A couple of Fide rules questions

[Ian Thompson]

It may be that FIDE laws say nothing on this subject, but the interpretation I was given is that an upturned rook is a rook - so it is not an irregularity, it's just a rook.

Surely it's an irregularity as a displaced piece. Aside from pawn promotions, if a player deliberately turned their rooks upside down during the game, would you allow that?

[David Buckley]

AMAZING. Nobody has asked to see the originl position. It is a common failing of people, who ask for rulings, that they do not provide all of the relevant facts.
In my opinion, if White made an illegal move, then anything that followed this was tainted. Thus Black could not lose on time in that sequence. Not everyody agrees with me about this.
i provided a fairy story in a recent issue of Arbiting Matters. In that I raised the issue of a player mking an illegal move, on let us say move 27. Then it is corrected and the opponent gets another two minutes. Now again he makes another illegal move on move 27. The Ruling has been that this does not count as a second illegal move, thus losing.

David Buckley >Question 1: Could White have claimed the win on time? <
I don't understand the question. The arbiter awards a win on time, there is never any need for a claim when an arbiter is in control.

I didn't provide the original position because (a) I didn't record it and couldn't remember it and (b) I assumed the answers to my questions would be the same regardless of where the pieces not mentioned were. FWLIW White was a rook up and had an easy win after Kg1-f1. However Black had a passed pawn which would suddenly have become very strong after Qd4 or Qxc5. There was no arbiter in control. This was a local league match. I was team captain.

Interesting ruling from Arbiting matters. Now:

I was witness to an incident recently where a player played an illegal move, his opponent was given the extra two minutes, the play then resumed with the same illegal move

What should the ruling be here?

[Adam Raoof]

It may be that FIDE laws say nothing on this subject, but the interpretation I was given is that an upturned rook is a rook - so it is not an irregularity, it's just a rook.

Surely it's an irregularity as a displaced piece. Aside from pawn promotions, if a player deliberately turned their rooks upside down during the game, would you allow that?

Not an irregularity, it could be perfectly placed on the square.

Aside from pawn promotions I would treat this in the same way as people who obsessively adjust opponents pieces so that the knights all face the same way, or the pawns are perfectly centred on the square - as a distraction!

David Buckley - if you are Captain, then usually you are the arbiter, together with the opposing captain.
In the case of completing two illegal moves, but the same move in both instances, I think you would lose.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I was witness to an incident recently where a player played an illegal move, his opponent was given the extra two minutes, the play then resumed with the same illegal move

What should the ruling be here?

Loss, because it is two separate instances of making an illegal move in the same game.

[Roger de Coverly]

My understanding is that being a captain does not give me authority to intervene, for example by claiming touch move on behalf of my team-mate. Is that correct?

Leagues tend to set their own local rules as to the extent, if at all, captains can intervene.

Oxford's for example

http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/documen ... 201806.pdf

[Alex Holowczak]

It may be that FIDE laws say nothing on this subject, but the interpretation I was given is that an upturned rook is a rook - so it is not an irregularity, it's just a rook.

So if you have a decapitated (broken) King, and someone puts that standing upside down, it's just a King so you allow play to continue? Or a pawn just lying stationary on its side within the confines of the square it's on?

Also, if someone promotes to a "queen", and both they and their opponent sees that this is "stalemate" (and are possibly about to agree a draw), and then you intervene and explain that it is actually a rook - and not stalemate, and then wins - then you have interfered in the game in the same way as if you observed a player announcing checkmate, and explained to their opponent that he had an escape square.

I don't think I agree, in the first case the game hasn't ended yet, and in the second case one player thinks it has. So I don't think it's the same parallel.

In addition, you have to be careful when you get a strong-minded junior announcing checkmate when it isn't, and thrusting their hand under the other child's nose, who shakes it because they've been told to be polite, only to then look at the board and see that it isn't. "But you shook my hand!" Not really relevant, but something I mention in passing to keep an eye on.

[E Michael White]

My understanding is that being a captain does not give me authority to intervene, for example by claiming touch move on behalf of my team-mate. Is that correct?

Leagues tend to set their own local rules as to the extent, if at all, captains can intervene.

Oxford's for example

http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/documen ... 201806.pdf

Hello David

If this was a Bristol League match the captains do not act as arbiters; this is determined by league rule 3.2.c. You have me to blame/thank for that as I put the motion at the 2006 AGM that the League Rules should state whether or not the captains act as arbiters. At that time I did not really mind which way the meeting decided. You voted for the motion which was passed but you did get the opportunity to vote against some of my other suggestions! I realise you may regard other leagues as your local league eg Somerset.

[David Buckley]

My understanding is that being a captain does not give me authority to intervene, for example by claiming touch move on behalf of my team-mate. Is that correct?

Leagues tend to set their own local rules as to the extent, if at all, captains can intervene.

Oxford's for example

http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/documen ... 201806.pdf

Hello David

If this was a Bristol League match the captains do not act as arbiters; this is determined by league rule 3.2.c. You have me to blame/thank for that as I put the motion at the 2006 AGM that the League Rules should state whether or not the captains act as arbiters. At that time I did not really mind which way the meeting decided. You voted for the motion which was passed but you did get the opportunity to vote against some of my other suggestions! I realise you may regard other leagues as your local league eg Somerset.

Hello Michael. Thanks for this. I did indeed mean the Bristol League. I don't remember voting on that motion. Evidently my memory is less than perfect.

[David Buckley]

I was witness to an incident recently where a player played an illegal move, his opponent was given the extra two minutes, the play then resumed with the same illegal move

What should the ruling be here?

Loss, because it is two separate instances of making an illegal move in the same game.

How does that square with the following?

i provided a fairy story in a recent issue of Arbiting Matters. In that I raised the issue of a player mking an illegal move, on let us say move 27. Then it is corrected and the opponent gets another two minutes. Now again he makes another illegal move on move 27. The Ruling has been that this does not count as a second illegal move, thus losing.

[IM Jack Rudd]

It doesn't. The quoted ruling is a bad ruling.

[Tim Harding]

It doesn't. The quoted ruling is a bad ruling.

I agree with Jack and not Stewart on this one. Two illegal moves lose with the exception provided for in the clarification to 7.6 in the Arbiter Manual which I referenced above.

"However when there are two (2) illegal moves in one move (i.e. illegal castling made by two hands. illegal promotion made by two hands and illegal capturing made by two hands) they count as one (!) illegal move and the player shall not be forfeited."

These are exceptions, I take it, because the two illegalities occur in the same action.

But in Stewart's fairytale, there are two separate actions although the move number is the same, so it is a forfeit.

** Alex, I see your point about the possible stalemate in the case I cited about the upturned rook. I will bear that in mind. So if the position is such that the game may be about to end in such a way, or the "queen" is obviously going to be captured next move, I would in future say nothing. But I still tend to think that in a "normal" position between inexperienced players (or older players who are unaware of rule changes) it's better to intervene to avoid worse trouble later.

The problem of course is that if a player promotes to an upturned rook it is very likely to be moved diagonally soon afterwards unless it is immediately captured. And by then the arbiter may have had to attend to another game far away.

I have seen this happen in a FIDE-rated blitz event where I was just a spectator and it was quite soon after this rule was introduced. I could do nothing except tell the player after the game that he was lucky his opponent didn't claim (this was when one illegal move lost in blitz.)

Or the player might move the "queen" horizontally (so not illegal) but announce check on a diagonal and the opponent would believe he was in check. (Or even mate)

In another tournament where I was an arbiter, we had a player move Nc6-f7 and his opponent didn't notice. But it was picked up by operators of an experimental live board system (DGT). So we had to stop the game (though it had progressed several moves more by that time), restore the last valid position and then the player concerned was told (by the other arbiter for the event) that he had to make a legal move with that knight. He was a senior player with not good English, and he was so confused that he decided to resign instead.

[Alex McFarlane]

From memory I think Stewart's story centred on a player making an illegal move. It was later discovered that the opponent had made an earlier illegal move and the position taken back to that. In those circumstances the later illegal move effectively didn't happen as it occurred at a point beyond where the game restated. Therefore the player's second illegal move was now counted as his first. To complicate things further, if that player had played a second illegal move before the opponent's first had been discovered then he would lose and subsequent discovery of the opponent's illegal move would be meaningless and could not be used to zero his count.

On the upside down rook. If nothing else it is a distraction to the opponent and the arbiter should step in and correct it as with broken kings, jam jar lids or whatever.
The upside down rook was never good, even when it was considered a queen. I know of a game where an upside down rook resulted in stalemate as the player started to think of it as a rook and left his opponent with no legal moves and that game was not between beginners.

[NickFaulks]

I suppose it depends if you regard it as a deliberate distraction?

I think this distinction is a mistake. A player who is unreasonably distracted by his opponent's actions deserves recompense, whether this was deliberate or not. An analogous situations occurs in fooball, when a defender's hand stops the ball from going into the net. I don't care whether he was looking the other way and had no idea where the ball was, it is still a penalty - in my opinion a penalty goal would be better.

I do of course understand that arbiters will exercise discretion when dealing with players whose understanding of the rules is vague, particularly juniors.

[NickFaulks]

Older players still sometimes "promote" to an upturned rook if they don't see a queen available. If I see a game where a promotion is imminent I will usually watch until it is executed.

Would it not be more constructive to ensure that the piece to which they might wish to promote is within reach?

[Roger de Coverly]

Would it not be more constructive to ensure that the piece to which they might wish to promote is within reach?

For social/home players, there might not be a spare queen/set available. It's only after arbiters starting taking a hard line approach that chess set manufacturers provided spare queens.