Confusing FIDE Laws

[Tim Harding]

In most games that I have ever played in such circumstances the players would amicably accept that in the particular situation an upturned rook could pragmatically represent a queen, and on intervention by an arbiter would explain this local convention. All sensible arbiters would say, 'OK if you both understand that - but would you like me to find you a proper queen?" Should laws really be constructed for the benefit of awkward sods who want to steal unearned victories?

As a boy I must confess I never liked upturned rooks: they don't look like queens. I used to balance a pawn on the top of a rook - much more realistic.

Don't try this in a FIDE tournament.
Personally I always try to play by the FIDE rules in all forms of competitive chess. Avoid bad habits.

[Michael Flatt]

At today's training session for primary school aged near-beginners the group were totally mystified to learn that an upturned Rook is not a second Queen under the FIDE Laws of Chess. I didn't have the presence of mind to ask them how they learned to use an upturned Rook but I will do next time.

So, I imagine that there is still a lot of work to get the general population of parents and retired chess players up-to-date with the Laws of Chess. Many children's introduction to chess is through a parent or other relative who 'used to play' (but are unfamiliar with the current Laws).

[Michael Farthing]

So Michael, you are on a desert island with your good friend and fello chess player and a chess set that has no second queen. You promote a pawn and already have a queen on the board. How are you going to solve this conundram? Do you concientiously under promote to a rook so as not to infringe the FIDE rules? Or perhaps you resign, rather than risk the wrath of a lurking arbiter?

[Michael Flatt]

So Michael, you are on a desert island with your good friend and fello chess player and a chess set that has no second queen. You promote a pawn and already have a queen on the board. How are you going to solve this conundram? Do you concientiously under promote to a rook so as not to infringe the FIDE rules? Or perhaps you resign, rather than risk the wrath of a lurking arbiter?

Unfortunately, I am that Arbiter (having passed the ECF exam some time ago but lacking the prescribed endorsement from an ECF level 3 Arbiter) so would not want to incriminate myself here.

[Michael Farthing]

Pax nobiscum.

[Michael Flatt]

Pax nobiscum. (Not being a Latin scholar I had to google - wonderful invention).

[Alex Holowczak]

In most games that I have ever played in such circumstances the players would amicably accept that in the particular situation an upturned rook could pragmatically represent a queen, and on intervention by an arbiter would explain this local convention. All sensible arbiters would say, 'OK if you both understand that - but would you like me to find you a proper queen?" Should laws really be constructed for the benefit of awkward sods who want to steal unearned victories?

That's how I usually handle it. I ask the opponent (rather than the promoter!) what piece he thinks the upturned rook is. If he says it's a queen, which of course they always do, then I explain what the player who promoted should have done, and exchange the upside down rook for a queen.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... the question of upside-down rooks was discussed ( at extraordinary length ) at the first Rules Commission meeting I ever attended.

Upside-down rooks: FIDE takes action
Coherent strategy to combat actual cheating - FIDE invisible

[Roger de Coverly]

Upside-down rooks: FIDE takes action

I believe USCF rules, which often go into immense detail on trivial matters, permitted this. There have been recent attempts to align USCF and FIDE rules, so it might have been removed. In their tournaments it's normal for players to have to bring their own sets, so unless it was a recent one with a spare queen, a second queen that wasn't a upside down rook would need a borrowing from the set of a third party.

[Ian Thompson]

Upside-down rooks: FIDE takes action

I believe USCF rules, which often go into immense detail on trivial matters, permitted this. There have been recent attempts to align USCF and FIDE rules, so it might have been removed. In their tournaments it's normal for players to have to bring their own sets, so unless it was a recent one with a spare queen, a second queen that wasn't a upside down rook would need a borrowing from the set of a third party.

Both players in the game would be expected to bring a set to the tournament, so, between them, the players will have an entire set of spare pieces, albeit ones of a possibly different design to the set in use.

[Jesper Norgaard]

In most games that I have ever played in such circumstances the players would amicably accept that in the particular situation an upturned rook could pragmatically represent a queen, and on intervention by an arbiter would explain this local convention. All sensible arbiters would say, 'OK if you both understand that - but would you like me to find you a proper queen?" Should laws really be constructed for the benefit of awkward sods who want to steal unearned victories?

That's how I usually handle it. I ask the opponent (rather than the promoter!) what piece he thinks the upturned rook is. If he says it's a queen, which of course they always do, then I explain what the player who promoted should have done, and exchange the upside down rook for a queen.

Isn't it ironic that arbiters gather together with a right-coloured queen hidden in the hand, if the promoter needs it, while the laws say absolutely nothing about the need to offer help to avoid upturned rooks - and moreover, the laws say nothing about how pieces should be placed on the squares. Indeed it can never be deemed incorrect to place a rook upside-down according to these laws. Therefore an upturned rook can never be "corrected" by an arbiter who needs to pretend he knows nothing about that a promoted rook turned upside-down is not a rook, while the rest of the world (including the players) assume that it is really a queen.

I don't need the rules to tell how the pieces should be placed on the squares - but instead I think a more deliberate handling in the laws of this would be good, see below.

The laws could specify
1. that an upturned rook is not a queen
2. that placing a rook turned upside-down is incorrect, but not an illegal move
3. that arbiters should seek to get upturned rooks be placed correctly, respecting whether it is a rook or whether it is a queen, and in the latter case it is only converted to a queen if (1) the opponent agrees and (2) it started out as a promoted pawn. Obviously a normal rook from the starting position cannot be converted to a queen just because the player turned it upside-down, it can only become a queen if it started as a promoted pawn.
4. that a player using an upturned rook should get a warning
5. that promoting a pawn to an upturned rook should be penalised with a minute extra to the opponent
6. that moving an upturned rook diagonally is an illegal move

The current arbiters pretending they don't know that an upturned rook may be perceived as a queen, is not helpful to eliminating the problem of the upturned rooks. Explicit laws as outlined above, IMHO would be helpful to handling the problem smoothly.

[Stewart Reuben]

Richard Bates > It would obviously be ridiculous if a player could choose to not score the game, but then quickly record 40 moves if necessary at the appropriate time.<

But this was, or possibly is, the rule in the US when not FIDE Rated. In order to CLAIM a win on time you had to have a complete scoresheet. You were allowed to bring your own scoresheeet up to date while your clock was going. Of course, if your flag fell, it was a draw. No arbiter was involved, if he saw a flag fall and they were still playing, he did not interfere.

About the upside down rook. One argument was that a decanter is still a decanter upside down. I have seen children use two pawns to represent a promoted queen. Clearly in tournaments where some boards are electronic, it is ESSENTIAL not to use an usdr. Jesper you have created 6 articles about this minor matter. We try to be consise.

There are unquestionably some arbiters who want to make themselves important. A player makes an illegal move. His opponent responds. Both players have played incorrectly. At one FIDE RC MEETING, Geurt Gijssen said, 'We must be careful not to write laws to put ourselves out of a job.' I am paraphrasing what he said.

Returning to recording the moves. 8.7 is very important. Of course you can use results slips instead.

9.6(a) is useful for understanding the FIDE process. We can see the reasoning for this new rule. Increments may mean the game goes on too long. 5 fold ocurrence brings the game into disrepute. But I suggested we give up on it because I couldn't draft the correct English at short notice. Obviously a majority disagreed with me.

[Roger de Coverly]

Clearly in tournaments where some boards are electronic, it is ESSENTIAL not to use an usdr.

That's being a slave of technology rather than its master. One choice would have been to suggest or insist to DGT that they program the rooks, so that when upside down they appear as queens. The other would be a tournament specific rule which outlawed upside down rooks on sensory boards.

[Ian Thompson]

Richard Bates > It would obviously be ridiculous if a player could choose to not score the game, but then quickly record 40 moves if necessary at the appropriate time.<

But this was, or possibly is, the rule in the US when not FIDE Rated. In order to CLAIM a win on time you had to have a complete scoresheet. You were allowed to bring your own scoresheeet up to date while your clock was going. Of course, if your flag fell, it was a draw. No arbiter was involved, if he saw a flag fall and they were still playing, he did not interfere.

What the USCF rules also say is that a player is allowed to claim his own flag has fallen to prevent his opponent completing their scoresheet and claiming the win on time.

The rules have the curious effect that if both players are short of time and have stopped scoring the game then reaching the time control becomes irrelevant because neither player will be able to claim a win on time if their opponent's flag falls and the opponent points out their own flag fall.

[Nick Grey]

Let's all go back to our suppliers of chess sets & demand our extra queens. May need bigger boxes too.
Let's also insist that in congresses they supply the extra queens by the start of the game on each board.