2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

[Alex Holowczak]

Am I alone in thinking that the needs of the "professional" game and the absurdities of a few awkward so-and-so's is spoiling the game for the vast majority of us who recognise the triviality of all this and simply smile at our opponent and say, "don't worry about it"?

I can't entirely agree. Take the question of playing a move and pressing the clock with different hands.

You come across elderly club players who do this, generally with a fair amount of time in between. I don't mind that. However, you occasionally see juniors ( not beginners ) resorting to this practice when short of time and thereby gaining a clear advantage. They must be told to stop it and, if they persist, defaulted. What else can you do?

But that's the problem - the old Laws allowed arbiters to use their judgement to enforce the rules in precisely the way that you wish. The new Laws don't allow the arbiters to use that judgement, and must enforce the penalty against the elderly club player.

However, I suspect many arbiters will nevertheless interpret the new Laws in the same way as the old Laws - and indeed may be advised to do so in the FIDE Arbiters Handbook. I guess we'll see when it comes out.

[Graham Borrowdale]

I have to agree with Michael's point about the needs of professional chess for a watertight and strictly defined set of rules being different from the needs of local leagues, etc, and Alex's further split into L1, L2, etc, would seem logical.

By analogy, Premier League football has to be played on pitches and in stadiums which meet certain standards, with referees, linesmen, and other officials, defined areas for coaches, etc, etc, all of which I doubt exist in Sunday leagues, which still get 'rated', in that they are part of formal competitions.

I must admit to getting slightly annoyed by the 180-strength player (not old) who always castles using 2 hands, but it is only once every game, and I would say that most club players pick up a queen, put it on the queening square, then remove the pawn from the 7th rank, when queening a pawn, which would seem to be incorrect.

[LawrenceCooper]

No, why should I? I am not an official or an arbiter and I wouldn't know who to email. (Remember, I am not in the UK.)

I posted this as soon as I spotted it.

This is FIDE's mess to sort out. I thought I might get some thanks for pointing out the problem.

If you want a specific course of action from a specific person or persons then contacting them direct would seem a more logical way to proceed than posting on a public forum in the hope that one of them will see it or expecting someone else to do what you could easily have done.

[Tim Harding]

I must admit to getting slightly annoyed by the 180-strength player (not old) who always castles using 2 hands, but it is only once every game, and I would say that most club players pick up a queen, put it on the queening square, then remove the pawn from the 7th rank, when queening a pawn, which would seem to be incorrect.

Actually Graham it is OK to do that, so long as you do not press the clock before removing the pawn. This is one of the laws that hasn't changed.

4.6 The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
4.6.1 the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
4.6.2 removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in
any order.
4.6.3 If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of promotion, it must be captured.
...
7.5.2 If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not
replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by
a queen of the same colour as the pawn.
7.5.3 After the action taken under Article 7.5.1 or 7.5.2, for the first completed illegal move
by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second
completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this
player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot
checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

The things people do wrong about promotion are:
a) Using both hands; (now illegal);
b) Trying to use an upturned rook instead of a queen. [Whatever he intended, he has promoted to a rook.]
c) putting the pawn on the 8th (usually saying check) and pressing the clock. That is illegal and loses immediately in rapid or blitz, in classical the opponent gets extra time and the pawn can only be made into a queen [as 7.5.2 states].

As for castling, in a recent FIDE-rated rapid tournament, an opponent played ...Ra8-d8, let go of the rook, picked up his K and put in on c8. I called the arbiter who ruled that Rd8 had been played. My opponent didn't deny it but refused to continue the game, just got up and let his time run out. Maybe other players would have let this go but it was a FIDE-rated event. If he had done a Nakamura with both hands then I suppose I would have had to let it go unless there were witnesses.

This seems to be the general problem. Many trivial, or sometimes gross offences, in club or minor tournament play have to be ignored because there are no witnesses or one doesn't want to disturb team-mates in league matches where there is rarely a non-playing captain.
Like adjusting pieces without saying j'adoube or offering draws out of turn.

[Alex McFarlane]

The things people do wrong about promotion are:
a) Using both hands; (now illegal)

Not strictly true - and another reason why the new Laws might cause arguments.

The promoted piece is not active until it touches the board. It is therefore legal for a right handed player to lift the promoted piece with his left hand but pass it to his right before putting it on the board. A case where two hands are really only one!!!

[Michael Farthing]

As for castling, in a recent FIDE-rated rapid tournament, an opponent played ...Ra8-d8, let go of the rook, picked up his K and put in on c8. I called the arbiter who ruled that Rd8 had been played. My opponent didn't deny it but refused to continue the game, just got up and let his time run out. Maybe other players would have let this go but it was a FIDE-rated event. If he had done a Nakamura with both hands then I suppose I would have had to let it go unless there were witnesses.

I think that illustrates my point perfectly. Were the rule to be abolished it would have no effect other than to remove needless trivial disagreements and games of chess would be won on skill at the game rather on skill at reading the rules.

[Kevin O'Rourke]

Surely people won't be that bothered if someone castles using both hands? Castling is usually done in the non time pressure part of the game. Must be more important things to worry about than that.

[Roger de Coverly]

Surely people won't be that bothered if someone castles using both hands?

Nakamura did it in a Blitz playoff recently with four (!) arbiters watching, none of whom took any action. This was caught on video and has presumably inspired the current rule changes.

[Roger de Coverly]

The things people do wrong about promotion are:
b) Trying to use an upturned rook instead of a queen. [Whatever he intended, he has promoted to a rook.]

When I learned chess back in the 1960s, it was normal for an upturned rook to represent the second queen. If you only had one set available, there would have been little choice. It's only relatively recently, since the advent of DGT boards, that it's become commonplace to have spare queen for each or every other set.

When then did arbiters get this obsession about disallowing upturned rooks? But the term arbiter itself is of relatively recent coinage. Once upon a time, the person running a tournament was a controller, some of whom had the title of BCF Judge. Perhaps the term umpire from cricket, tennis and other sports was used.

[Kevin O'Rourke]

In classical play no one will mind the 2 hand castling.

[John McKenna]

Dooming all to face more back-handers from the double-handers in rapid & blitz.

[Alex Holowczak]

As for castling, in a recent FIDE-rated rapid tournament, an opponent played ...Ra8-d8, let go of the rook, picked up his K and put in on c8. I called the arbiter who ruled that Rd8 had been played. My opponent didn't deny it but refused to continue the game, just got up and let his time run out. Maybe other players would have let this go but it was a FIDE-rated event. If he had done a Nakamura with both hands then I suppose I would have had to let it go unless there were witnesses.

I think that illustrates my point perfectly. Were the rule to be abolished it would have no effect other than to remove needless trivial disagreements and games of chess would be won on skill at the game rather on skill at reading the rules.

There is a technical reason why, relating to how the Laws are drafted.

The Laws permit a player to move once their opponent has made their move, i.e. before they press their clock. So a player might play Ra8-d8, and his opponent might make his next move before Black has had chance to move the King into the right place. Then what do you do?

I've wondered about the one-handed move requirements. What would be wrong with permitting two-handed moves, so long as the last hand touching a piece was the one that pressed the clock?

[Michael Farthing]

I have been fortunate never yet to have encountered the desperate situation that Alex postulates. What would I have done? Such a terrible scenario is hard to contemplate and I confess I now dread such a quandary ever arising! Oh my oh my oh my.

[Alex Holowczak]

I have been fortunate never yet to have encountered the desperate situation that Alex postulates. What would I have done? Such a terrible scenario is hard to contemplate and I confess I now dread such a quandary ever arising! Oh my oh my oh my.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSy5mEcmgwU

[E Michael White]

Surely people won't be that bothered if someone castles using both hands?

Nakamura did it in a Blitz playoff recently with four (!) arbiters watching, none of whom took any action. This was caught on video and has presumably inspired the current rule changes.

The definition within the previous Laws for a move is "made" was tightly defined and did not mean that a player had to use only one hand for castling. I suggested the word "played" should be used instead of "made", to remove the ambiguities in 4.1. "Played" refers to he whole process of playing a move and "made" refers to the point of no return when the move is finalised as the player releases/removes/adds the last piece involved in the move.

The ambiguities arose because in ENG the word "made" has many meanings but the laws in 4.7 restrict its meaning to just one.

So Nakamura's two handed castling was legal according to the written Laws at the time but would not be now. Most players seem to me to want that to be the Law.