Common law is a thing, especially in England but not only in England. It always predates written law. Players have been using an upside down rook as a queen for long enough for that to be established as a rule. If the FIDE Laws do not correctly document the rules of chess, the fault is with the FIDE Laws.Paul McKeown wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:56 amArbiter's advice does not need to be updated. The practise is simply illegal - you entirely failed to establish anywhere in the Laws any freedom in declaring a rook anything other than a rook.Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 7:31 pmIt does seem a useful answer given the situation is rare. Useful because I assume the intent of the poll is to establish that players do indeed know an upturned rook is a queen so the arbiters guidance can be updated.
Ian made a good point in another thread it is difficult to document the rules. For example, the FIDE Laws give examples of pieces but they do not define them. I'm happy to accept it is sometimes better to leave something to common sense. Common sense is to allow players to play where there is no ambiguity.
Rules can be changed of course. But this one has not. Arbiters agreeing a rule should exist does not make it a law. The upturned rook isn't a very important rule, it is rarely necessary. But the principles of how laws are created are quite important at the moment as chess officials become ever more interventionist.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
