Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 78
  1. #1
    CC Candidate Master michael.mcguirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    East Maitland, NSW
    Posts
    67

    Promotion to pawn...

    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.
    Destroying Robinson's Grob, one Compaq computer at a time.

  2. #2
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    509

    This is weird...

    Quote Originally Posted by michael.mcguirk
    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.
    Lee Forace

    Forace´s Legacy - Swap off when you are down.

    It's better to set goals that one cannot acheive than to settle for mediocrity.

  3. #3
    CC Candidate Master michael.mcguirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    East Maitland, NSW
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
    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' .
    Destroying Robinson's Grob, one Compaq computer at a time.

  4. #4
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by michael.mcguirk
    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.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  5. #5
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    509

    Ahh...

    Quote Originally Posted by michael.mcguirk
    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' .

    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?
    Lee Forace

    Forace´s Legacy - Swap off when you are down.

    It's better to set goals that one cannot acheive than to settle for mediocrity.

  6. #6
    CC Candidate Master michael.mcguirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    East Maitland, NSW
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    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
    Destroying Robinson's Grob, one Compaq computer at a time.

  7. #7
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
    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.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  8. #8
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by michael.mcguirk
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by michael.mcguirk
    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' .
    The move is illegal irrespective of whether the opponent claims. Hence once the arbiter becomes aware of it he must intervene and correct it.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  9. #9
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    509

    Common sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    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...
    Lee Forace

    Forace´s Legacy - Swap off when you are down.

    It's better to set goals that one cannot acheive than to settle for mediocrity.

  10. #10
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by michael.mcguirk
    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.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  11. #11
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
    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.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  12. #12
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,424
    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.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
    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
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

  14. #14
    CC International Master Jesper Norgaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
    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/so...tz/#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.

  15. #15
    CC International Master Jesper Norgaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,008
    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.
    Chess well played is imagination, calculation, observation, experience and memorization in order of importance.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Alekhine's Defense
    By Zwischenzug in forum Chess Training
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 22-07-2014, 11:49 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28-01-2011, 10:44 AM
  3. Melbourne Chess Club Championships 2008
    By Bereaved in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 27-04-2008, 06:29 PM
  4. 2007 Australian Junior Championships
    By Libby in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 343
    Last Post: 07-08-2007, 11:22 AM
  5. Richard J vs b1_ - Some tips for you Richard.
    By b1_ in forum Correspondence Matches
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-09-2005, 11:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •