Do you have to compete promotion to win ?

[Paul Habershon]

Does anyone announce mate in x moves nowadays? In the case under discussion could the player have announced 'Mate in one'?

[Paul Habershon]

Digression re 10.14 a.m. of my last post when I sent it at 11.14 a.m.. Should the forum clock adopt BST?

[Michael Farthing]

The forum software is designed for forums that span the globe, so the decision about timezone must be made in your user profile, not by Carl.

On your previous post, announcing mate in 1 has no standing and probably classes as distracting your opponent!

[E Michael White]

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 .....”

Have you considered what the result should be if your interpretation is followed in a position such as the following:

[Date "2016.04.15"] [White "7.5"] [Black "?"] [Result "*"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "b1n5/kP2K3/1R6/2P3n1/q7/8/8/3r1r2 w - - 0 1"] [EventDate "2016.??.??"]

If W plays b7-b8 and presses the clock without promoting to a queen, you say that it counts as an illegal move but becomes a queen immediately. This would result in a position where B cannot move out of check so the game ends. However the resulting move is b7=Q is also illegal as White is in check. How do you square that one under your view? Does it count as 2 illegal moves ? Or do you refer to the section of 7.5 that you omitted to quote and wish to regard as independent when a queen promotion is involved.

In this position if W's b8=Q is treated as a normal illegal move and the position reset another question arises can White play b7xc8=N checkmating by another route or do you feel he is compelled to accept a Q on c8 in line with your previous statement. This would of course result in B checkmating by Rf7.

I expect the RTRC did not consider the possibilities that you and Joey Stewart put forward and were thinking only in terms of a position where there is no checkmate and the game would continue. Arbiters love not having to adjust clocks and that would be one way of achieving it.

Ed.
another question which arises under the current laws is :-

q1) in the diagrammed position if, instead of b7-b8, W removed the c8 BN and replaced it with a WN but before removing the b7 WP his flag fell, witnessed by the arbiter. At that point W has not made his move so it is not checkmate but has the game reached a point where there is no possible mating continuation for Black so the game should be drawn ? This would not have arisen under the previous rules as in a correctly executed promotion, the WN c8 placement would be the last part of the promotion move.

[Ian Thompson]

Have you considered what the result should be if your interpretation is followed in a position such as the following:

No, because the original question and my response are obviously based on the pawn promotion being a legal move.

[Date "2016.04.15"] [White "7.5"] [Black "?"] [Result "*"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "b1n5/kP2K3/1R6/2P3n1/q7/8/8/3r1r2 w - - 0 1"] [EventDate "2016.??.??"]

If W plays b7-b8 and presses the clock without promoting to a queen, you say that it counts as an illegal move but becomes a queen immediately. This would result in a position where B cannot move out of check so the game ends. However the resulting move is b7=Q is also illegal as White is in check. How do you square that one under your view? Does it count as 2 illegal moves ? Or do you refer to the section of 7.5 that you omitted to quote and wish to regard as independent when a queen promotion is involved.

In this position if W's b8=Q is treated as a normal illegal move and the position reset another question arises can White play b7xc8=N checkmating by another route or do you feel he is compelled to accept a Q on c8 in line with your previous statement. This would of course result in B checkmating by Rf7.

I expect the RTRC did not consider the possibilities that you and Joey Stewart put forward and were thinking only in terms of a position where there is no checkmate and the game would continue. Arbiters love not having to adjust clocks and that would be one way of achieving it.

It's very obvious to me that White has to play a move that get's him out of check and that he must move the b7 pawn as he touched it. Therefore, he has to play gxf8 and promote the pawn on f8 to a piece of his choice.

Law 7.5a could be changed to say - "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 provided this is a legal move."

[Michael Farthing]

Pretty daft of black to play Nc8+ on the previous move instead of Qe8#

[Written from the Thistle Hotel looking for other chess players]

[IM Jack Rudd]

Well, maybe the square on c8 wasn't previously unoccupied; if it had contained any piece other than a bishop, ...Qe8 would not have been mate.

[E Michael White]

It's very obvious to me that White has to play a move that get's him out of check and that he must move the b7 pawn as he touched it. Therefore, he has to play gxf8 and promote the pawn on f8 to a piece of his choice.

Law 7.5a could be changed to say - "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 provided this is a legal move."

Ian, while its obvious to you and me what should happen different players and different arbiters may have their own version of "obvious" which is the ingredient for disputes unless the laws are clear. You only need to look back over previous forum postings to see different arbiters expressing different opinions about the same laws and circumstances. As has been said by others and me the final wordings really need to be produced by professionals skilled in writing documents such as lawyers, governance people and technical authors.

Below is another different example of poor drafting in this law, which does not consider the alteration needed to other laws to make the changes work. However I am pleased to see that the latest form produced by the RTRC for suggested rule changes has a section to state which other laws need altering and should prompt the sponsor to consider these.

[Date "2016.04.16"] [White "7.5"] [Black "4.3"] [FEN "7k/2P3pp/8/3b4/8/1R3r2/7P/6BK w - - 0 1"]

Let's say, in this fictional example, W does not see the only winning move Rb5 but notices that h3 loses to Rxh3, Bf2 loses to Rg3 and c8=Q loses to the blocking discovery Rf8. So he opts for c8=Q hoping black plays Bg8. He elects to put a WQ on c8 first but then notices that Rb5 would have won. So he removes the Q and plays Rb5 instead, at which point B complains that he must promote as touch move applies and the arbiter agrees.

However the touch move law states :-

Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing:
a.one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
b.one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured
c. one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent’s piece with his piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured. If it is unclear whether the player’s own piece or his opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent’s.

W points out the he had only touched the Q which was not on the chessboard. The arbiter beaming away says yes but as you placed it on the board you were still touching it. W then states that Law 4.3 only applies to pieces that he is intending to move or capture and neither of those applies to the WQ; he was merely placing it on the board.

So what should be the result ? Note for Preface orientated arbiters, the Preface cannot be applied as this point is specifically covered in the laws although in an undesirable way.

[Tim Harding]

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.

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.

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.

(I myself had a case before the 2014 rule change where an opponent illegally "promoted" in this way - captured my piece with his pawn, saying check and pressed my clock - but fortunately it was not mate, and I did discuss this afterwards with Geurt Gijssen. In this case there was no adequate arbiter supervision.)

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."


Disregarding the complicated examples people have raised where the move of the pawn to the 8th is illegal, let's just go back to the original case where P to 8th=Q would be checkmate, winning the game, even if the flag fell before the player could press his clock. I think we are all agreed on that.

BUT the last condition (=Q) has not been satisfied and (as I think we all agree, and was the case in my game) cannot be satisfied just by saying "Queen".

What the player should have done, if he realised in time that no queen was available, was stop the clock before his flag fell.

Then under 6.12: "If a player stops the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine whether the player had any valid reason for doing so. If the player had no valid reason for stopping the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9."

In this case the arbiter can see the player had a valid reason (no queen available), so does not penalise the player. He fetches a queen of the correct colour, and restores the position with the pawn on the 7th rank (and an opponent's piece back on the promotion square if there was one.) Then he restarts the player's clock.

Now 4.6 applies.
The player must then put the queen on the promotion square and remove the pawn from the board; if the promotion move is a capture the must also remove the captured piece from the board. These actions may be performed in any order (but with only one hand - article 4.1), but he doesn't have to put the pawn on the promotion square before removing it.

If the player succeeds in satisfying 4.6 before his flag falls (he doesn't have to press the clock) then the first paragraph of 5.1 applies and he has won.

BUT if the opponent sees the promoter's flag fall before the promotion is made (e.g. hand has not yet released the new queen) then he claims and wins, at least if the arbiter has properly supervised the game!

UNLESS we have the other complicating factor that the promoter pressed his clock before the flag fell but without satisfying all the conditions of 4.6.
I think this is the one area where the rules do seem to contradict themselves or at least be unclear.
In this case he has made an illegal move (second paragraph of 7.5) which would mean that in rapid or blitz he loses automatically (or draws in the case of insufficient mating material).

My opinion is that this is the correct reading of the rules ALTHOUGH the compulsory replacement of pawn with queen would bring about checkmate.
Also in classical if he has previously made an illegal move in which case he is on his last "life", and is in the same situation as a blitz/rapid player.

In classical, if the "illegal" promoter had not previously made an illegal move, the following should happen in theory:
a) arbiter stops clock and tells player he has made an illegal move and cannot make another. He also makes a queen available.
b) arbiter allocates extra time to the opponent (no good to him in this case).
c) arbiter restarts clock and sees whether the first player satisfies 4.6 before his flag falls.

The opposite view would be to read 7.5 as saying that the pawn on the 8th really is a queen although it looks like a pawn, enabling the player who committed an illegality to benefit from his mistake. I think thta would be wrong.

However as this case has involved taking several different paragraphs of the laws into account and weighing them up, I do agree that a better wording is needed.

It's a pity we no longer have Geurt Gijssen's old chesscafe.com Q&A articles to settle this one.



Writing as not as an arbiter but as an experienced player who studies the laws, my view is as follows

[Paul McKeown]

The player who pushed the pawn and shouted queen broke several rules; his flag fell, he should be adjudged as having lost. The correct procedure was to stop the clock before doing anything and ask the arbiter for assistance in finding a queen. Then the arbiter should restart the clock, the player should remove the pawn and place the queen on the board. It is astonishing the number of players who don't know the Laws.
EDIT: I see that Tim Harding and I have cross-posted.

[Stewart Reuben]

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.

[Ian Thompson]

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.

The scenario under discussion is that a player puts a pawn on the 8th rank and presses his clock, without replacing the pawn with a promoted piece, before his flag falls.

[Stewart Reuben]

Ian That is not what Joey postulated.

Postby Joey Stewart » Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:50 pm
Here is a good one for you rules lawyers to chew over.
One guy is clearly qinning but down to his last few seconds. He pushes his pawn to the 8th rank and shouts queen, which would deliver checkmate and end the game.
At the same time his opponent then sees the flag drop and claims a win because the queen piece had not yet been placed on the board, only declared.
Which player gets the win?

Ian's different scenario, the player wins. Of course the opponent gets an extra 2 minutes on his clock. Could we allow him to carry it forward to his next game?

[Jesper Norgaard]

Ian That is not what Joey postulated.

True.
Let's repeat Ian's scenario:

The scenario under discussion is that a player puts a pawn on the 8th rank and presses his clock, without replacing the pawn with a promoted piece, before his flag falls.

Ian's different scenario, the player wins.

No he doesn't.

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. Whether he manages to execute the correct promotion move is then the task of the player. If a flag fall is noticed by the arbiter or the opponent before the completed promotion move, he loses. If he manages to remove the pawn, put the new queen on the promotion square before or simultaneously with his flag falling, he wins because checkmate immediately ends the game.

Of course the opponent gets an extra 2 minutes on his clock.

Sure.

Could we allow him to carry it forward to his next game?

Not according to the Laws of Chess, but I assume it was tongue in cheek.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

If he manages to remove the pawn, put the new queen on the promotion square before or simultaneously with his flag falling, he wins because checkmate immediately ends the game.

Simultaneously? Do the laws of chess provide for that? I have visions of a slow-mo replay with the camera zooming in on the queen about to be placed on the board and the opponent noticing the flag fall and their mouth slowly contorting to cry "Flaaaagggg!!!" (or "I claim a win on time" or "your flag has fallen" or whatever the accepted terminology is).

Sometimes these events really are nearly simultaneous (I did once hear of a mate delivered at almost precisely the moment the mating player's flag fell). Does the arbiter then have to try and decide which happened first? What happens in a league match where the players make differing claims about which event happened first?

More seriously, how long does a player have to claim a win on time? Tim Harding wrote above: "if the opponent sees the promoter's flag fall before the promotion is made (e.g. hand has not yet released the new queen) then he claims and wins". What happens if the promotion happens between the "seeing" of the flag fall and "claiming the win"? What if you stutter?

(i) Player A pushes pawn to promotion square (if a queen can be placed there in time, Player A will have checkmated the other player, Player B), but Player A is about to lose on time...
(ii) Player A's flag falls.
(iii) Player B notices this.
(iv) Player A starts to place queen on promotion square.
(v) Player B stutters "I....I....I...."
(vi) Queen is placed and released on promotion square by player A.
(vii) "....claim a win on time" (says Player B).
(viii) "Checkmate ends the game" says player A (who may not know for sure when the flag fell, so can quite legitimately claim uncertainty there).

No arbiter watching, of course (though would that make a difference?).

(My experience has been that once a flag has fallen, you can claim a win at leisure, on the strict condition that you don't do anything that is construed as continuing the game before making that claim. The classic case being if you make a couple more moves as then the claim of a win on time cannot be made.)