The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

[Frank Dixon]

Reading through all of the explanations and posts on the notorious incident from the blitz playoff game GM Sambuev vs IM Noritsyn, Montreal, July 1, 2017, distilling my 50+ years of chess experience, and my 48 years of direction / organization experience, I have realized that the creation of a simple, new rule for chess would prevent all of the problems, going forward. This reprehensible incident has illuminated the need to specifically prevent its recurrence in the future.

We simply need to define 'captured pieces', and their role, in the Rules of Chess, via a new Article. This term is NOT defined, so far as I know. :)

New Article:
'Captured pieces':
Pieces captured by either of the players are to be removed immediately from the board. These pieces are to be set to the side of the board, well away from the ongoing conduct of the game still in progress, and are not to be interfered with by either of the players, or by anyone else, except for a supervising Arbiter. Specifically, neither player is to touch, possess, or hide potential Promotion pieces for his opponent. Penalty: At the discretion of the Arbiter, with disqualification possible.

(Note that the Promotion process is already defined specifically and clearly in the Rules; this new Rule would complement it.)

I will leave the specifics of the wording of this proposed new rule to our CFC Executive and FIDE Representative. I propose that the CFC's FIDE Representative, following discussion at the national level, take up this topic with FIDE as soon as possible, crediting me with the creation of this rule as part of the process. :)

Currently, the outcome of this incident, where GM Sambuev's improper conduct decisively impacted the Championship's result, is NOT ACCEPTABLE to me, insofar as determining our 2017 Canadian Champion and Canadian representative to future FIDE events.

Respectfully submitted,
Frank Dixon
NTD, Kingston

[Kerry Liles]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Reading through all of the explanations and posts on the notorious incident from the blitz playoff game GM Sambuev vs IM Noritsyn, Montreal, July 1, 2017, distilling my 50+ years of chess experience, and my 48 years of direction / organization experience, I have realized that the creation of a simple, new rule for chess would prevent all of the problems, going forward. This reprehensible incident has illuminated the need to specifically prevent its recurrence in the future.

We simply need to define 'captured pieces', and their role, in the Rules of Chess, via a new Article. This term is NOT defined, so far as I know. :)

New Article:
'Captured pieces':
Pieces captured by either of the players are to be removed immediately from the board. These pieces are to be set to the side of the board, well away from the ongoing conduct of the game still in progress, and are not to be interfered with by either of the players, or by anyone else, except for a supervising Arbiter. Specifically, neither player is to touch, possess, or hide potential Promotion pieces for his opponent. Penalty: At the discretion of the Arbiter, with disqualification possible.

(Note that the Promotion process is already defined specifically and clearly in the Rules; this new Rule would complement it.)

I will leave the specifics of the wording of this proposed new rule to our CFC Executive and FIDE Representative. I propose that the CFC's FIDE Representative, following discussion at the national level, take up this topic with FIDE as soon as possible, crediting me with the creation of this rule as part of the process. :)

Currently, the outcome of this incident, where GM Sambuev's improper conduct decisively impacted the Championship's result, is NOT ACCEPTABLE to me, insofar as determining our 2017 Canadian Champion and Canadian representative to future FIDE events.

Respectfully submitted,
Frank Dixon
NTD, Kingston

Could you clarify whether or not either player is allowed to grab a piece from the pile to use for promotion? I presume from your wording that the answer is likely 'no, they cannot' so that implies there is another place on the table for such supplementary piece(s)?
I see an escalating series of "rules" that might arise.

In the actual case of the Sambuev-Nortisyn game, since there is a clear video replay it is obvious the arbiter(s) made some serious errors in judgment (whether it was some combination of lack of preparation, lack of attentiveness, bad luck, expired sausages at breakfast etc. it no matter: the arbitration was incorrect and needs to be corrected somehow.

I presume the NAC will deal with this and grace us with their wisdom (and any members of the NAC that were involved obviously will have to recuse themselves from the ruling).

Can't wait for that...

[Frank Dixon]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Thanks, Kerry.

The promotion process is already defined in the Rules of Chess, as I wrote, and my proposed new Rule would complement and clarify it.

The point of my proposed new Rule is that when a player is getting ready to promote a pawn, he will promote to one of HIS OWN captured pieces (Queen, rook, bishop, or knight). In NO CIRCUMSTANCE should a player need to touch one of HIS OPPONENT'S captured pieces, since he will NEVER promote to one of those pieces, and there is no valid other reason, pertaining to the game's conduct, to have to touch these eliminated pieces.

As an interesting note on promotion, from the 2017 Canadian University Team Championship held in London, where I was Co-Arbiter, with Brian Clarke, we had an incident involving promotion. A player wanted to capture, with a pawn on the seventh rank, an opponent's piece on the proposed queening square. He simply placed the new queen on the square, while removing the opponent's piece, all in one motion. INCORRECT! Proper procedure would have been for the pawn to directly capture the opponent's piece on the queening square, announce the name of the promoted piece (in this case, a Queen, but it could have also been a rook, bishop, or knight), and then to place a new Queen on that square. Upon a complaint by the opponent, a five-minute time penalty was assigned, as extra time for the opponent, and the game continued.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Informing players of their rights would have saved everyone from creating new rules and threads. Having troubles - ask assistance from the arbiter.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Reading through all of the explanations and posts on the notorious incident from the blitz playoff game GM Sambuev vs IM Noritsyn, Montreal, July 1, 2017, distilling my 50+ years of chess experience, and my 48 years of direction / organization experience, I have realized that the creation of a simple, new rule for chess would prevent all of the problems, going forward. This reprehensible incident has illuminated the need to specifically prevent its recurrence in the future.

We simply need to define 'captured pieces', and their role, in the Rules of Chess, via a new Article.....

Sorry, Frank, this does NOT cover everything. What about the case of promoting to Queen (Knight, Bishop, Rook) where your Queen (Knight, Bishop, Rook) has not yet been captured? Since there is no provision for having these extra pieces at the board, the player must stop the clock and ask the arbiter for assistance in locating such a piece. Louis Morin even said some event had a table set up with 40 extra Queens (20 of each color). How absurd! Someone else said that at the CYCC, every board had 1 extra Queen of each color provided at each table. Much more reasonable, but not quite enough.

Not that I care who gets credit for what.... I just want to see common sense prevail. The most common sense thing of all is to (almost) never require stoppage of the clock. And that means each player having 2 extra Queens, 1 extra Bishop, 1 extra Knight, 1 extra Rook of their own color in front of them at the beginning of the game, to be brought onto the board when promoting to that piece. Eventually these extra pieces are to become part of the FIDE standard chess set, and until then, organizers should sell them at cost for players not having them.

These pieces would be the only off-board pieces that players are allowed to "fidget" with during the game, as long as the fidgeting is not such as to distract the opponent. When a captured piece is removed from the board, it cannot be held onto, but must be set aside.

This also removes the so-called "psychological" ploy of reaching for your Queen from among your captured pieces several moves ahead of the promotion, to distract and put additional pressure on the opponent. Under this rule, you can reach for your extra Queens that are in front of you as often and whenever you like, again provided you do not try and distract the opponent.

I don't ask credit for this, I just ask that the CFC's FIDE Representative, following discussion at the national level, take up this topic with FIDE as soon as possible and propose this rule change that covers all reasonably-expected cases.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

I don't ask credit for this

I don't think you have to worry about that...

[Patrick Kirby]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Why not just introduce a rule that a player promoting a pawn may use an overturned rook in place of a queen? This is standard practice around the world in casual games.

What's the point of the rule considering an overturned rook as a rook? Other "technical" rules at least have some logic to them - for instance leaving the pawn on the eighth rank could lead to confusion, using two hands to castle could allow gamesmanship around the touch/move rule. I just don't see what issue this particular rule addresses.

[Sam Sharpe]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Why not just introduce a rule that a player promoting a pawn may use an overturned rook in place of a queen? This is standard practice around the world in casual games.

What's the point of the rule considering an overturned rook as a rook? Other "technical" rules at least have some logic to them - for instance leaving the pawn on the eighth rank could lead to confusion, using two hands to castle could allow gamesmanship around the touch/move rule. I just don't see what issue this particular rule addresses.

I think it is because on digital boards, a R is still a R.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Why not just introduce a rule that a player promoting a pawn may use an overturned rook in place of a queen? This is standard practice around the world in casual games.

What's the point of the rule considering an overturned rook as a rook? Other "technical" rules at least have some logic to them - for instance leaving the pawn on the eighth rank could lead to confusion, using two hands to castle could allow gamesmanship around the touch/move rule. I just don't see what issue this particular rule addresses.

Those are FIDE rules, they try to make as simple as possible. For FIDE, a rook is always a rook, no matter how it is placed on the board. No need to explain that the upside-down rook can be a queen.

[Lee Hendon]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival
Since July 2014
Sorry Frank you are wrong

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Edited: Too slow to type. Lee Hendon wrote the same thing one post above.

As an interesting note on promotion, from the 2017 Canadian University Team Championship held in London, where I was Co-Arbiter, with Brian Clarke, we had an incident involving promotion. A player wanted to capture, with a pawn on the seventh rank, an opponent's piece on the proposed queening square. He simply placed the new queen on the square, while removing the opponent's piece, all in one motion. INCORRECT! Proper procedure would have been for the pawn to directly capture the opponent's piece on the queening square, announce the name of the promoted piece (in this case, a Queen, but it could have also been a rook, bishop, or knight), and then to place a new Queen on that square. Upon a complaint by the opponent, a five-minute time penalty was assigned, as extra time for the opponent, and the game continued.

It not clearly to me what happened: Did a pawn capture properly like c7 x d8Q? If yes, when did he remove the pawn? With the same "one motion"? Did he leave the pawn on the board? Has a player promoted according to your procedure after getting 5-min penalty?

Though, the procedure can be that way it is not the only way; and announcement of the promoting piece name is not required at all.

Rule before July 1:
"4.6 The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:

the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order.

If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of promotion, it must be captured."

(Capturing means removed from the board, and own piece is moved on the square.)

[Patrick Kirby]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Those are FIDE rules, they try to make as simple as possible. For FIDE, a rook is always a rook, no matter how it is placed on the board. No need to explain that the upside-down rook can be a queen.

Using an overturned rook as a queen is a standard practice that all chess players are aware of. Ruling it a rook creates unnecessary complexity because it goes against the common practice.

[Patrick Kirby]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

I think it is because on digital boards, a R is still a R.

This is true, but I think it is a pretty minor issue when set against the potential impact of such a ruling on the fairness of the competition.

[Marcus Wilker]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Many players quite innocently touch captured pieces, sometimes moving them all to a different place once a certain number have been captured. Seems like a bad idea to "criminalize," as it were, such uaually innocent behaviour just in order to deal with this quite rare situation. Also seems strange to want to have so many usually useless pieces cluttering the area around the board. But I'm also not sure about appeals to "common practice." It may be common practice in speed chess to play touch clock rather than touch move, or to distinguish adjusting from moving by the manner of doing so rather than verbal announcement, or to say check, etc. But that does not make it the rule. At the same time, rules shouldn't be so complicated and arbitrary as to make winning chess games more about knowing the intricacies of competition rules than about playing good moves on the board. Overall, it's a good thing that arbiters are quite rarely mentioned (compared to officials in soccer or hockey, etc.) as a factor in the game. Interesting here that there is an appeal to video replay, though.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

Regarding upside down rooks, I can see other arguments for why FIDE currently doesn't like the use of them. Not only due to aesthetics (e.g. for spectators), but there are some possibilitites for confusion, at least sometime after an inverted R would first appear on the board. One thing I can't quite recall is if an inverted R ever has been allowed to be used to stand for another piece than a Q, if the promoting player calls for it - if that's the case, it's not just one of the players who might later be confused. Perhaps less obvious is that one of the players (or a spectator) might imagine an inverted R to be an actual R, during his calculations at some point.