English Chess Forum

This happened in a recent rapidplay.

No one is sure of the exact sequence of events but either

(a) Black's flag fell either before or during a move which gave check. White failed to notice the check and played a queen move of his own giving check. Black pointed out that the move was illegal but the players then rapidly agreed a draw. Spectators noted that it was possible for White to block the check with his Queen, following which Black would take it leaving an easily won position.

or

(b) Black gave check. White failed to notice the check and played a queen move of his own giving check. Black pointed out that the move was illegal but his flag had fallen, the players then rapidly agreed a draw. Spectators noted that it was possible for White to block the check with his Queen, following which Black would take it leaving an easily won position.

So it was noted that a flag had fallen, but this was after an illegal move had been identified.

It's just as well the players agreed a draw and the controller was prepared to accept this. If it came down to a dispute, how should it be ruled?

obviously I know nothing about the rules but I'd say, as white didn't claim the win on time before he moved black should be given 2 minutes in which to win the game from the easily won position.

Not a clue about the incident posted originally in this thread, but it reminded me of something I saw today. A junior player pushed her pawn to the queening square, removed it from the board, and then pressed her clock. Her opponent, rather than queen his own pawn with check, kindly reminded her that she needed to put a queen on the queening square. What would have happened if the square had been left empty? Can the game continue, or do the rules insist that the pawn must become something (I'm sure any loopholes in the rules that allowed this have already been tightened up)? If an arbiter sees this happen (incorrect promotion procedure), should they step in?

Assuming there was not one arbiter per 3 games then according to the Laws a flag only falls when it is spotted by the players. Therefore scenarios a and b are the same and the ilegal move was played before the flag fell. 2 min penalty and game continues. Touch move rule applies.

In Christopher's case by not completing the promotion the junior played an illegal move and could have been punished accordingly. This would apply even if the pawn had been left on the board.

This is an illegal move and the junior's opponent gets an extra two minutes. Previously the promotion rule was poorly phrased but I'm sure no decision was ever influenced by the poor wording to go against what "everybody knows" the rule was supposed to say.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Not a clue about the incident posted originally in this thread, but it reminded me of something I saw today. A junior player pushed her pawn to the queening square, removed it from the board, and then pressed her clock. Her opponent, rather than queen his own pawn with check, kindly reminded her that she needed to put a queen on the queening square. What would have happened if the square had been left empty? Can the game continue, or do the rules insist that the pawn must become something (I'm sure any loopholes in the rules that allowed this have already been tightened up)? If an arbiter sees this happen (incorrect promotion procedure), should they step in?

Alex McFarlane wrote:In Christopher's case by not completing the promotion the junior played an illegal move and could have been punished accordingly. This would apply even if the pawn had been left on the board.

Mike Gunn wrote:This is an illegal move and the junior's opponent gets an extra two minutes. Previously the promotion rule was poorly phrased but I'm sure no decision was ever influenced by the poor wording to go against what "everybody knows" the rule was supposed to say.

If Christopher saw the pawn non-promotion incident "today", then I presume that it was in a Standard Play game (not Rapidplay) at the Surrey Congress.

In that case, the answer to the question "should [the arbiter] step in?" is "yes". The player has to complete a legal move with the promoted pawn (ie. promote to something) and her opponent receives two minutes extra.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Not a clue about the incident posted originally in this thread, but it reminded me of something I saw today. A junior player pushed her pawn to the queening square, removed it from the board, and then pressed her clock. Her opponent, rather than queen his own pawn with check, kindly reminded her that she needed to put a queen on the queening square. What would have happened if the square had been left empty? Can the game continue, or do the rules insist that the pawn must become something (I'm sure any loopholes in the rules that allowed this have already been tightened up)? If an arbiter sees this happen (incorrect promotion procedure), should they step in?

What's worse to me is leaving the pawn on the square, and pressing the clock before choosing which piece you want to promote to (or having no intention to change it for a queen). This is also an illegal move, subject to the same 2 minute penalty. If you are the victim of this and have a desire to be awkward, then pick up a captured Knight or Bishop and put that on the queening square in place of the pawn, and wait for your opponent's reaction.

Alex McFarlane wrote:Assuming there was not one arbiter per 3 games then according to the Laws a flag only falls when it is spotted by the players. Therefore scenarios a and b are the same and the ilegal move was played before the flag fell. 2 min penalty and game continues. Touch move rule applies.

Wow, I was right!

What happens if you are the last people playing, there are still queens on the board, and the rest of the sets have been snuck back into their boxes. Are you allowed to stop the clocks to go and make the 'legal' move of promoting to a queen? It seems only right that if that rule exists, they make some sort of allowance for the fact that not every chess set has two queens.

Joey Stewart wrote:What happens if you are the last people playing, there are still queens on the board, and the rest of the sets have been snuck back into their boxes. Are you allowed to stop the clocks to go and make the 'legal' move of promoting to a queen? It seems only right that if that rule exists, they make some sort of allowance for the fact that not every chess set has two queens.

If there's no spare queen nearby, you're quite entitled to stop the clocks, and then ask the arbiter to get you a queen.

Thats quite handy to know. I have never been in the situation where needing to queen under massive time pressure, apart from blitz, but I always consider it to be fair game if you lose a blitz game on time (although I will still often swear at an opponent who beats me in such a way)

This is a handy thread to dump arbiter questions in!

I have a new one. Something I've never seen discussed before.

It depends ultimately on how different organisations handle eligibility rules, but say for the sake of argument that the competition being played in is a league that has eligibility rules and adjournments.

After the match, one of the games is adjourned. The result is later agreed a draw before resumption, but then it is reported that one of the players was ineligible to play, and the result on that board will be declared a win for the other player (and his team) for the purposes of the league result, but sent in as a draw for grading purposes. This is all fine so far, but my questions are:

What happens if the eligibility problem is reported or alleged:

(a) When the team sheets are swapped but before play starts;
(b) During the first playing session on the match night;
(c) After the game adjourns but before the second playing session?

In all three cases, the eligibility problem has been pointed out before the game finishes. (a) and (b) are not that likely, but in the case I outlined above, situation (c) could have arisen if the problem had been reported before the game was agreed drawn instead of resuming with the sealed move. Does the game carry on in such circumstances or not? I would say that the game carries on, but both players would want the eligibility question sorted out before resumption. If there was a dispute about eligibility during match-night play (situations a and b), would it be acceptable to seal a move early and carry on at a later date?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:After the match, one of the games is adjourned.

Simple; double default both players.

Seriously though, I have no idea about rules for adjournments. I'm never likely to be the arbiter for something that uses them, so I didn't bother learning the rules.

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:After the match, one of the games is adjourned.

Simple; double default both players.

Seriously though, I have no idea about rules for adjournments. I'm never likely to be the arbiter for something that uses them, so I didn't bother learning the rules.

It's less about adjournments than eligibility. The role of the adjournment here is only to postpone the result of the game long enough to allow the eligibility issues to surface (at which point the league secretary is normally brought in). The closest equivalent I can construct in tournament chess is where a player is found to be too strong for the section he is in (lets charitably assume there was a misunderstanding of sorts), but the draw for a round about to start has already been published. Do you transfer the player to a higher section and redo the draw, or do you let the round proceed (does the game involving that player become a filler game for grading purposes, with a default recorded in the tournament chart), and only then transfer the player to the higher section? I suppose this is more an issue for Congress Directors than the arbiters (especially as each section may have its own arbiter).

Joey Stewart wrote:What happens if you are the last people playing, there are still queens on the board, and the rest of the sets have been snuck back into their boxes. Are you allowed to stop the clocks to go and make the 'legal' move of promoting to a queen? It seems only right that if that rule exists, they make some sort of allowance for the fact that not every chess set has two queens.

Rule 6.12b in the Laws of Chess specifically mentions this. In a county match last year in the last board to finish both players had advanced pawns in a queen ending. I suggested to the home captain that it might be a good idea to leave one or two sets out for precisely this purpose.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:This is a handy thread to dump arbiter questions in!

I have a new one. Something I've never seen discussed before.

Are you sure you should even be discussing this in a public forum at the moment?