Giving Queens

[Paul Cooksey]

The Laws are not a divine decree, but they are the rules set by the governing body to ensure that the game can be played competitively whilst being fair to all participants

I understand. I do know some jurisprudence. My contention is that governing body gets its authority from players.

I don't agree we can make analogies with football or snooker. They are games which require a referee to function. A dispute might arise between chess players, in which case they might require the help of an arbiter. But chess players do not need a referee to play the game.

[John Clarke]

An Invitation To Chess by Irving Chernev and Kenneth Harkness, originally published about 70 years ago, cited a position where one side having only one queen was able to give perpetual check to an opponent in possession of two. There was an accompanying photo which showed one of the two queens as an upturned rook. The caption explained about the "convention", thereby seeming to give what amounted to a semi-official endorsement of it. (The book was apparently reissued in 1997, but I don't know if this particular feature was still in the new edition.)

[Roger de Coverly]

The Laws are not a divine decree, but they are the rules set by the governing body to ensure that the game can be played competitively whilst being fair to all participants.

Those of us who have played a long time can recall when use of the upturned rook to designate a second queen was fully acceptable and normal practice when a spare queen was not readily to hand.

So is it the case that one day FIDE decided to change the Laws to rule out the practice? If so, the change would be documented in the minutes of FIDE meetings etc. Or is it the case that one day an arbiter or group of arbiters decided that the interpretation then generally in use was no longer accepted and starting enforcing a change of approach?

There may be a parallel with writing the move down before playing it. An arbiter or several objected to the practice depite its presence in many training manuals and got the Laws of Chess reworded to specifically outlaw it. That was rather than rely on a general prescription against "making notes".

[Paul Cooksey]

I'm fairly sure it was Dresden 2008 that changed the rule on recording moves. I used to write down my move first.

I saw a comment on another forum saying chess sets started to be supplied with an extra queen from around 2000 in the USA. I'd guess that is roughly the relevant time frame.

The isn't any rule forbidding using an upside down rook as a queen, so harder to trace the history. I looked at the 1997 laws, nothing seemed notable.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Though even back in the 1980s I made a point of finding a spare queen rather than using an upturned rook if possible.

I'm moreover pretty sure it was standard (even if not universal) practice in big tournaments some time before that.

[David Fowler]

Surely we should just want arbiters to apply the Laws consistently.

That is the behaviour I'd want from a referee. But arbiters not exactly the same to my understanding.

They are different in that a football referee needs to observe every second of a game whereas a chess arbiter does not need to. But I stand by my comment of wanting them to apply the Laws consistently - why wouldn't we want that ?

[Paul Cooksey]

I'm moreover pretty sure it was standard (even if not universal) practice in big tournaments some time before that.

I'd have guessed the same. But the first video I found was this: https://youtu.be/q_FG7J8v9ZA?t=1128

[Ian Thompson]

They are different in that a football referee needs to observe every second of a game whereas a chess arbiter does not need to.

Yes they do otherwise, how, for example, could they make a correct ruling on whether or not a player touched a piece?

From the 2024 Arbiters' Manual:

Also, the following requirements can be considered as very important for the arbiters in a competition:

To observe as many games as possible during every round of the competition. Arbiters have to take care of the games that they are responsible for, to observe and to check the games’ progress (especially when there is time trouble). It is not acceptable for the arbiters to leave the playing area every 10 or 15 minutes to smoke or vape, nor for any conversations with friends, spectators, officials, or other persons, nor to leave their sector unattended in order to go and watch other games in another part of the playing hall. It is not acceptable for the arbiters to stay seated in their chairs reading newspapers or books (even chess books!), nor to sit in front of a computer, surfing the internet, etc., leaving their games without supervision. It is also not acceptable for the arbiters to speak on their mobiles in the playing hall during the games. The Laws of Chess regarding mobile phones are valid not only for the players, captains and spectators, but for the arbiters as well.

Certainly, the biggest problems during games are caused because of the absence or the lack of attention of the arbiters and thus the ignorance of what actually happened in the case of an incident. How is an absent Arbiter able to make a fair decision in a dispute between two players caused because of a touched piece (e.g. the opponents do not agree that the player said “j’adoube” in advance)? Without knowing what actually happened, the Arbiter has a 50% probability of making a correct decision and 50% of making the wrong one, losing in this way his/her credibility and the trust of the players.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'm moreover pretty sure it was standard (even if not universal) practice in big tournaments some time before that.

I'd have guessed the same. But the first video I found was this: https://youtu.be/q_FG7J8v9ZA?t=1128

I'm disappointed I can't find any archive pictures or video of Swift 1987. Given it was rare in 20th century GM practice for a player to have two queens at the same time, remarkable that Torre had two against Karpov and faced two against Kasparov in the same event.

Since the only example I can find shows an upturned rook, I am going to claim this happened every time and will see if anyone can find evidence to the contrary.

[Roger de Coverly]

Since the only example I can find shows an upturned rook, I am going to claim this happened every time and will see if anyone can find evidence to the contrary.

I checked my personal archive for games with two queens and invariably the promoted piece was captured immediately. I can recall grabbing a piece from another board when a promotion seemed imminent. That was however after arbiters clamped down on upturned rooks.

I had a county match in the 1970s played at the St Brides Institute in London where I had two queens for half a dozen or more moves. I cannot recall whether the second queen was an upturned rook or whether I borrowed a queen from another board. The upstairs room at St Brides had boards quite close together and may well have been the source of a story where someone allegedly castled using a rook borrowed from the next board.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I'd have guessed the same. But the first video I found was this: https://youtu.be/q_FG7J8v9ZA?t=1128"

That was only the reconstructed game for the TV recording, but I agree that it shows Hort and Browne were clearly familiar with the inverted rook practice.

[Alistair Campbell]

What fun! I trust Clive is enjoying the discussion.

I’m sure it used to be commonplace for games to take place at people’s houses. People would have a set, maybe borrow a clock and the game would take place without any fuss. Does this still happen? Most sets won’t have spare queens – so were a second queen required, you would improvise. I’m not sure what conveniently shaped lump of household plastic or wood would be superior to an upturned rook?

As a slight diversion, my own set has a slightly misshapen pawn. What are the rules on replacing this during a game as soon as an alternative is available? Or should I set it up as the c-pawn, say, and telegraph my intentions to have it swapped off asap?

Regarding arbiter interference, I’m sure the requirement to maintain an up-to-date scoresheet is frequently ignored, particularly in the latter stages of a game that is rapidly coming to a conclusion. “I’ll let you have the pleasure of mating me, but I won’t waste too much of your time.” Would an arbiter insist on proper protocol being followed or would they blind-eye it?

And what of blind players – do their sets come equipped with sufficient spare queens? I’m not sure an upturned rook would be practical.

When you ask for consistency in football referees, do you mean within a game, from game to game, or from referee to referee? Common sense used to be valued, now it appears to be discouraged.

Finally, when it is suggested that arbiters would only have a 50% chance of getting a “j’adoube” claim correct (and is the phrase “j’adoube falling out of currency in contrast to “adjust”?), I’m sure a few arbiters would fancy their chances of beating those odds.

[Roger de Coverly]

Finally, when it is suggested that arbiters would only have a 50% chance of getting a “j’adoube” claim correct (and is the phrase “j’adoube falling out of currency in contrast to “adjust”?), I’m sure a few arbiters would fancy their chances of beating those odds.

I think it has to be asked how often the intervention of an arbiter is required. Measured in interventions per game hour, it would be pretty small. The context of the guidelines quoted above looks to be that of the Olympiad, given the reference to "sectors". With the number of languages and inexperience of some of the players, the somewhat draconian supervision requirements for arbiters might be necessary at such events and perhaps massive junior events but seems somewhat over the top for a typical weekend Congress.

[Ian Thompson]

Finally, when it is suggested that arbiters would only have a 50% chance of getting a “j’adoube” claim correct (and is the phrase “j’adoube falling out of currency in contrast to “adjust”?), I’m sure a few arbiters would fancy their chances of beating those odds.

The context of that comment was if the arbiter had not been paying attention and therefore had no way of knowing what had, or hadn't, happened during the game.

It's not a very good example of the consequences of an arbiter neglecting their duties. There's clearly a possibility that the player does say something to their opponent, but the arbiter didn't hear it, so it's difficult for an arbiter to rule, with certainty, that nothing was said. They can only rule with certainty that they did hear something. A better example to put in the manual would have been, for example, when the opponent claims a player moved a piece and released it on a square and the player says they did not let go of it.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's not a very good example of the consequences of an arbiter neglecting their duties.

It did occur to me that if a player was consulting sources of information during the game or suspected, that arbiter vigilence could help detect this or at least raise doubts. Alternatively if it was a false accusation, that the game had a neutral witness might be important.