Draw offer

[E Michael White]

In a fictitious example W, short of time, offers a draw in the correct manner and presses the clock. B has a P on the 7th and places a Q on the queening square but immediately realises that will lose so accepts the draw.

W, who now also sees his easy win, claims that B declined the draw by touching a piece. B claims that it was not a piece on the board that he intended to move or capture, so he may still claim the draw.

Who is correct ?

[Brian Towers]

4.4 d. promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square
of promotion.
...
4.6 The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
1. the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
2. removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of arrival may occur in any order.

The player is committed to the promotion to a queen. He cannot take any other action (apart from resigns). The draw offer is no longer open to him.

[E Michael White]

The draw offer is no longer open to him.

Brian, FIDE law 9.1(b).1 determines the validity of a draw offer and states:-

......In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.........

According to what is written there, the draw offer must remain open. The player has not rejected the offer and did not intend to move or capture the new queen and neither did he touch a piece on the board. This is probably not what you, some arbiters and some players would want but that is what is specifically stated in the laws, so there is no other legal outcome.

The Law you quote 4.4(d) states promotion must be to a queen if the promotion proceeds.

This is another loose end in one of the laws introduced in July 2014. Under the old rules it would not have arisen because a correctly executed promotion would have involved touching the pawn first, which rejects the draw and the wording of 9.1(b).1 suffices. Many new laws introduced in the last 20 years or so contain similar flaws as they do not consider other laws affected, in this case the touch move rule and draw offer. It may be that the RTRC do not have the right mix of personal skillsets. I am reminded of a comment by Martin Regan who stated more or less that when arbiters qualify as arbiters they immediately believe that they inherit all manner of skills. The relevant skills here are verbal reasoning and a chess problemist or system tester mindset. So when appointing new members, the RTRC should have due regard for this and ensure the rules are tested adequately and look professional.

[David Shepherd]

I think it could be argued that touching the queen constitutes touching a piece with intention of moving it (the intention being without doubt when it is placed on the board). I agree though that it isn't 100% clear.

[David Shepherd]

I think it could be argued that touching the queen constitutes touching a piece with intention of moving it (the intention being without doubt when it is placed on the board). I agree though that it isn't 100% clear.

NB I assume he was touching the piece when he placed it on the board (although I don't think the laws mention the piece being on the board, its probably reasonable to assume this applies).

[David Sedgwick]

The draw offer is no longer open to him.

Brian, FIDE law 9.1(b).1 determines the validity of a draw offer and states:-

......In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.........

According to what is written there, the draw offer must remain open. The player has not rejected the offer and did not intend to move or capture the new queen and neither did he touch a piece on the board. This is probably not what you, some arbiters and some players would want but that is what is specifically stated in the laws, so there is no other legal outcome.

The Law you quote 4.4(d) states promotion must be to a queen if the promotion proceeds.

This is another loose end in one of the laws introduced in July 2014. Under the old rules it would not have arisen because a correctly executed promotion would have involved touching the pawn first, which rejects the draw and the wording of 9.1(b).1 suffices. Many new laws introduced in the last 20 years or so contain similar flaws as they do not consider other laws affected, in this case the touch move rule and draw offer. It may be that the RTRC do not have the right mix of personal skillsets. I am reminded of a comment by Martin Regan who stated more or less that when arbiters qualify as arbiters they immediately believe that they inherit all manner of skills. The relevant skills here are verbal reasoning and a chess problem or system tester mentality. So when appointing new members, the RTRC should have due regard for this and ensure the rules are tested adequately and look professional.

The Laws are designed to be understood and applied by responsible and sensible people, including many for whom English is not their first language.

They are not designed to satisfy the whims of troublemakers.

[Michael Farthing]

Well said, David.

On the issue of whether picking up a queen not on the board indicates an intention to queen this is clearly ludicrous. Frequently players in time trouble look for a spare queen and hold it in their hands to facilitate a quick promotion at the appropriate moment. It clearly does not indicate an intention to promote at the next available opportunity.

[E Michael White]

If the laws are made as clear as possible the playing experience is improved and the arbiters life made easier.

[David Shepherd]

Michael - sorry having re-read my post it wasn't 100% clear I was intending to say that moving the queen to the board involved moving a piece, the queen being treated as touched when it was in contact with the board (even if it had been dropped on the board).

[E Michael White]

ok

to me moving a piece means transferring it from one square to another on the board.

It is the pawn that is moved during a promotion. Under the previous laws it was touching the pawn that declined the draw offer. Nothing else has changed under the new laws except that the order may be different and the pawn touched last. So why should the draw offer be considered as declined when the pawn has not yet been touched ?

[Carl Hibbard]

I have perhaps not seen this many reports on the same topic.

[David Shepherd]

ok to me moving a piece means transferring it from one square to another on the board.

Under the new rules the pawn need not be physically moved to the promotion square so I believe this interpretation is no longer 100% accurate unless you view the queen being placed on the promotion square as being equivalent to the pawn being moved to that square (which I believe is the answer to the question you raised).

[E Michael White]

Article 3 describes the moves of the pieces. It does not regard moving a queen onto the board as a queen move. Promotion is only described as a pawn move. The law needs to be improved as regards promotion and interaction with the touch move and draw offer rules, to make things clearer. I can understand what you say that placing a queen on a promotion square should be regarded as touching one or more pawns that could promote there. I also think that is the best line to take but is not what the laws currently say.

[David Shepherd]

But 3.7 must be read in conjunction with 4.6.

[E Michael White]

David Shepherd

If you had been responsible for reviewing the new promotion rule as at 1 7 2014 prior to implementation would you have been happy with it, knowing what you know now as a result of this and Joey Stewart's other thread on promotion ?