Giving Queens

[Joey Stewart]

I'm sure many of us have seen the situation where a player is edging a pawn closer to promotion but there are no spare queens to be used so a helpful spectator brings a spare one to the board without being asked by the players.

However, i was wondering if this could be construed as a form of giving advice in some circumstances and should be outlawed. A couple of potential examples off the top of my head:
1. if the position is a complex tactical battle where a player might postpone queening in order to defend a perceived threat and then lose the opportunity to queen, being passed the piece is almost giving the go ahead that it is safe to promote it right away
2. With extremely weak players who might not even see that the promotion is available it serves as a big hint that is what they need to do.

[Alistair Campbell]

Another option might see the unscrupulous provide a spare queen to be used in order to prompt a stalemate.

I'm sure I've seen an arbiter provide a full range of options (only for the player to laugh and select the queen).

The whole issue of "helpful" spectators interfering with regards to clocks, scoresheets, time controls, illegal moves and so on is a bit of a minefield, particularly in lower league chess.

[John Upham]

I'm sure many of us have seen the situation where a player is edging a pawn closer to promotion but there are no spare queens to be used so a helpful spectator brings a spare one to the board without being asked by the players.

However, i was wondering if this could be construed as a form of giving advice in some circumstances and should be outlawed. A couple of potential examples off the top of my head:
1. if the position is a complex tactical battle where a player might postpone queening in order to defend a perceived threat and then lose the opportunity to queen, being passed the piece is almost giving the go ahead that it is safe to promote it right away
2. With extremely weak players who might not even see that the promotion is available it serves as a big hint that is what they need to do.

As an arbiter for many junior events I have observed "helpful" Team Managers limbering up to hand a queen to one of their players. I have warned them that this action constitutes offering advice. Indeed providing choice via a handful of different pieces also constitutes advice such that promotion might be a good idea.

I've been tempted to allow the offering of a queen when to do so would trigger stalemate but never gone through with it.

I keep a keen eye on Team Managers who stand behind their players opponent hoping to be in their players line of sight.

[Rich Wiltshir]

A spectator sitting nearby with pen & scoresheet, might also be seen as hinting that the 5-Minute Rule allows a player to stop recording?

[NickFaulks]

If only it were as easy as that to stop team members from struggling to update their scoresheets when very low on time!

Rather like shoving the match sheet under their nose in the ( often vain ) hope of deterring any unnecessary and probably suicidal winning attempts.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I admit to having done the above in club chess.

Though it was partly motivated to avert the classic upturned rook monstrosity that blighted my junior years

[John Upham]

I admit to having done the above in club chess.

Though it was partly motivated to avert the classic upturned rook monstrosity that blighted my junior years

As an arbiter I have awarded time to the opponent when an upturned rook was moved in a diagonal fashion.

[NickFaulks]

As an arbiter I have awarded time to the opponent when an upturned rook was moved in a diagonal fashion.

Why, other than in order to assert your right as an Arbiter to wreck a perfectly good game where both players were previously happy?

There is absolutely no confusion, everyone knows what an upturned rook is. In my opinion, if there is an arbiter present, they should apologise to the players for having failed to ensure that a spare queen was available when needed.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why, other than in order to assert your right as an Arbiter to wreck a perfectly good game where both players were previously happy?

Upturned rooks became something of an arbiter obsession, even though it was the historic practice. Anyone care to speculate as to why? Were they under the influence of DGT who didn't implement upturned rooks as queens when designing sensory boards?

[John Upham]

As an arbiter I have awarded time to the opponent when an upturned rook was moved in a diagonal fashion.

Why, other than in order to assert your right as an Arbiter to wreck a perfectly good game where both players were previously happy?

A valid claim was made during a rated event by the player without an upturned rook.

[David Fowler]

As an arbiter I have awarded time to the opponent when an upturned rook was moved in a diagonal fashion.

Why, other than in order to assert your right as an Arbiter to wreck a perfectly good game where both players were previously happy?

There is absolutely no confusion, everyone knows what an upturned rook is. In my opinion, if there is an arbiter present, they should apologise to the players for having failed to ensure that a spare queen was available when needed.

You are making the assumption that both players were happy but it's quite conceivable that at least one of them wasn't.
You say that there's no confusion, but imagine someone new to competitive chess and being unaware of this historically accepted but illegal practice.- not everyone will know what the meaning of an upturned rook is, and therein lies confusion.
Many (most ?) people know that an upturned anything is still the same thing, so it's much simpler to get a queen, stopping the clock if necessary. Many sets come with spare queens, and many clubs provide them.
And if you're going to accept an upturned rook as a queen what happens when there are no spare rooks ?

[David Lettington]

everyone knows what an upturned rook is

Yes, it's a Rook, not a Queen.

[Roger de Coverly]

Many sets come with spare queens, and many clubs provide them.

That's only been the case since arbiters started their obsessive attenpt to ban the previously widely used practice. You might be able to date when this started by when sets for competitive use came with spare queens.

As a side issue, sensory chess playing computers predated DGT boards by some years and first appeared in the 1980s, possibly even 1979. How did they handle games with more thn one queen?

[David Williams]

There's a pretty well-known trap in the Albin Counter Gambit where black acquires a third knight. I don't think a bystander supplying that knight unasked before the promotion could be construed as anything other than giving advice.

[Roger Lancaster]

The pragmatic approach, as a team captain in the absence of arbiters, is surely to locate a spare queen of the correct colour in advance (without, of course, telling your player) so that by good chance you happen to have one available when, and only when, requested.