FIDE Arbiters' Magazine #4

[Jesper Norgaard]

I would declare the game lost for anybody who does that. We have 11.5, 11.1 and the preface to support this decision.

I would tend to support this decision.

The attempt to resurrect a captured piece is cheating.

Yes in this case it could be seen as cheating, but note that "the attempt to resurrect a captured piece is cheating" is not universally true, as that is a legitimate part of the pawn promotion.

[Pierre Dénommée]

I would tend to support this decision.


Yes in this case it could be seen as cheating, but note that "the attempt to resurrect a captured piece is cheating" is not universally true, as that is a legitimate part of the pawn promotion.

I would never use the world "resurrection" to speak of a promotion. When a piece is promoted, it is the same piece that is promoted, like promoting a Private first class to General.

[Jesper Norgaard]

I would never use the world "resurrection" to speak of a promotion. When a piece is promoted, it is the same piece that is promoted, like promoting a Private first class to General.

Of course you may consider it the same piece having an improved title, but that is not what takes place on the physical board in many cases, where the most common promotion piece, the queen, is quite often the same queen that started from d1 or d8 in the game, got exchanged during the course of the game, and resurrected when a pawn was promoted, in effect it is physically the same queen that was originally on the board. Recently chess pieces in the US have an extra queen thus 4 queens in the set. Then the new queen might well be the spare queen, so not literally a resurrection, e.g. emerging from the dead.

Resurrection in the British Dictionary - the act of bringing something that had disappeared or ended back into use or existence.

Another exception is the third black knight in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albin_...t,_Lasker_Trap
This needs to come from a different set of pieces by definition, as almost no chess set has 3 black knights. We had an amusing incident in a casual game in the club the other day, because the player executing fxg1=N+ did not find any better idea than borrowing Nb8 or Ng8 and place it on g1, but that still led to confusion when he realized later in the game he wasn't up a piece as expected.

[Andrew Hardegen]

Of course you may consider it the same piece having an improved title, but that is not what takes place on the physical board in many cases, where the most common promotion piece, the queen, is quite often the same queen that started from d1 or d8 in the game, got exchanged during the course of the game, and resurrected when a pawn was promoted, in effect it is physically the same queen that was originally on the board. Recently chess pieces in the US have an extra queen thus 4 queens in the set. Then the new queen might well be the spare queen, so not literally a resurrection, e.g. emerging from the dead.

Resurrection in the British Dictionary - the act of bringing something that had disappeared or ended back into use or existence.

Another exception is the third black knight in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albin_...t,_Lasker_Trap
This needs to come from a different set of pieces by definition, as almost no chess set has 3 black knights. We had an amusing incident in a casual game in the club the other day, because the player executing fxg1=N+ did not find any better idea than borrowing Nb8 or Ng8 and place it on g1, but that still led to confusion when he realized later in the game he wasn't up a piece as expected.

Naturally, when promoting, the physical piece used is generally one that had been used previously in the same game. However, a White Queen in a tournament set will live many unconnected `lives' during the course of a tournament. The White Q on Board 1, say, is a part of the Board 1 games from all rounds in the tournament, but its role in previous games is quickly forgotten. It is not considered to be the same piece as the one that was blundered away or brilliantly sacrificed in a previous game or tournament.

So I would argue that it is not really `resurrection' - we are not bringing the same piece back to existence, even in the case of promotion where it was previously used during the same game.

[Rincewind]

So I would argue that it is not really `resurrection' - we are not bringing the same piece back to existence, even in the case of promotion where it was previously used during the same game.

I agree the obvious counterexample is there being no requirement to select a piece that has been captured. For example when promoting a pawn to a queen when the starting queen has not yet been captured. There are even games where one player has 3+ queens in play.

[Ian Rout]

I think "resurrection" is useful as a colourful term for commentary, especially where a Queen is sacrificed and regained through promotion in the same combination, but clearly has no relevance to the Laws of Chess.

[Jesper Norgaard]

I think the whole discussion is a bit academical since the original resurrection mentioned by me was not necessarily a captured piece on this board either - although that only adds to the mendaciousness of the bizarrely acting resurrector.

[Rincewind]

I think "resurrection" is useful as a colourful term for commentary, especially where a Queen is sacrificed and regained through promotion in the same combination...

Ideally with 3 moves between the sacrifice and the resurrection.

[Pierre Dénommée]

I would dispute that, and moreover the illegal move has a harsher penalty than the touch-move penalty. We do agree that in this case "the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side", but he didn't complete the castling and his actions should be deemed an illegal move IMHO.

Your are right. If a player touch his knight and makes a legal move with another piece, the arbiter must say Stop and try to prevent the player from pressing. But if all the touched pieces do not have a legal move, the arbiter must wait for the clocl to be pressed. This position is from a former Arbiter's examination, it has already been published online by a national Federation. so there is no breach of privacy.

FEN Viewer

White touches his knight and makes the move Rd1, What should the arbiter do? Answer: wait for White to press the clock. None of the pieces touched has any legal move. After the answer followed a more general argument: if an action by a player is both a touch piece violation and an illegal move, allow the player to press unless the opponent's has claimed the touch move violation. Article 7 does not requires that the illegal move completed complies with Article 4 and it is quite obvious that an illegal move is both a disturbance to the opponent and a way to stop the clock. But Article 4 will apply to the legal move that will replace the illegal move.

Using the same position, there was another question, White touches his queen and play Kf1. This time, the arbiter must try to prevent White from pressing and force them to block the check with the Queen.

After Re1-g1 we must let White press and only after apply the illegal move penalty anf force castling if the game is not over.