooks get treated as rooks, don't they?

Bill Gletsos
18-10-2007, 11:13 PM
A beauty of a question from last month's Arbiter's Notebook on chesscafe:



Let's assume that after the replacement of the queen, player A made a move, pressed the clock, and it is now B's move. Is B entitled to claim that since there is now a queen of his colour on the board (albeit one that got there in an irregular way), therefore he has mating material and hence A can still lose by the illegal move of changing a piece to a piece of the opposite colour?

Sorry 'bout this one. Well aware it is the sort of question that can spark 100-post arguments about nothing, but curious about what people make of it.

(Gijssen thought it was not claimable.)As soon as player A pressed his clock the Queen he just placed on the board is a valid piece belonging to his opponent player B.
Now player B could immediately claim illegal move and should win the game as he now has mating material.
However if player B doesnt claim illegal move he is clearly entitled to move the Queen the as it is his piece.

Bill Gletsos
18-10-2007, 11:15 PM
This is the same question as, can player B move the queen after the strange promotion. In blitz if an illegal move isn't claimed, the game just goes on, right? If so, I don't see why the queen isn't his.The queen is indeed Player B's queen.

Also, upside down rooks get treated as rooks, don't they?Correct, an upside down rook is still a rook, not a queen.

Garvinator
19-10-2007, 02:09 AM
If I have read these two threads correctly, how has Geurt got it so wrong?

Jesper Norgaard
09-08-2009, 12:21 AM
As soon as player A pressed his clock the Queen he just placed on the board is a valid piece belonging to his opponent player B.
Now player B could immediately claim illegal move and should win the game as he now has mating material.
However if player B doesnt claim illegal move he is clearly entitled to move the Queen the as it is his piece.
In my opinion Geurt is right that you can't both claim the illegal move and also claim that since there is now mating material player B should win. It's like double jeopardy, much like making an illegal move which checkmates and then claim that the checkmate immediately ends the game. Rather the illegal move claim would force a draw because player B has (still) no mating material (before the illegal move).

However, if player B also had a pawn himself, he could claim a win by the illegal move directly because that will apply also to the position immediately before the illegal promotion (he has potential mating material).

If after promoting player A's pawn to player B's queen then B should not in his immediate next move use the queen, because it could be argued that it would be validating an illegal move with an illegal move (illegal queen moving) but first make a King move, which is legal and will therefore render the wrong promotion legal as per the Blitz rules, so now the Queen is his, and he can start using it.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2009, 01:29 AM
The amazing thing about this thread is that four months after I posted it the situation described arose in a tournament blitz game I was playing. My opponent with KP vs my K and about 20 seconds left (no increment) promoted a black pawn to a white queen. As I noted at the time:


Resisting the temptation to (i) make good use of my new queen or (ii) claim a win by illegal move given that I now had mating material I let Ross off with a draw! (This is why arbiters have threads about ridiculous scenarios. They happen.)

"Double jeapardy" in law refers to the principle (now questioned by DNA developments) that you can't be tried twice for the same offence.

What Bill suggests (in my current view correctly) is more akin to what might happen if someone committed an offence but while doing so accidentally benefited the person they intended to harm. For instance, someone hacks your bank account but when they try to transfer money from your account to theirs they accidentally end up doing it the other way around. In such a case the offender might be charged, but it is also possible they might not be charged and might just be left to suffer the consequences.

There are many similar situations in blitz; for instance, suppose a player takes their own piece. The move is illegal but the opponent can ignore the illegality and just keep playing if they want to.

Jesper Norgaard
09-08-2009, 08:19 AM
"Double jeopardy" in law refers to the principle (now questioned by DNA developments) that you can't be tried twice for the same offense.

What Bill suggests (in my current view correctly) is more akin to what might happen if someone committed an offense but while doing so accidentally benefited the person they intended to harm. For instance, someone hacks your bank account but when they try to transfer money from your account to theirs they accidentally end up doing it the other way around. In such a case the offender might be charged, but it is also possible they might not be charged and might just be left to suffer the consequences.

I agree that there is no legal or other consideration that supports that "double jeopardy" can not be the result of any given decision based on the Laws of Chess. However, I do think that evaluating what could happen in a game if continuing it after an illegal move (including it) is a bit silly. Suppose we have White:Ke6,a6 Black:Ke8,a7,b6 and white plays 1.Ke7!? which is an illegal move but now Black has no way to continue with a legal move. It follows that there will be no series of legal moves where Black can win this even though he has potential mating material. But if White played 1.Kd7?? (Blitz) his opponent could claim the win because he has mating material and it is possible to construct a series of legal moves that leads to Black winning normally with 1.Kd7??,Kf7!

I would actually prefer just to mend the problem in the FIDE laws. The current wording of B3(c) is:

"An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king with any series of legal moves, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move."

This could be fixed as follows:
"An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king with any series of legal moves from the position before the illegal move, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move."

The problem of the old definition was that it did not specify from which all the series of legal moves were considered. We doubted whether it was before or after the illegal move. But you could ask too if it was really from move 1 (in that case an illegal move earlier during the game might be interpreted so that you could now not obtain a series of legal moves from move 1 to the game position). This is yet another example where the language in the Laws of Chess is not sufficiently precise to avoid confusions about the meaning of these definitions. But I have a hope that patching and patching and patching again these rules, we will eventually get it right :rolleyes:



There are many similar situations in blitz; for instance, suppose a player takes their own piece. The move is illegal but the opponent can ignore the illegality and just keep playing if they want to.
But it would be easier just to claim the game based on the illegal move - of course some players love to play chess so much they would rather play on :clap:

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2009, 03:28 PM
However, I do think that evaluating what could happen in a game if continuing it after an illegal move (including it) is a bit silly.

Many scenarios that can come up in blitz are a bit silly. The reason for this is that blitz itself is a bit silly. :D


Suppose we have White:Ke6,a6 Black:Ke8,a7,b6 and white plays 1.Ke7!? which is an illegal move but now Black has no way to continue with a legal move. It follows that there will be no series of legal moves where Black can win this even though he has potential mating material. But if White played 1.Kd7?? (Blitz) his opponent could claim the win because he has mating material and it is possible to construct a series of legal moves that leads to Black winning normally with 1.Kd7??,Kf7!

Indeed. But if a player plays on instead of claiming a win in a position in which (i) the opponent has just moved a king next to their own (ii) they don't even have a legal move themselves, then I think they deserve to lose.


I would actually prefer just to mend the problem in the FIDE laws. The current wording of B3(c) is:

"An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king with any series of legal moves, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move."

This could be fixed as follows:
"An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king with any series of legal moves from the position before the illegal move, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move."

I probably wouldn't object to this change if FIDE proposed it. I can't see any problems arising from it.

Jesper Norgaard
09-08-2009, 07:06 PM
Many scenarios that can come up in blitz are a bit silly. The reason for this is that blitz itself is a bit silly. :D

I tend to agree. However, I am sure that Ivanchuk and Lenier Dominguez are dead-serious about it!



But if a player plays on instead of claiming a win in a position in which (i) the opponent has just moved a king next to their own (ii) they don't even have a legal move themselves, then I think they deserve to lose.

I think so too, they would deserve to lose when it is obvious that any move would be illegal, and they still make that illegal move. So they are rather forced to claim the game in this situation.

I was trying to make a much deeper point. My point is that they can only claim a draw, not a win - so 1.Ke7!? forces a draw. But only if the position after the first illegal move is considered. I knew this would be a hard sell, and I don't blame you for not following it, but let's go back to the original article B3(c)

"The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king with any possible series of legal moves, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move."

Suppose the series of legal moves come after the illegal move that is in dispute. This was what you and Bill claimed could lead to a coronation to a queen of the opponents colour, and after that this illegal move can be claimed for a win since with the new queen the earlier lone king has now also mating material. But in that case in the other example, 1.Ke7!? will force a draw, since there is no way to find a series of legal moves after 1.Ke7!? that makes Black win.

Suppose the series of legal moves come before the illegal move that is in dispute. Then in you and Bill's example the double jeopardy is not possible, so in fact queening to queen of the colour of the opponent, will only force a draw, since there is no mating material before the promotion. But then in the other example, 1.Ke7? would quite simply lose, because Black has mating material and can easily produce a mating sequence beginning with another move than 1.Ke7?



I probably wouldn't object to this change if FIDE proposed it. I can't see any problems arising from it.
Yes and hopefully it would also mend the situation where the queening to the other players color queen will actually lose the game even if the other player had initially only the lone king. You might not agree that it needs mending of course, that is a different issue.

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2009, 07:58 PM
Actually in the four months between when I made my post above (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=171351&postcount=3) and Kevin's situation described here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=184211#post184211) I changed my mind as can be seen in posts here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=184280&postcount=522) and here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=184289&postcount=526).

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2009, 08:02 PM
"An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king with any series of legal moves from the position before the illegal move, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move."Even without your proposed wording but with the actual FIDE wording, I would always treat the question of being able to checkmate based on the position prior to the illegal move and not after it.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2009, 08:11 PM
But then in the other example, 1.Ke7? would quite simply lose, because Black has mating material and can easily produce a mating sequence beginning with another move than 1.Ke7?

Oh, OK, I missed your point here, which is that after 1.Ke7, under the current wording read as applying to the position after the illegal move, the opponent technically can only claim a draw and not a win as the requirements for claiming a win are not technically fulfilled.

Apologies for that, I really should have comprehended that one.

The Laws should definitely be reworded to eliminate that problem. This could even be done by allowing the win to stand if a checkmate is possible with some series of legal moves from either the position before the illegal move or the position after it.

Incidentally if this situation arose in a tournament game (player makes illegal move that deprives opponent of any legal reply and therefore tries to claim a draw) I would invoke the Preface and the disrepute rule, declare a win for the opponent and invite the player to appeal.

Jesper Norgaard
10-08-2009, 06:35 AM
Oh, OK, I missed your point here, which is that after 1.Ke7, under the current wording read as applying to the position after the illegal move, the opponent technically can only claim a draw and not a win as the requirements for claiming a win are not technically fulfilled.

Apologies for that, I really should have comprehended that one.

No problem, we all make mistakes, and I would really not count it as a mistake, also my argumentation was quite convoluted, but you have it exactly right now.



The Laws should definitely be reworded to eliminate that problem. This could even be done by allowing the win to stand if a checkmate is possible with some series of legal moves from either the position before the illegal move or the position after it.

In fact the above example (and only that) shows clearly why I think it is rubbish to evaluate the position after the illegal move. The fact that both you (Kevin Bonham) and Bill Gletsos who are quite experienced arbiters would consider the position after the illegal move when queening to a wrong coloured queen, shows why precision is required in the laws. If you leave anything out to the imagination, by nature arbiters (who are human beings) will stray between what is sensible and what is perhaps not so sensible. I say let's make the rules precise.



Incidentally if this situation arose in a tournament game (player makes illegal move that deprives opponent of any legal reply and therefore tries to claim a draw) I would invoke the Preface and the disrepute rule, declare a win for the opponent and invite the player to appeal.
I would recommend you to make a conscience clearing towards all the times you use the disrepute rule. This is similar to keeping a government budget but each time it is falling a bit short, use from another government account that is unrelated to the activity you are administering. In short: corruption and in the same area as "lack of moral" I think. You should not use the disrepute rule for every little incident where you could not find clear Laws of Chess. I do recognize that the laws of chess appears to me to be full of holes and inconsistencies, hence the temptation to use the disrepute rule when the laws fall short.

However I would like to admit that the above case with willful gamesmanship (1.Ke7) is perhaps one of the few cases where I would agree with you that possibly the disrepute rule could be used. However, I think such a case would only occur if the rule specified that the legal moves considered for possible checkmate occurs after the illegal move (which I think would be a wrong rule).

Also my earlier example of checkmating after an illegal move with Qxf7+ would perhaps be a candidate for handling with the disrepute rule. In many other cases that you have been considering the disrepute rule I think you are going too far.

In the blitz game where your opponent was queening to your color instead of his color, I think that as a player I would definitely make a king move and play on to win with the new queen, at least now that I have had a chance to think the situation through. The game of chess can't be won without mistakes - if he makes a mistaken move, punish him. I see nothing immoral with that and I don't think (as a hypothetical example) the disrepute rule could be used here whatsoever.

However, since this has happened a number of times, it should be considered to include explicitly in the laws what happens if promotion is made to a piece of the wrong color. Also what happens if you promote to a German 5-pfennig or an ash tray? Okay, that one is perhaps not necessary to include in the laws :lol:

Jesper Norgaard
10-08-2009, 06:41 AM
Even without your proposed wording but with the actual FIDE wording, I would always treat the question of being able to checkmate based on the position prior to the illegal move and not after it.
I think also that was the intention of the rule makers, they just did not think it could be interpreted in any different way (and they were wrong!). Precision, gentlemen.

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2009, 02:52 PM
If you leave anything out to the imagination, by nature arbiters (who are human beings) will stray between what is sensible and what is perhaps not so sensible. I say let's make the rules precise.

Well blitz itself is not so sensible so it is difficult to apply normal standards of fairness to the bizarre situations that can arise in blitz games under the rules as they stand. However, more and more players seem to be expecting that blitz regulation be taken more seriously and that blitz is less affected by absurd situations.

I agree that it would be completely absurd to consider the position after the illegal move in a case in which it advantages the illegal-mover to do so. You have given a very good example of why with your Ke7 case.

I am not convinced that it is absurd to consider the position after the illegal move in a case in which the illegal-mover is disadvantaged. The fact that it is absurd to consider the position after the illegal move in some cases is a possible argument against considering it in any cases. I am not convinced it is a conclusive one.


I would recommend you to make a conscience clearing towards all the times you use the disrepute rule. This is similar to keeping a government budget but each time it is falling a bit short, use from another government account that is unrelated to the activity you are administering. In short: corruption and in the same area as "lack of moral" I think. You should not use the disrepute rule for every little incident where you could not find clear Laws of Chess. I do recognize that the laws of chess appears to me to be full of holes and inconsistencies, hence the temptation to use the disrepute rule when the laws fall short.

I agree that the disrepute rule should not be used as a catch-all and am increasingly wary of using it given its vagueness, but I think it is reasonable to use it where someone is seeking to exploit a perceived loophole in the laws in a very disingeneous and clearly unfair manner that would reflect badly on the game if widely known.


However I would like to admit that the above case with willful gamesmanship (1.Ke7) is perhaps one of the few cases where I would agree with you that possibly the disrepute rule could be used. However, I think such a case would only occur if the rule specified that the legal moves considered for possible checkmate occurs after the illegal move (which I think would be a wrong rule).

Agreed; if the rules clearly deprive the player making the move of any chance to gain advantage then there is no point applying the disrepute rule.


Also my earlier example of checkmating after an illegal move with Qxf7+ would perhaps be a candidate for handling with the disrepute rule. In many other cases that you have been considering the disrepute rule I think you are going too far.

Can you give me some examples of cases where you think I go too far in considering it applicable? (Incidentally I would not apply the disrepute rule in the case of Qxf7#.)

There was a case where I actually used it (among other rules) against a couple of players who were dragging an in-club dispute into a game and having arguments during their games and distracting other players, although the only penalty I applied in that case was a warning. The milder of the two in terms of bad behaviour appealled against his warning (!) and the IA reviewing the case said that he did not think it was a disrepute case, without providing any reasons for that view as it was hardly central to his decision. But that was back in 2002.


In the blitz game where your opponent was queening to your color instead of his color, I think that as a player I would definitely make a king move and play on to win with the new queen, at least now that I have had a chance to think the situation through. The game of chess can't be won without mistakes - if he makes a mistaken move, punish him. I see nothing immoral with that and I don't think (as a hypothetical example) the disrepute rule could be used here whatsoever.

What happened in my game was this:

* Opponent pushed pawn to end square, replaced it with wrong colour queen and pressed clock.
* I said "illegal move" and stopped clock.
* Opponent immediately reacted with dismay.
* I said something like "I only had my king left so I'm happy to call it a draw".
* Opponent was happy with that and we shook hands.

I don't know if I would pick up the queen and keep playing in a tournament in which I was not an arbiter. I doubt I would, but I wouldn't blame a player who did.


Also what happens if you promote to a German 5-pfennig or an ash tray? Okay, that one is perhaps not necessary to include in the laws :lol:

Or castle with a salt shaker. :lol:

Jesper Norgaard
10-08-2009, 03:56 PM
Can you give me some examples of cases where you think I go too far in considering it applicable? (Incidentally I would not apply the disrepute rule in the case of Qxf7#.)

Let me just say that I had the feeling you were a little gun-happy in this area :owned: - let me see if I can actually find something - there should be plenty of material to check out based on your 15000+ posts here on Chesschat - or I will withdraw my claim. There was no specific case I was thinking of. But I do see you are conscious about the problem, which is the most important to me.



The milder of the two in terms of bad behavior appealed against his warning (!) and the IA reviewing the case said that he did not think it was a disrepute case, without providing any reasons for that view as it was hardly central to his decision. But that was back in 2002.

That one is new to me, I never ever heard about an appeal to a warning in chess. Perhaps it shows a bit about the provocative mood of the offenders :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2009, 04:44 PM
That one is new to me, I never ever heard about an appeal to a warning in chess.

After quite a large volume of correspondence about the matter my "warning" was amended on appeal to a "mild warning". The meaning of the latter was that if the offender offended again in a later tournament he would not necessarily be penalised, in view of him being less at fault than his opponent. The other offender had no problem with being fully warned. There have been no further incidents of similar silly stuff OTB by either player that I am aware of.

Thunderspirit
10-08-2009, 09:22 PM
A beauty of a question from last month's Arbiter's Notebook on chesscafe:



Let's assume that after the replacement of the queen, player A made a move, pressed the clock, and it is now B's move. Is B entitled to claim that since there is now a queen of his colour on the board (albeit one that got there in an irregular way), therefore he has mating material and hence A can still lose by the illegal move of changing a piece to a piece of the opposite colour?

Sorry 'bout this one. Well aware it is the sort of question that can spark 100-post arguments about nothing, but curious about what people make of it.

(Gijssen thought it was not claimable.)


Promoting to a piece that is not of your colour is an illegal move. As it is illegal, player B can claim a win. I would have no problems in awarding the game to player B. If player A, complained I would probably point out that it was his/her stupidity that cost them the point.

Bill Gletsos
10-08-2009, 09:44 PM
Promoting to a piece that is not of your colour is an illegal move.True.

As it is illegal, player B can claim a win.Only if he can checkmate by any series of legal moves with out the aid of the incorrectly promoted piece, otherwise it is a draw.

I would have no problems in awarding the game to player B. If player A, complained I would probably point out that it was his/her stupidity that cost them the point.Although stupidity led to his situation it may not render his complaint invalid.

Thunderspirit
11-08-2009, 06:58 PM
True.
Only if he can checkmate by any series of legal moves with out the aid of the incorrectly promoted piece, otherwise it is a draw.
Although stupidity led to his situation it may not render his complaint invalid.

On point two, I agree with your assessment. If a player makes an illegal move where mate is not possible, it would usually be a draw. The only exception I think would be if the illegal move was so serious that a forfiet was a better option.

If stupidity led a players complaint invalid, arbiters would have nothing to do. We agree here as well.

Bill Gletsos
11-08-2009, 07:12 PM
On point two, I agree with your assessment. If a player makes an illegal move where mate is not possible, it would usually be a draw. The only exception I think would be if the illegal move was so serious that a forfiet was a better option.So what sort of illegal move do you believe to be "so serious" as to deserve a forfeit.

Thunderspirit
11-08-2009, 07:18 PM
So what sort of illegal move do you believe to be "so serious" as to deserve a forfeit.

If a player makes an intensional illegal move (i.e cheating) then I would consider awarding the win, assuming there were enough witnesses so I felt confident that it wasn't a mistake or a player being unco.

Also I would need to consider motive (i.e why did the player really cheat?) - Is to win a prize or a personal grudge? If it the illegal move was on board 67 against a couple of kids, it may serve chess better to give a quick talk on manner rather than the 'big stick' option.

So, will the NSWCA still employ me? Did I explain myself well enough, oh Mr Gletsos...;)

Kevin Bonham
11-08-2009, 08:05 PM
For very serious cheating against an opponent who had an unwinnable position I would rule the game 0:1/2. There is some behaviour that deserves a loss but the opponent still does not deserve to win.

Example: a player is trying to mate with king, knight and bishop against lone king in a blitz game but is running out of time. To stop their flag from falling before they can mate, they cheat by putting a rook that has already been captured on the board. In this case I would rule that the cheating player loses but their opponent still gets only half a point. A player with a lone king should not win the game just because the opponent cheated.

Jesper Norgaard
12-08-2009, 11:08 AM
If a player makes an intentional illegal move (i.e cheating) then I would consider awarding the win, assuming there were enough witnesses so I felt confident that it wasn't a mistake or a player being unco.

Perhaps what Bill is fishing for is an actual example that would show how to get a benefit from an intentionally illegal move. Kevin suggests sneaking in an extra rook in a won position because it will take too long to mate (for the offender), I find it a little far-fetched although it could happen. It would be much easier in a poker game to switch one of the cards with a card you had in the pocket, in chess it is simply too obvious. So has this ever happened?

The 1.Ke7!? move I suggested earlier in this thread however is an attempt to utilize a hole in the law if it were interpreted in a certain way (that there should be a series of legal moves that could lead to a checkmate *äfter* and including the illegal move) but that idea is only brought to highlight how the current rule should be interpreted (checkmate is possible *before* the illegal move). This would constitute a true benefit if the rule had a flaw, but is not possible today unless the arbiter interprets it wrongly, and would be even less possible with the new rule I'm suggesting. We should try to make rules that can't be tweaked or benefited from by intentionally illegal moves, that is my whole point.

I disagree that trying to figure out the intention of the offender is so important - I would much prefer all players are treated the same with clear and just rules. Otherwise arbiters might fall into the trap of accepting for a player that he knows well and sympathizes with, that 1.e4,e6 2.d4 and now Ke8-h4 is interpreted as "oh he meant Qd8-h4, of course" and allow Qd8-h4, while the offender little known or even unsympathetic to the arbiter gets the full punishment of the law and loses if it were a Blitz game because of the illegal move Ke8-h4, or must play Ke8-e7 in a Rapid or Normal game.

Kevin Bonham
23-08-2009, 03:18 PM
Posts mainly about "disrepute" and disrepute rule moved here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7920).

antichrist
25-08-2009, 10:21 PM
The queen is indeed Player B's queen.
Correct, an upside down rook is still a rook, not a queen.

if the players agree that the upside down rook is a queen can it be a queen?

Or does the game get stopped until a queen is found. And if no spare queen???

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2009, 10:24 PM
if the players agree that the upside down rook is a queen can it be a queen?

Or does the game get stopped until a queen is found. And if no spare queen???

Serious tournament games should indeed ideally be stopped until a queen is found and serious tournaments should have enough spare queens on hand to make sure this can be done.

Jesper Norgaard
26-08-2009, 01:25 AM
if the players agree that the upside down rook is a queen can it be a queen?

Or does the game get stopped until a queen is found. And if no spare queen???

The correct action is described in 6.12(b):

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.

FIDE rules do not mention an upside-down rook, and therefore it is still a rook according to FIDE and the arbiter (if there is one). For a tournament game (blitz, rapid, normal game) the upside-down rook is not a queen even if the players have a gentleman's agreement, so I would not recommend it at all. If you promote to an upside-down rook, and say "queen" in a blitz game, and your opponent just plays on, and you make a diagonal move with the rook, he can claim illegal move and win the game.

Of course in a park game or at your buddy's house you can queen to an upside-down rook if you both agree. But you are just getting bad habits that can cost you in a tournament (blitz) game. I guess an arbiter may also implement a time penalty in a tournament game for promoting to an upside-down rook, so it can cost you also in a rapid or normal game.