The new rule chess needs, to prevent GM Sambuev incident

[Paul Bonham]

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

...Also seems strange to want to have so many usually useless pieces cluttering the area around the board.

If you are referring to my idea of each player having a total of 5 extra pieces in front of them, to be used only for promotion purposes, it is stranger still to put something like some puritannical sense of aesthetics ahead of common sense for handling promotion. Sure, promotion is rare, second promotion rarer still, underpromotion even more rare, but it does happen and has to be handled in a way that doesn't interfere with the flow of the game (i.e. stopping clocks, seeking arbiter).

Common sense does not prevail when instead of "cluttering" the area around the board with a few extra pieces, there is actually a rule written for promotion that says "stop the clock and seek the arbiter's assistance". And that rule applies even to blitz and Armaggedon games, which are used to decide national championships.

Perhaps we should't clutter up the area around the board with game scoresheets? Perhaps every time a player makes a move, s/he should stop the clock and seek the arbiter's assistance to have the move recorded?

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.

Here we seem to be in agreement. If that is really your thinking, then you should be ok with my idea of players having extra promotion pieces in front of them.

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: NAC decision has been made

You would dash the dreams of many youngsters who use the rooks as a base to build elaborate structures with the chess pieces.

And whereas some innocently give up after the rooks have run out, there's those who reach new heights by jam-shoving the top of a bishop into the bottom of a queen.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: NAC decision has been made

Theoretically there is no reason that a minor modification of the design of the R would make it so that it wouldn't be able to stand upside-down.

You would dash the dreams of many youngsters who use the rooks as a base to build elaborate structures with the chess pieces.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: NAC decision has been made

Theoretically there is no reason that a minor modification of the design of the R would make it so that it wouldn't be able to stand upside-down.

[Vlad Drkulec]

NAC decision has been made

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?4527-Resolution-of-appeal-to-NAC-on-the-matter-of-Canadian-Closed-playoff&p=27759#post27759

The NAC has decided 3-1 against the appeal by Nikolay Noritsyn of the result of the Canadian Closed and Zonal playoff. Pierre Denomme stepped aside due to involvement as the arbiter. Nikolay can still appeal to the executive and possibly to FIDE but the world cup spot has been awarded to Bator Sambuev.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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...