Arbitration question

[David Sedgwick]

Richard. That is a new one for me: promoting a pawn to a pawn.

In connection with your (plural) proposed book on the History of the Laws, I drew Alex McF's attention to versions of the 19th Century Laws where this was permitted.

How is the book coming along?

[John McKenna]

Surely Richard's point is - the instant the pawn is released on the 8th rank mate is delivered on the board irrespective of which promotion is intended.

And mate ends the game without need to complete the move by pressing the clock before flag-fall. Or for that matter replacing the promoted pawn by a piece!?

[E Michael White]

In connection with your (plural) proposed book on the History of the Laws, I drew Alex McF's attention to versions of the 19th Century Laws where this was permitted.

Those were not FIDE Laws of course. Stewart Reubens proposed book is about FIDE Laws isn't it ?

In the position discussed in this thread there are difficulties with your, Alex's and Stewarts interpretations.

• Firstly the latest game position arrived at is with the pawn on e7.
• Secondly if black believes he can play Kxg8 after e8=N and touches his K in readiness for white placing a piece on e8, white cannot be assumed compelled to move the e pawn after his flag falls. If white presses the clock without placing a QRBN on e8 the position reverts back to the pawn on e7.
• The arbiter can and must intervene if he sees the flag fall.

Surely Richard's point is - the instant the pawn is released on the 8th rank mate is delivered on the board irrespective of which promotion is intended.

And mate ends the game without need to complete the move by pressing the clock before flag-fall. Or for that matter replacing the promoted pawn by a piece!?

Until White places a QRNB on e8 he has not made the move so its not yet mate.

[David Sedgwick]

In connection with your (plural) proposed book on the History of the Laws, I drew Alex McF's attention to versions of the 19th Century Laws where this was permitted.

Those were not FIDE Laws of course. Stewart Reubens proposed book is about FIDE Laws isn't it ?

My understanding is that the book is about the history of the Laws and that it will go back well before the formation of FIDE.

[Ian Thompson]

If white presses the clock without placing a QRBN on e8 the position reverts back to the pawn on e7.

No, it doesn't. The question posed was what happens when the pawn has been moved to e8, and now the discussion has moved on to what happens if White presses his clock with a pawn on e8.

The rules (7.5.2) are clear; the pawn is replaced with a queen - "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."

[soheil_hooshdaran]

With all due respect to Alex and Roger.
Soheil wrote >White plays e8 and his flag falls. What's the verdict?<

White wins because it is mate, whether he would have promoted to a queen, rook, bishop or knight.

Isn't it a problem that the move is not yet 'made' (as per article 4.7.3)?

[John McKenna]

It would seem to be so, Soheil. (However, you did not stipulate if the game in question was being played with an increment, or not. That could make a significant difference.)

SNIP

[*]The arbiter can and must intervene if he sees the flag fall. [/list]

Surely Richard's point is - the instant the pawn is released on the 8th rank mate is delivered on the board irrespective of which promotion is intended.

And mate ends the game without need to complete the move by pressing the clock before flag-fall. Or for that matter replacing the promoted pawn by a piece!?

Until White places a QRNB on e8 he has not made the move so its not yet mate.

Therefore unless the player manages to place a piece (Q/R/B/N) on e8 before his opponent claims a win on time, or an arbiter sees white's flag fall before the promotion move is "made", then white loses the game.

[NB: If no arbiter contradicts that your question has been answered, if not...]

[Richard Bates]

Surely Richard's point is - the instant the pawn is released on the 8th rank mate is delivered on the board irrespective of which promotion is intended.

And mate ends the game without need to complete the move by pressing the clock before flag-fall. Or for that matter replacing the promoted pawn by a piece!?

No that was Stewart’s point, I think.

I was just having some fun with an occasion when Stewart ruled (as an arbiter) that a previously promoted piece was a pawn.

[John McKenna]

Thanks for that clarifucation, Richard.

Just to clarify my posts further - in a game with 30 second increment I cannot see that white would not have time to deliver mate by the making the promotion move in time - provided he knows the current rules related to that. With less, or no increment, it becomes more and more likely white will lose on time. (And, of course, that problem can be solved online since the promotion can be played as a "pre-move".)

[Alex McFarlane]

Normally a move is made when the piece is released on the board.
When it is a capture there is the addition that the captured piece must be removed.
When it is a promotion there is the addition that the pawn must be replaced by another piece.
Normally the move is completed when the clock is pressed.
However in the case of checkmate or stalemate making the move also completes the move.
(This creates a problem if the mate is caused be a second illegal move.)

In the case under discussion the move was only half made so there was no mate. However, even if the pawn is only touched an arbiter would have to insist that the pawn was moved. As any pawn move means that Black cannot achieve checkmate then with the flagfall the game is a draw.
So - arbiter sees flagfall before pawn is touched = Black win
Arbiter sees flagfall after pawn touched = draw
White exchanges pawn for piece and then flag fall is noticed = White win (even if the flag probably fell before the piece was put on the board). The flag has only fallen when it is noticed.

[Stewart Reuben]

To make it clear. I am writing a book, together with my co-authors Alex McFarlane and Sean Press. It is called A History of the Laws of Chess. Alex is dealing with the first section, from about 600 AD to the 15th century with the old rules. Sean is dealing with the introduction of the augmented powers of the queen, bishop and pawn 15th century to the formation of FIDE. I am dealing with the Laws since FIDE was formed IN 1924. That section is more-or-less completed.
**************************************
The conundrum Soheil introduced is caused by 7.5.2, as pointed out by Ian Thompson. "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." Ashot Vardapetyan was all in favour of this, I was against it, but outvoted. A normal person might well put that pawn on e8, gesture in some way that it is mate, not noticed by his opponent, and start to complete his scoresheet. Now his flg falls and he has not completed his move. Or has he? The pawn must be replaced by a queen if he pressed the button. Is it not analagous? He had no need to press that button.

[Ian Thompson]

The conundrum Soheil introduced is caused by 7.5.2, as pointed out by Ian Thompson. "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." Ashot Vardapetyan was all in favour of this, I was against it, but outvoted.

I think this rule is questionable because it's inconsistent with the rest of the Laws. Elsewhere in the rules, when a player plays an illegal move the position is reset and:

1. The player is free to make any legal move they choose, whilst complying with touch-move rules arising from the illegal move. There are no other restrictions on what move can be played.

2. The player if left to work out what legal moves are possible with no assistance from the arbiter. There is no concept of saying that there is only one legal move therefore the arbiter is going to make it for the player.

[Alex McFarlane]

I think this rule is questionable because it's inconsistent with the rest of the Laws. Elsewhere in the rules, when a player plays an illegal move the position is reset

Agreed. The logic for it being a queen was that (allegedly) in some positions players, very short of time, were not exchanging the pawn to another pieces to gain extra thinking time and perhaps promote to another piece.

In this case the cure is worse than the disease. There were other ways of punishing a player who did this.

7.5.2 has several interpretations. There is the one given by Stewart. There is the more common one that the player must replace the pawn with a queen after the game is restarted. Another common interpretation is that the arbiter puts a queen on in place of the pawn before restarting the game.
A further interpretation is that the pawn is put back on the 7th and the player must then promote to a queen.

Lara, Shohreh and I have slightly different views on this. So even within the one household you cannot get consensus!!!

[soheil_hooshdaran]

To make it clear. I am writing a book, together with my co-authors Alex McFarlane and Sean Press. It is called A History of the Laws of Chess. Alex is dealing with the first section, from about 600 AD to the 15th century with the old rules. Sean is dealing with the introduction of the augmented powers of the queen, bishop and pawn 15th century to the formation of FIDE. I am dealing with the Laws since FIDE was formed IN 1924. That section is more-or-less completed.
**************************************
The conundrum Soheil introduced is caused by 7.5.2, as pointed out by Ian Thompson. "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." Ashot Vardapetyan was all in favour of this, I was against it, but outvoted. A normal person might well put that pawn on e8, gesture in some way that it is mate, not noticed by his opponent, and start to complete his scoresheet. Now his flg falls and he has not completed his move. Or has he? The pawn must be replaced by a queen if he pressed the button. Is it not analagous? He had no need to press that button.

So, all in all, the move is illegal, and the checkmate is delivered by an illegal move. So it all depends on whether White had made a previous illegal move. Is that true?

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Hello. How do the rules for online play differ from OTB rules?