Writing down the move first - and changing it

[Alex Holowczak]

I always put my Knights facing inwards at the start of the game...

[Richard Bates]

Golden rule on the battlefield was that the cavalry should at all times be working with the rest of the army and not get carried away with rash charges and lose cohesion. Eyes facing forward is far too aggressive a posture to be taking - both knights facing inwards is correct so that all of the other pieces can be watched for what they are doing.

[Mike Truran]

Absolutely. They're tricksy little beggars anyway, so eyes sideways and looking shifty is much the best.

[John Saunders]

Thank you, gentlemen, for providing me with a most pleasurable displacement activity when I should really be doing the garden...

... I've been a doing a bit of vital research into the vexed question of which way the knights should face on the chessboard. I've been flicking through lots of photos of the top players to see what they do. In keeping with the most rigorous 21st century research standards, it took me all of about 15 minutes of intensive work to reach the following definitive, incontrovertible and earth-shattering conclusions.

As an inveterate knights-facing-inwards man, I was shocked to find that quite a lot of the top players favour the heretical face-forwards stance for their cavalry. World champion Vishy Anand is a 100% face-forward man, as is Nigel Short. Topalov is also generally an FF man, also Peter Svidler and, more often than not, Ivanchuk.

However, I was glad to see that Magnus Carlsen and Mickey Adams adopt the correct knights-facing-inwards stance. I think Karpov does too.

Garry Kasparov is an interesting case. His knights face sideways but both face to his left. So, when he is White, both knights face the queenside, and when he is Black, they face the kingside.

Fischer seemed to be more variable, normally a sideways man, but sometimes knight eyes front.

[Mateusz Zajac]

Nice research John. You must have seen a lot of photos to reach this conclusion. Congrats.

But back to the topic of scoresheet.
There was one accident. In a match Fisher - Tal. Fisher had winning position, wrote winning move on his scoresheet, made sure Tal sees it, than watched his face.

Tal looked at this move, smiled, looked Fisher into eyes and started wandering on the playing hall.

Fisher didn't play this winning move and a game ended in a draw.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Confession time here. My pet peeve is opponents who point their knights penis thrusting straight down the board. I always set them sideways like in a diagram. Big confession time - I once had a niggly opponent who jadoubed my knights facing forwards, so I jadoubed his knights facing backwards and then set my knights to their correct sideways orientation! Big confession, I know!"

I had similar experience, but left my opponent's knights alone. When he adjusted mine for the second time, I quietly suggested that he leave my pieces alone unless he was capturing them, although not in those exact words.

John is absolutely right, knights face inwards, not sure what you do if you get a third one.

I tend to put captured pieces behind the clock because I read that Fischer did that, although some of his other behaviour is not worth copying. I did quote him in a friendly Blitz tournament when a mate of mine (much lower graded) offered me a draw, so I cheerfully said, "I don't draw with patzers." He reminded me of that when he had won the game, and I had to pour beer down his throat...

[IanDavis]

All this talk of knight positioning reminds me of the excellent game 'Pass the Pigs'.
What happens if you refuse to positition your pieces standing up? Is this hindering your opponent (tenuous), or can you get away with it by using a plausible explanation.

Knight lying on its side - "My knight has played a lot of moves during the game and I wanted it to have a rest."
Inverted Rook - "I saw this manouver in Police Story 2."

[Richard Thursby]

What happens if you refuse to positition your pieces standing up?

Your opponent should start your clock (if it is their move) and ask you to stand them up. With almost anything except possibly a pawn, lying down would lead to ambiguity about which square they are on. You might lie your queen down on e2 and your opponent moves their rook from c8 to c2 capturing it.

Inverted Rook - "I saw this manouver in Police Story 2."

This happens when a player has no time or inclination to find the nearest queen of the same colour when promoting a pawn to a queen while already having a queen on the board.

If I am setting up boards (which seems to be a de facto part of my role as club secretary on home match nights) I always position the knights facing towards the queenside, like they do in most diagrams. In the course of the game I usually keep them that way. I certainly don't adjust the orientation of my opponent's knights, except when removing them from the board when I capture them.

Do those who insist that knights face inwards change their orientation every time they cross between different halves of the board?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Do those who insist that knights face inwards change their orientation every time they cross between different halves of the board?"

Of course not! At least you know if you have sacrificed your queen's knight on h6... Some old sets actually had a symbol of the king stamped on the knight and rook to help identify them.

[Scott Freeman]

This recent conversation about which way Knights should face on the board has left me concerned as to what I should do with a slot-in demo board. Which way should the Knights face AND which way should I slot the Bishops so the slit is facing......? When teaching kids, one must get these things right!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

This recent conversation about which way Knights should face on the board has left me concerned as to what I should do with a slot-in demo board. Which way should the Knights face AND which way should I slot the Bishops so the slit is facing......? When teaching kids, one must get these things right!

Demo boards!

I think the only non-symmetrical piece (at least on most standard chess sets) that hasn't been covered in this thread is the King! I doubt though that anyone adjusts the King to face anywhere other than forwards (i.e. cross on top facing forward). Maybe next time I play a game I will try it with the cross sideways on...

[I have this horrible feeling that next time I sit down at a chess board, any feeble attempt by my brain to think about the opening will be crowded out by thoughts of how the pieces should be orientated and whether it is possible to construct a tower using all the chess pieces (see the blog about Hartston's efforts on this) - it will be like being told to not think about an orange penguin. Hopefully moving a piece will break that spell.]

[Joey Stewart]

If you want somebody to accept a sacrificed knight then put its head facing slightly lopsided - most players try and 'adjust' the pieces without saying so once the game is in progress and you can then call them up on the touch and move rule!

[Alex Holowczak]

If you want somebody to accept a sacrificed knight then put its head facing slightly lopsided - most players try and 'adjust' the pieces without saying so once the game is in progress and you can then call them up on the touch and move rule!

No you can't, because the laws state you have to have the intention of moving it (as in, making a move in a game). Rotating a knight on its square is not an attempt to make a chess move.

[Ian Thompson]

No you can't, because the laws state you have to have the intention of moving it (as in, making a move in a game). Rotating a knight on its square is not an attempt to make a chess move.

I don't see that in the Laws I have. They say that if you deliberately touch a piece you have to move it unless you first stated that you were adjusting the piece.

I don't see how you could rotate a Knight on its square and then claim that doing that was not a deliberate act.

[Alex Holowczak]

No you can't, because the laws state you have to have the intention of moving it (as in, making a move in a game). Rotating a knight on its square is not an attempt to make a chess move.

I don't see that in the Laws I have. They say that if you deliberately touch a piece you have to move it unless you first stated that you were adjusting the piece.

I don't see how you could rotate a Knight on its square and then claim that doing that was not a deliberate act.

Aha. Getting it mixed up with 9.1b)1: 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.

I assumed that that was the same wording for the touch move rule. So if you rotate a knight on a square, it's touch move on the Knight, but you can still accept the draw?