Giving Queens

[Christopher Kreuzer]

This talk of chess piece morphing reminds me of a form of blindfold chess (or training for it), where you have 32 white pawns occupying rows 1, 2, 7 and 8 of the chessboard. You have to remember which pawns represent which chess piece (and what colour) and play a game...

The starter version of this allows you to have 16 black pawns representing the Black army. It is essentially to train you in not relying on the physical appearance of the pieces, but to have a mental map of where everything is and what it is.

The next level is to do this on a chessboard that is all one colour (i.e. no black/white or red/green or white/green distinction between the squares). But where you can see the difference between squares. The final level is to do this all in your head.

When you ask some people who are good at blindfold chess, they will say they imagine mental images of the pieces moving on a chessboard. But the really amazing blindfold players, those who can do simuls and hold multiple games in their head, they seem to 'store' the games and positions in a different way. Those who claim to do blindfold chess by imagining a chess scoresheet being filled in, well, if that helps them!

[Peter Ackley]

I was reminded of this thread this morning when I put my shopping in the cupboard. I accidentally put a tin of chilli in upside down but - to my surprise - it remained a tin of chilli. It didn't turn into something else, like a piece of steak. It's the same with rooks. You turn them upside down, they are still a rook.

I couldn't really follow Joey's last post - it seemed to be the point was that he'd win automatically if he hid all the spare queens, played quickly and tried to promote to a second queen. If this was the point then I'd penalise Joey for his behaviour (various sections of the laws of chess would allow this) and require the return of the queens, defaulting him if he did not do so.

I suppose a similar scenario could occur in a match where one board plays quicker than the others and promotes before anyone else has exchanged queens AND the venue used older sets (where no spare pieces were provided) and had no spare sets available. In this case I'd have to think on the spot which might include using an upturned rook HOWEVER in 30 years of chess I cannot remember a scenario like this ever occurring.

Mike Gunn's comment seems very accurate here - I cannot understand why this needs so much debate. I think Occam's razor sums this up best. A rook is a rook.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I couldn't really follow Joey's last post - it seemed to be the point was that he'd win automatically if he hid all the spare queens, played quickly and tried to promote to a second queen. If this was the point then I'd penalise Joey for his behaviour (various sections of the laws of chess would allow this) and require the return of the queens, defaulting him if he did not do so.

Joey was saying that if his opponent promoted a pawn to a queen without finding a queen to put on the promotion square, he would claim it was an illegal move and claim win of the game (via this somewhat naive arbiter).

I have seen people promote to a rook instead of bothering with finding a queen. That is usually enough to win the game. Especially if the promoted piece is going to be captured anyway. (Though not if the queens are off the board and both rooks are still on).

[Roger de Coverly]

I cannot understand why this needs so much debate.

The very simple point is that there was a long standing convention that if a second queen appears on the board, it can take the physical form of an upturned rook if no spare queen is available. In the context of a game played in private, that would historically have certainly been the case. Sixty years ago at school that would have been my expectation.

At some time over the last maybe thirty years, an influential arbiter or arbiters decided that this was no longer to be so and indoctrinated all the arbiters they trained that this was to be the rule.

There's a old book cover discussing positions with two queens that shows one of them as an upturned rook. Whether use of the upturned rook as a queen was ever in the Laws of Chess might be a matter for research. Possibly not as if it was a widespread convention, there may have been thought no need.

The other historic accepted convention that was overturned by arbiters was the practice of writing the move before playing it.

[John Upham]

I was reminded of this thread this morning when I put my shopping in the cupboard. I accidentally put a tin of chilli in upside down but - to my surprise - it remained a tin of chilli. It didn't turn into something else, like a piece of steak. It's the same with rooks. You turn them upside down, they are still a rook.

I placed a cake in a cupboard earlier today but stupidly the wrong way up which has ruined it.

I then remembered it was Pineapple upside-down cake and hoped this news would avert a disaster. Sadly, this was not the case.

[Paul McKeown]

the Laws of chess, as we have seen, are quite specific in that an upturned rook is a rook and must move as a rook.

I don't think that is explicit in the FIDE laws.

To address Paul in this matter, I would invert the argument: where in the Laws of Chess does it state that a rook is not a rook, but sometimes a queen?

Nowhere! And hence quod erat demonstrandum.

As the Laws do not say that under certain circumstances a rook should be viewed as a queen, a rook is always a rook.

Moreover, arbiters are given guidance in the annotated Laws to be found in the Arbiters' Manual, last year's edition being found here.

I quote:

When a player places an inverted (upside – down) rook on the promotion square and continues
the game, the piece is considered as a rook, even if he/she names it as a “queen” or any other
piece. If he/she moves the upside-down rook diagonally, it becomes an illegal move. On his/her
own move the opponent may turn the rook the right way up. However, to avoid conflict, it is
advisable that an arbiter is requested to do this.

Paul continues:

I'd be more confused if an opponent started the game with their rooks upside down than if a pawn was promoted to an upside down rook.

This is not an unknown scenario in junior chess, but I would be gobsmacked to see it in an adult tournament. An arbiter, on seeing it will require the rooks to be rectified, and might issue a warning.

Paul continues further:

I suspect Paul's view is consistent with that of most arbiters. It does make the term "arbiter" a bit questionable though. Maybe FIDE should update to "referee".

The role of an arbiter is defined in Article 12 of the Laws. Whether the defined role is better labelled an "arbiter" or a "referee" is a semantic or semiotic one of which I have no personal opinion.

[Joey Stewart]

This is not an unknown scenario in junior chess, but I would be gobsmacked to see it in an adult tournament. An arbiter, on seeing it will require the rooks to be rectified, and might issue a warning.

Aha, yes. Because it might be viewed as a queen, as is the tradition.

[Paul McKeown]

This is not an unknown scenario in junior chess, but I would be gobsmacked to see it in an adult tournament. An arbiter, on seeing it will require the rooks to be rectified, and might issue a warning.

Aha, yes. Because it might be viewed as a queen, as is the tradition.

Indeed, arbiters - as most chess players - are aware of the tradition, but the intervention would be on the grounds of "disturbing the opponent," with the perceived threat of suddenly unleashing the rooks' secret diagonal powers.

As an aside, it would be interesting to learn when this tradition began; I suspect that it might have been in the 19th century with industrial production of Staunton pattern sets. Earlier historical patterns of chess sets did not all have "towers" that could be securely placed upside down.

[Paul McKeown]

When you ask some people who are good at blindfold chess, they will say they imagine mental images of the pieces moving on a chessboard. But the really amazing blindfold players, those who can do simuls and hold multiple games in their head, they seem to 'store' the games and positions in a different way. Those who claim to do blindfold chess by imagining a chess scoresheet being filled in, well, if that helps them!

I used to be a decent blindfold player (I once beat Staines B team 6.5 - 1.5 in a blindfold simul). I can promise you I have never ever pictured pieces in my mind's eye in some sort of photographic record of the game. I seriously doubt anyone does. Blindfold play is simply an extension of the commonplaces of chess memory and calculation. You know what squares the pieces can go, you understand what is going on in the ranks, files and diagonals, you have an instant recall of the standard tactics, you put it together. Additionally, you are supported by some opening knowledge, etc.

Couldn't hack it now, too lazy, requires a huge expenditure of energy and a determination that I could no longer summon.

[Paul McKeown]

I was reminded of this thread this morning when I put my shopping in the cupboard. I accidentally put a tin of chilli in upside down but - to my surprise - it remained a tin of chilli. It didn't turn into something else, like a piece of steak. It's the same with rooks. You turn them upside down, they are still a rook.

Mike Gunn's comment seems very accurate here - I cannot understand why this needs so much debate. I think Occam's razor sums this up best. A rook is a rook.

Thanks, Peter, very clear. Enough has been said. No doubt the grumblers will continue grumbling, or perhaps griping, whinging, whining or gurning. Some may even JAQ off. But the Laws of Chess will remain as they are.

[Roger de Coverly]

Indeed, arbiters - as most chess players - are aware of the tradition,

When in your memory was it officially outlawed and were there any amendments to the Laws of Chess consequential on this?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

When you ask some people who are good at blindfold chess, they will say they imagine mental images of the pieces moving on a chessboard. But the really amazing blindfold players, those who can do simuls and hold multiple games in their head, they seem to 'store' the games and positions in a different way. Those who claim to do blindfold chess by imagining a chess scoresheet being filled in, well, if that helps them!

I used to be a decent blindfold player (I once beat Staines B team 6.5 - 1.5 in a blindfold simul). I can promise you I have never ever pictured pieces in my mind's eye in some sort of photographic record of the game. I seriously doubt anyone does. Blindfold play is simply an extension of the commonplaces of chess memory and calculation. You know what squares the pieces can go, you understand what is going on in the ranks, files and diagonals, you have an instant recall of the standard tactics, you put it together. Additionally, you are supported by some opening knowledge, etc.

Couldn't hack it now, too lazy, requires a huge expenditure of energy and a determination that I could no longer summon.

In all seriousness, do you remember positions as a diagram, or a view of a chessboard? I have briefly tried to get about 10-15 moves into a blindfold game, and it mainly involves remembering the previous moves and where the pieces are. And groupings of pieces. Ignoring parts of the board where nothing has moved, and resolving some easy to calculate tactic. I am sure much interesting work has been published on this (it is already known that strong players recognise tactics by the groupings of pieces).

Any chess position, you would chunk up and remember bits of it, and then put those back together again.

[David Lettington]

The very simple point is that there was a long standing convention that if a second queen appears on the board, it can take the physical form of an upturned rook if no spare queen is available.

At some time over the last maybe thirty years, an influential arbiter or arbiters decided that this was no longer to be so and indoctrinated all the arbiters they trained that this was to be the rule.

A long standing convention that has no basis in the Laws of Chess, or that directly contravenes a Law, should not be encouraged or permitted.

Arbiters don't make decisions because they have been indoctrinated to do so, but because the Laws (or the Arbiters Manual which expands upon and explains the Laws) says they should do so.

[Paul Cooksey]

I accidentally put a tin of chilli in upside down but - to my surprise - it remained a tin of chilli. It didn't turn into something else, like a piece of steak.

I assume Peter eats his chilli straight from the can. The risk of it transforming into a burrito and causing an existential crisis must be terrifying.

A long standing convention that has no basis in the Laws of Chess, or that directly contravenes a Law, should not be encouraged or permitted.

That is not a very British approach to law.

Whether the defined role is better labelled an "arbiter" or a "referee" is a semantic or semiotic one of which I have no personal opinion.

I guess Paul does not understand why Paul thinks it is an important distinction, just as Paul does not understand why Paul would want to enforce an uncodified interpretation of a law to try to ensure laws are respected.

The Laws of Chess are not a creation of divine decree. Their validity is entirely contingent on players choosing to follow them. Just ask Arkady.

[David Lettington]

That is not a very British approach to law.

We're not talking about the law of the land, we're talking about the Laws of Chess.

The Laws of Chess are not a creation of divine decree. Their validity is entirely contingent on players choosing to follow them. Just ask Arkady.

The Laws are not a divine decree, but they are the rules set by the governing body to ensure that the game can be played competitively whilst being fair to all participants. The players are not free to ignore the Laws in favour of conventions that they prefer to the actual rules. It's difficult to imagine football players or snooker players trying to ignore the rules of their game, or expecting the referee not to take action if they did so. I accept that those games have referees and not arbiters, but in my opinion that's a largely semantic difference because their roles of attempting to ensure fair play and consistent application of the rules, are essentially the same irrespective of their title.