Do you have to compete promotion to win ?

[Michael Farthing]

Great fun is made of the medievalists who asked 'How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?"
Great respect is given to the Buddist priest who asks, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
Both of these questions are actually challenging students to think clearly.

The above thread is neither of these. It is pure sophistry!

Before the Great God Grading existed the solution was clear. In these circumstances the time challenging player conceded and the winner bought him a pint. If the time challenging player refused to concede his opponent knew he was playing a lout and therefore there was no point in either winning or playing that individual again.

[Stewart Reuben]

What is this about claiming a win on time when an arbiter is present? The arbiter declares the game won on time.

Jesper >The duty of the arbiter is not to replace the pawn with a queen and declare a checkmate, but to restore the position before the illegal promotion move, with the pawn on the seventh rank, and then start the player's clock.<

Forget about the checkmate and assume the player has plenty of time, puts the pawn on the 8th rank and presses the clock.
7.5a. second paragraph, makes it clear the move is illegal. It is a standardplay game and this was the player's first illegal move. It then says the pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn. The arbiter also gives the opponent an extra 2 minutes.
AShot showed a position where it was by no means clear whether I was best to promote to a queen or knight. He wanted to avoid the possibility that the player makes a deliberate illegal move, the opponent gets another 2 minutes and the player gets extra thinking time while the clock is adjusted.
We overlooked the possibility that queening the pawn delivered checkmate and that the player's time expired.

[Jesper Norgaard]

A player puts a pawn on 8th rank. He presses the clock. That is illegal. The player's time expires. The pawn is replaced by a queen of the same colour and that move gives mate. What is the result?
Read 5.1a.
The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2-4.7.
Also consider 7.5a para 2.

Thus a legal move was not completed before the player's flag fell. The replacement did not take place while the player still had time on his clock.
HE LOST. More interesting is what was the opponent's result? {Just teasing. I'll give the answer later in bold and caps.}

Considerably above, somebody said that the Laws are confusing. That is unhelpful. Why not try drafting improvements? I did not want 9.6a to be in the Laws from 1 July 2014 because I could not draft it correctly in time. There has been considerable discussion among arbiters from several countries. I still believe it should be deleted from 1 July 2017 as we have not reached a conclusion on the correct wording.

Answer. 6.9. If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that 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. How could an opponent win in a game in which he has been checkmated?
THUS THE GAME WAS A DRAW.

The problem is 7.5a second paragraph.
The action was not illegal, but incorrect and to be punished by the opponent receiving an extra 2 minutes.
The alternative that it is illegal and thus loses in a rapidplay game, does not bear thinking about. It would lead to too many losses.

The player pushes a pawn and presses the clock, without replacing it with a promotion piece. You say that "The pawn is replaced by a queen of the same colour and that move gives mate." No it is not replaced by a queen, and the arbiter should not do that. On the contrary, the player having completed an illegal move, should receive the maximum disadvantages of his illegal action. Thus in the example, where the pawn is standing on the eighth rank, is part of a legal promotion move, and has 4 possible promotions as a possible move. The player could still convert it to a knight, for example, and then it would not be checkmate, so the flag fall results in the loss on time of the player, and a win for the opponent, with the sole exception that he must have more than a lone king, else his result is a draw, and the result thus 0-½.

If the game goes on, he should again be disadvantaged. His illegal pawn push must be replaced with a promotion on the board, to a queen of the same colour. Even if he can checkmate by promoting it to a knight, he is not allowed to. He is obliged to choose a queen. Following the definition in 7.5.a the position before the pawn push must be reinstated, and he is only allowed to make a legal promotion to a queen (independent of promotion square). It is his duty to perform the correct promotion in his own time, the arbiter should not replace the pawn with a queen, most obviously because that is the only way to secure that the time the player takes in making the promotion, is deducted that player. Of course the opponent should also receive an extra 2 minutes for the infraction.

In the very helpful example by E. Michael White the move b7-b8=Q is illegal because the white king is in check. If white plays b7-b8=P and presses the clock, he must take that move back because it is illegal (leaves king in check). He has touched the pawn, so he must play b7xc8=Q because 7.5.a specifies that the promotion piece must be a queen of the same colour. Thus b7xc8=N+ (checkmate), although legal, is not allowed because it was preceded by an illegal pawn push.

In the definition about pawn promotion in 7.5.a the most important deficiency of the rule definition is that the pawn move may be partly or fully illegal. If b7-b8=Q is illegal, then b7xc8=Q must be made. If that had also been illegal, then White would be free to make any other legal move. I think that it is very important that even for an illegal pawn push, the position before must be reinstated, and then specifying that if there is a legal pawn promotion, it must be made to a queen of the same colour:

========= Suggestion ==========================================================
7.5.a
If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. 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. If a pawn move with that pawn is legal, the player must promote the pawn to a queen of the same colour. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.
========== End Suggestion =========================================================

The action was not illegal, but incorrect and to be punished by the opponent receiving an extra 2 minutes.

No the move was illegal as stipulated by 7.5.a.

The alternative that it is illegal and thus loses in a rapidplay game, does not bear thinking about. It would lead to too many losses.

I have some sympathy for the notion that too many losses are imposed by illegal moves, but it is the law. Until the laws are changed, these losses must be enforced. In fact the best way to get a bad law repealed according to Lincoln is to enforce it strictly.

[Keith Arkell]

I have some sympathy for the notion that too many losses are imposed by illegal moves, but it is the law. Until the laws are changed, these losses must be enforced. In fact the best way to get a bad law repealed according to Lincoln is to enforce it strictly.

There was a unique blitz tournament in London some years back: a knock out event in which players began with 20 seconds each, but there were always 40 seconds left in total - ie when one clock was running down the other was running up, a bit like an egg timer.

It was announced that FIDE blitz rules would apply. In my 2 game semi-final match with Aaron Summerscale, having already won the first game, I needed a draw to progress to the final against David Howell. However, I left my King in check and pressed my clock. Luckily for me though, instead of claiming the game, Aaron took my king and pressed his clock.

I've left out some messy details, but was reminded of the main incident when I read the Lincoln quote above. I wonder if it is still the case today that I would be awarded the point? First my opponent wanted to end the game in his favour on a technicality, but then the game ended in my favour on the technicality that he incorrectly executed the procedure of claiming the game for himself on the initial technicality!

[Stewart Reuben]

Jesper you seem to be arguing against yourself.
> You say that "The pawn is replaced by a queen of the same colour and that move gives mate."<
No, I don't say that. 7.5a para 2 states it in the Laws of Chess. I didn't particularly want it.

When I wrote >The action was not illegal, but incorrect and to be punished by the opponent receiving an extra 2 minutes.<
That was an opinion. The word 'incorrect' does not currently appear in the Laws.

Keith. It is some years since I thought about that Law in blitz. That is a player completed an illegal move, leaving his king in check and the opponent responded by taking off the king and pressing the clock, then the opponent lost.
I was always totally against that Law. To me, both players had made illegal moves. The position should be restored to prior to the illegality and the game continued. Or the game be declared drawn.
I just looked and cannot find it in the current Laws.

[Brian Towers]

It was announced that FIDE blitz rules would apply. In my 2 game semi-final match with Aaron Summerscale, having already won the first game, I needed a draw to progress to the final against David Howell. However, I left my King in check and pressed my clock. Luckily for me though, instead of claiming the game, Aaron took my king and pressed his clock

Your opponent lost the right to claim the game via your illegal move when he made a move. Taking the king is an illegal move. Therefore when he takes your king you can (and presumably did) claim a win. Of course this only applies to blitz and rapid.

[Keith Arkell]

Yes I did. It was rather a silly rule , but rules are rules. Anyway the Lincoln method of getting rid of 'bad laws' by enforcing them seems to have worked.

[JustinHorton]

Great fun is made of the medievalists who asked 'How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?"

"...it has not been proved that this particular question was ever disputed"

[Brian Towers]

Yes I did. It was rather a silly rule , but rules are rules. Anyway the Lincoln method of getting rid of 'bad laws' by enforcing them seems to have worked.

Except I don't think it has worked, Stewart's remark about not finding it in the latest rules notwithstanding. I'm not sure it ever was in the rules as explicitly as that, merely that the logic of the existing illegal moves rule leads to that conclusion.

The problem is the needless over explicitness of A.4 (feel free to correct me, Stewart), which with some sensible rewording could be made to cover this situation in the case that an arbiter is watching. The anomaly would still exist in the case where the arbiter is still sat at his table with his cup of tea and biscuits, however.

Appendix A.4 If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if the illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

Change this to:

If the arbiter observes an illegal position on the board he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if the position on the board is still illegal, he shall declare the game drawn.

I can't see any downsides to this minor mod. If, for instance, one player's king is in check and both players play on ignoring this and failing to "correct" it then I think it makes sense to step in.

[Stewart Reuben]

A4 is indeed very long. Remember it only applies where A3 doesn't apply as the supervision is inadequate. That is most rapidplay events.
The arbiter doesn't need to be negligent for him not to see irregularities. He may well be busy elsewhere, especially in rapidplay events.

Brian you suggest >If the arbiter observes an illegal position on the board he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if the position on the board is still illegal, he shall declare the game drawn.<

The problem is that most illegal positions cannot be seen at once to be illegal. A4d covers the obvious examples, both kings in check, or a pawn on the furthest rank.
But what about if a player played a2-a5 in one move? Or a knight moved from e4 to g6. Or a pawn moved to c8, was not replaced and the object is put on c4. Now it looks for all the world like a pawn. These are not fanciful. I have known of all three, sometimes being appraised of the illegality only when summoned. We do not expect an arbiter to conduct retro-analysis.
In all these cases, the arbiter can look at the position, but he may not have the prior information that an illegal move has happened.
There are many variations and this is an attempt to cover them all.
Take a normal problem. The arbiter comes new to the position. White's clock is running and Black is in check. What should the arbiter do?
NOTHING. He must wait. It may be Black's move and White has failed to press the clock. Alerting the players to the inconsistency would be giving White advice.
Of course, where players are keeping score, one can look at the scoresheet. But this luxury is rare in rapidplay tournaments. Perhaps it should be standard practice to look at all scoresheets regularly during the game. Then the players would not be alerted to the idea that something unusual is going on. Indeed, I used to do that in the early days of increments. Now I am older, lazier and complacent about the clocks functioning correctly.

Of course electronic boards are very useful. You can leave the board you are observing and consult the computer. But that is a judgement call. It takes time and an incident might have happened in your absence.

[Brian Towers]

In all these cases, the arbiter can look at the position, but he may not have the prior information that an illegal move has happened.

Which is precisely why the expression "illegal move" did not appear in my suggestion. I carefully used the expression "illegal position". a2-a5 does not present the same kind of problem as both kings in check, one player having 2 black bishops with 8 pawns, pawn on the 8th rank, pawn on the 1st rank, fewer than 2 kings on the board, etc.

[Brian Towers]

Keith. It is some years since I thought about that Law in blitz. That is a player completed an illegal move, leaving his king in check and the opponent responded by taking off the king and pressing the clock, then the opponent lost.
I was always totally against that Law. To me, both players had made illegal moves. The position should be restored to prior to the illegality and the game continued. Or the game be declared drawn.
I just looked and cannot find it in the current Laws.

Doing a bit of delving I suspect that if there was a specific law then it would have been in the 2005 edition.

It would appear that Stewart and his former boss (and protagonist ) on the Rules Commission, Geurt Gijssen, were at loggerheads over this. Here are some links to the April 1998, November 2001 and February 2002 editions of what was effectively Geurt's Rules Blog - An Arbiter's Notebook
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627100 ... eurt01.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627100 ... eurt44.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627100 ... eurt47.pdf

Note in particular "letter 2" in the February 2002 article

[Stewart Reuben]

Even so, such illegal positions, caused by illegal moves, are much more common. Would an arbiter necessarily notice 2 black bishops with 8 pawns? I doubt anybody has ever seen: pawn on the 1st rank. fewer than 2 kings on the board, or more than 2 kings in a competitive game.

There was a nice one at Hastings in a lower section.1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 Bb4+ 3 Nc3 d5. A spectator noticed and brought it to the attention of an arbiter. Would that count as an illegal position in your view Brian?
I came across White Kd1, Qe1 on about move 10 at Islington. I looked at the scoresheets and then stopped the clock. That definitely would not have been an illegal position by your definition. Theoretically the game should revert to move 1. With the players' agreement the king and queen were swapped over.

Geurt was never my boss. He and I worked together for 20 years. I can think of few things more boring than everybody always agreeing with me.
What I will call 'The Gijssen Interpretation' never made it to being specified in the Laws. In fact
7.4a of the 2005 Laws for standardplay states: If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. For blitz, of course, the last illegal move lost.

Next no doubt we will be discussing the upside down rook instead of a queen.

[Keith Arkell]

[quote="Brian Towers"]
Doing a bit of delving I suspect that if there was a specific law then it would have been in the 2005 edition.

quote]

I found a report on the event here:

https://chessdailynews.com/20-seconds-per-game/

So it seems it was in 2008. I recall that the arbiters found in the rulebook a specific reference to the case. Taking the king and pressing the clock was deemed to lose the game.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Here's a slightly different scenario where I think the player would win though - push the pawn to the 8th rank and press his clock before the flag falls. That's an illegal move for which he'd be penalised, but the pawn would then have to be replaced by a queen, ending the game (provided the player has not made another illegal move earlier in the game).

I don't agree that's what the laws say. The position would have to be replaced back to before the promotion move was attempted causing the player to lose.

I also disagree that's what the laws say.

Law 7.5a - "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."

In this particular case the illegal move is not retracted, it is corrected to promotion to a queen, at which point the game is over.

There are a lot of loose ends in this particular law. Your statement here .....

In this particular case the illegal move is not retracted, it is corrected to promotion to a queen, at which point the game is over

..... Is not part of FIDE law 7.5(a) but is your or another’s interpretation of the rule. I don’t think it is supported by the laws in tota. The part of FIDE law 7.5.(a) that you quote is not clearly stated to be followed to the exclusion of the first part ....

If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

..... which you didn't quote and so has to be considered alongside it.

If you feel that the second part should exclusively determine what happens you should probably ask the RTRC to make that clearer in the laws by structuring the two paragraphs as separate sections 7.5.a.1 and 7.5.a.2 and adding “except where the move would be checkmate when see section .....”

I don't agree with that last statement. Ian seems to be saying that the player who is trying to promote wins; NO, IMHO he loses because he had NOT made the checkmating move.

Under 4.7 the promotion move is considered made "when the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion and the pawn has been removed from the board."

We don't need to discuss "completed" because an illegal move may be made but never "completed."

I disagree with the last statement. In fact an illegal move is only "made" when it is "completed" (the clock pressed), and before that
it is not an illegal move but could well be improper handling of pieces which however can be put back to their original position before completing
a legal move, so should not be considered as illegal any more than knocking over a piece when trying to move another piece.

Doing a bit of delving I suspect that if there was a specific law then it would have been in the 2005 edition.

I found a report on the event here:

https://chessdailynews.com/20-seconds-per-game/

So it seems it was in 2008. I recall that the arbiters found in the rulebook a specific reference to the case. Taking the king and pressing the clock was deemed to lose the game.

Keith. It is some years since I thought about that Law in blitz. That is a player completed an illegal move, leaving his king in check and the opponent responded by taking off the king and pressing the clock, then the opponent lost.
I was always totally against that Law. To me, both players had made illegal moves. The position should be restored to prior to the illegality and the game continued. Or the game be declared drawn.
I just looked and cannot find it in the current Laws.

I've left out some messy details, but was reminded of the main incident when I read the Lincoln quote above. I wonder if it is still the case today that I would be awarded the point? First my opponent wanted to end the game in his favour on a technicality, but then the game ended in my favour on the technicality that he incorrectly executed the procedure of claiming the game for himself on the initial technicality!

The laws involved with this is
1.2 ... Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed. ...

3.7.e When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange
that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival.

3.9 ... No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

3.10.a A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
3.10.b A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9

7.5.a ... 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.

For Rapid and Blitz games, we have the article:

A.4.b If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.

It is therefore still the law in Blitz and Rapid games that an illegal move loses (if claimed), and the arbiter must claim
if he sees an illegal move. If the King is captured, it is not allowed according to article 1.2. However, this article does not say
that the move is illegal. Geurt Gijssen has apparently always thought that 1.2 said that the move is illegal, but in reality the article does not
say that.

To delve into what exactly is an illegal move, then 3.10.a and 3.10.b are essential, so that only infractions of articles 3.1 to 3.9
are considered to result in an illegal move.

There are two articles that also are considered to specify an illegal move, but are outside article 3, namely 1.2
(capturing the opponent's king are not allowed) and 7.5.a (pawn push without proper promotion is illegal), however in the latter case
it is clear from 3.7.e and 3.10.b that it is an illegal move to push a pawn to the furthest rank but not exhanging it
with a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour. In the case of capturing the king, that is not mentioned in article 3
at all, and 1.2 says that "it is not allowed" so it is difficult to argue that in fact it is an illegal move. My own view is that
many arbiters will agree that capturing the king is an illegal move, although the articles do not strictly support this.

There was recently at the 86.th. Rules Commission meeting a suggestion by Commission Chair Nikolopoulos about handling of illegal moves
in Rapid and Blitz:

http://rules.fide.com/images/stories/do ... _final.pdf
4. Proposal was made by Commission Chair Nikolopoulos to amend the Rapid and Blitz rules for forfeit
based on illegal moves to 2 illegal moves from 1. Rule will be amended to reflect new wording
and further discussed in subsequent meetings.

So it has not been voted upon yet, further discussions in the Rules Commission are needed. This is a proposal how to handle
all illegal moves, not dealing with the capture of the king specifically.