Promotion in chess with context from other sports

[Frank Dixon]

Promotion in chess, attained when a pawn reaches its eighth rank, is a unique process in major sports. It has been likened to reincarnation, a central theme in many major religions. It has origins in the battlefield theme of chess, where common soldiers could be knighted by their kings, for daring battlefield exploits.

Promotion is also a specialized form of substitution. A player's captured non-pawn pieces, kept by the side of the board, could potentially RETURN TO THE GAME. When captured, they are in effect transferred to the 'substitutes bench'.

My plan for this post is to outline briefly the substitution methods of major popular spectator sports, to provide context for Canadian chess people, who have been shaken by the horrible scandal from Montreal 2017. :(

Baseball: Once a player leaves the game, he cannot return. Positional switches among players remaining in the game are permitted, with nine players on the field, and nine in the batting lineup, which alternate by half-innings for offense and defense. Players may be called out for procedural violations (baserunner hit in fair territory by batted ball, over-running teammate on basepaths, etc). They could be awarded extra bases for defensive violations (fielder blocking baserunner). They can be ejected for conduct violations (arguing too much, unsportsmanlike conduct), and possibly suspended from further games.

Basketball: Unlimited substitution from the designated lineup, with five players maximum on the court at any one time. Players may be ejected for conduct violations, such as fouling out (maximum six fouls per game per player in NBA, five in college, international, and high school), and possibly suspended for further games.

Soccer: Maximum of three substitutions per team, per match. Players may be ejected for conduct violations, through 'red cards' assigned by the referee, leaving their team down a player for the rest of the match. Disqualifications can also carry over match to match.

Hockey: Unlimited substitutions during a game. Hockey is unique in that it allows substitutions while the play is still in progress; all other sports listed here see substitutions carried out at play stoppages. Players who commit minor fouls can be penalized for two minutes, during which time they leave the ice and their team plays short-handed until that time expires, or the opponents score, when they or a substitute can return. One penalty is for having too many men on the ice (improper substitution), another is for illegal equipment. Major and more significant penalties could include longer absences, ejection from the game, and possible suspension.

Football: Substitution rules are too complex to explain here in detail, but these are worked out by administrators and followed by coaches; specified positional alignments are often required or utilized for particular strategies. Penalties can include yardage added for the victimized team, and possible ejection of offending player. One penalty is for having too many players on the field; that is, improper substitution. Suspension for major violations, usually drug-related.

Note that if substitution rules are followed properly, for all of these sports, NO COACH can dictate which player(s) the opposing coach can utilize, in whichever situation. That was NOT the case in Sambuev vs. Noritsyn, Montreal blitz playoff 2017, when Sambuev physically controlled Noritsyn's planned substitution, upon promotion.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

My plan for this post is (...) to provide context for Canadian chess people, who have been shaken by the horrible scandal from Montreal 2017. :(

Horrible scandal? You cannot be serious? You must be joking?

Note that if substitution rules are followed properly, for all of these sports, NO COACH can dictate which player(s) the opposing coach can utilize, in whichever situation. That was NOT the case in Sambuev vs. Noritsyn, Montreal blitz playoff 2017, when Sambuev physically controlled Noritsyn's planned substitution, upon promotion.

Come on! Rather than to promote a Rook in desperation, all Noritsyn had to do is to tell the arbiter he needed a new Queen.

[Frank Dixon]

Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

Yes, and with seven seconds left on his clock! The arbiters should have seen GM Sambuev's actions, if they had been paying sufficient attention; then none of this would have happened.

[Aman Hambleton]

Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

Horrible scandal? You cannot be serious? You must be joking?

What else remotely comparable has happened in Canadian Chess in the last decade? It was roughly a $10,000 incident. I'd say he is serious.

Come on! Rather than to promote a Rook in desperation, all Noritsyn had to do is to tell the arbiter he needed a new Queen.

Come on! Rather than tell the arbiter he needed a new Queen, all the FQE had to do was carefully place two of the 50 extra nearby Queens on the table where the $10,000 blitz playoff game was taking place.

You are right - it's perfectly legal to pause the clock and ask for a Queen, just as it is also perfectly legal to promote "naturally" as Nikolay intended to do. His natural (and legal) preference was made impossible both by the actions of the arbiters and his opponent, and that should not be allowed in my opinion.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

Horrible scandal? You cannot be serious? You must be joking?



Come on! Rather than to promote a Rook in desperation, all Noritsyn had to do is to tell the arbiter he needed a new Queen.

How convenient for everyone involved to simply blame the victim (Nikolay - in case anyone hasn't been paying attention). No need to question whether the arbiter is sufficiently competent to be allowed to run a national championship again. No need to make a decision on whether Bator's actions constituted interference (they did). No need to burn up "political capital" with FIDE. Let's just all take the easy way out and blame the victim.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

all the FQE had to do was carefully place two of the 50 extra nearby Queens on the table

I have to agree with you on this. It would have been much simpler to put an extra Queen of each color on the table.

But let's see it the other way round. Nikolay did not know two basic Laws of Chess. He did not know that an inverted Rook cannot stand for a Queen. And he did not know for sure if he was allowed or not to stop the clock to get a new Queen.

True, an extra Queen of each color on the table would have prevented him to blunder in this particular instance. However, sooner or later, not knowing these two basic rules was bound to hit him in the face in one way or another. The Laws of Chess are very basic rules that even grandmasters have to know perfectly. It is very convenient to blame the opponent or the arbiters or the FQE for what they did or failed to do, but ultimately, a professional chess player should be master of his own destiny. In my personal opinion, not knowing some very basic Laws of Chess and blaming others for that is not a way to go.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

...
The Laws of Chess are very basic rules that even grandmasters have to know perfectly.*

And now there is one grandmaster who knows that he can hide a captured queen from his opponent and there will be no consequences for him. What a load of bs.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

And now there is one grandmaster who knows that he can hide a captured queen from his opponent and there will be no consequences for him. What a load of bs.

That is a very important point. Louis, you should consider that point, because in blitz / Armaggedon, it takes TIME to stop the clock, just as it takes time to actually move a piece. That time to stop the clock might be the difference in the game! So there's two things to consider:

Player A hides Player B's Queen. Player B, promoting with only seconds left, fumbles with the clock to stop it and ask for a Queen. That is precious seconds gone from Player B's time. Then, while the arbiter is getting the Queen, Player A studies the position and gains free time to do so.

You are correct, Louis, that Nikolay should have known the rule, but the total outcome is not satisfactory. Bator got away with something, intentional or not, and profited from it. So he may not have held the Queen on purpose, but he did refrain from saying anything to the arbiter.

If nothing can be done about this particular case, at least all chess federations and FIDE itself should learn from it going forward. Change the rule! Make the arbiters check before games begin that each player has extra Queen (at least 1, but I'd prefer 2) and 1 extra of Bishop, Knight, Rook.

Can FQE petition FIDE to change this rule?

[Louis Morin]

Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

in blitz / Armaggedon, it takes TIME to stop the clock, just as it takes time to actually move a piece. That time to stop the clock might be the difference in the game! So there's two things to consider: Player A hides Player B's Queen. Player B, promoting with only seconds left, fumbles with the clock to stop it and ask for a Queen. That is precious seconds gone from Player B's time. Then, while the arbiter is getting the Queen, Player A studies the position and gains free time to do so.

Actually, since the clock is stopped, BOTH players gain free time to study the position. But if the arbiter decides that the Queen is missing because Player A hid it to disturb Player B, then he might penalize Player A by adding extra time to Player B. So after all, it might be in Player B's best interest to know the rule and use it adequately.

Can FQE petition FIDE to change this rule?

The FQE is a provincial organization, and as such is not affiliated to FIDE. Only the CFC could do it.

But such a change would be huge. At this moment, there are no rules at all about captured pieces, apart from the fact that they cannot remain on the board. For example, nothing can force a player to keep them on the table near the chessboard. He might as well put them back in their box (if he owns the chess set), or mix them with captured pieces from a board nearby (this happens often actually), or even play with them while thinking... Poker players play with their tokens and nobody complain, so why should this be wrong in chess?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

Actually, since the clock is stopped, BOTH players gain free time to study the position. But if the arbiter decides that the Queen is missing because Player A hid it to disturb Player B, then he might penalize Player A by adding extra time to Player B. So after all, it might be in Player B's best interest to know the rule and use it adequately.

Your first point is valid, but it only underscores the total absurdity of the situation. Time controls are there for a reason -- allowing either player to stop the clock while an arbiter searches the hall for an extra Queen makes a mockery of the time control.

Also, very unlikely that Player B could prove that Player A was hiding the Queen. This game in question just happened to be video recorded, and THAT is why this has become such a scandal as Frank Dixon and Aman Hambleton point out.

Video recording has recently put many police departments and officers in the spotlight for violations of rights etc., and now it has done something similar for chess.

The FQE is a provincial organization, and as such is not affiliated to FIDE. Only the CFC could do it.

But such a change would be huge. At this moment, there are no rules at all about captured pieces, apart from the fact that they cannot remain on the board. For example, nothing can force a player to keep them on the table near the chessboard. He might as well put them back in their box (if he owns the chess set), or mix them with captured pieces from a board nearby (this happens often actually), or even play with them while thinking... Poker players play with their tokens and nobody complain, so why should this be wrong in chess?

Correct, it's not wrong in chess and I don't propose to make it wrong. My rule suggestion has nothing to do with the captured pieces -- players can do what they like with those. My suggestion is that both players have extra Queen, Bishop, Knight, Rook OF THEIR OWN PIECE COLOR in front of them or to the side of them before the game begins, and arbiters MUST verify this for every board before clocks begin. So for example, Player A could not reach across and grab Player B's extra promotion Queen. THAT would be a violation of rules.

So I don't think it's a huge change, other than organizers must have these extra pieces in hand to either borrow to players or sell to them at cost. No game can start without them, that would be the rule.

Can FQE influence CFC to petition FIDE for this rule change? Probably not.... what a mess, for both FQE and for Nikolay. The blame lies with FIDE.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

...My rule suggestion has nothing to do with the captured pieces -- players can do what they like with those. My suggestion is that both players have extra Queen, Bishop, Knight, Rook OF THEIR OWN PIECE COLOR in front of them or to the side of them before the game begins, and arbiters MUST verify this for every board before clocks begin. So for example, Player A could not reach across and grab Player B's extra promotion Queen. THAT would be a violation of rules.

So I don't think it's a huge change, other than organizers must have these extra pieces in hand to either borrow to players or sell to them at cost. No game can start without them, that would be the rule.

...

My own preference would be for the rule to just provide an extra queen, underpromotion seeming less likely just happening to occur in a time scramble than it already was improbable for a whole game - for one thing it's more of a pain for organizers to come up with all those spare minor pieces and rooks, while at least set manufacturers at times already provide an extra queen per side. This is even more the case if all this is to be for less important events with many boards than for a national championship. Still, I wouldn't be against the idea of the CFC suggesting Paul's idea to FIDE if they'll entertain the idea of a rule change. An alternative is for players not to be allowed to handle captured pieces (at the least when the opponent has less than, say, 5 minutes), which I'm also not against.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

I have to agree with you on this. It would have been much simpler to put an extra Queen of each color on the table.

But let's see it the other way round. Nikolay did not know two basic Laws of Chess. He did not know that an inverted Rook cannot stand for a Queen. And he did not know for sure if he was allowed or not to stop the clock to get a new Queen.

True, an extra Queen of each color on the table would have prevented him to blunder in this particular instance. However, sooner or later, not knowing these two basic rules was bound to hit him in the face in one way or another. The Laws of Chess are very basic rules that even grandmasters have to know perfectly. It is very convenient to blame the opponent or the arbiters or the FQE for what they did or failed to do, but ultimately, a professional chess player should be master of his own destiny. In my personal opinion, not knowing some very basic Laws of Chess and blaming others for that is not a way to go.

I have a couple hypothetical questions that hopefully someone can answer. What happens if, in attempting to stop the clock, the player stopping the clock runs out of time? Do they just lose? Can they ask the arbiter to make a ruling if their stopping the clock has merit (i.e. they are stopping the clock for a good reason, not something spurious)?

Surely promoting a pawn is going to normally take less time than trying to promote a pawn, searching for the missing queen, then stopping the clock.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

My own preference would be for the rule to just provide an extra queen, underpromotion seeming less likely just happening to occur in a time scramble than it already was improbable for a whole game - for one thing it's more of a pain for organizers to come up with all those spare minor pieces and rooks, while at least set manufacturers at times already provide an extra queen per side. This is even more the case if all this is to be for less important events with many boards than for a national championship. Still, I wouldn't be against the idea of the CFC suggesting Paul's idea to FIDE if they'll entertain the idea of a rule change. An alternative is for players not to be allowed to handle captured pieces (at the least when the opponent has less than, say, 5 minutes), which I'm also not against.

Kevin, knowing your interest in chess variants, I'm mildly surprised you'd find an argument against an idea that would lead to manufacturers including more "extra" pieces in a typical chess set. This would the side effect of encouraging the trying out of other variants where these extra pieces could be used more regularly.

And really, is the reputed cheapness of chess players so great that the idea of paying for a few extra pieces is so repulsive? Entire plastic sets can be bought for what, $3.99? So what would 10 extra pieces be, another $1.50 maybe?

Incidentally, let's take this argument a step further. What if Bator and Nikolay had been playing on a DGT board, which I'm assuming uses special (and more expensive) chess pieces that the board software can identify? And let's say for sake of argument that Nikolay still had his original Queen on the board... so now the arbiter has to search the tournament hall for not just a Queen, but a special DGT-board Queen! What if there isn't one?

Admittedly this scenario does also make my rule change more expensive. I'd be interested to know how expensive DGT-board pieces are.... anyone?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Promotion in chess with context from other sports

An internet search revealed to me that more than one dgt chess board product comes with two extra queens.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Promotion in chess with context from other sports

Promotion in chess, attained when a pawn reaches its eighth rank, is a unique process in major sports. It has been likened to reincarnation, a central theme in many major religions. It has origins in the battlefield theme of chess, where common soldiers could be knighted by their kings, for daring battlefield exploits.

Promotion is also a specialized form of substitution. A player's captured non-pawn pieces, kept by the side of the board, could potentially RETURN TO THE GAME. When captured, they are in effect transferred to the 'substitutes bench'.

My plan for this post is to outline briefly the substitution methods of major popular spectator sports, to provide context for Canadian chess people, who have been shaken by the horrible scandal from Montreal 2017. :(

Baseball: Once a player leaves the game, he cannot return. Positional switches among players remaining in the game are permitted, with nine players on the field, and nine in the batting lineup, which alternate by half-innings for offense and defense. Players may be called out for procedural violations (baserunner hit in fair territory by batted ball, over-running teammate on basepaths, etc). They could be awarded extra bases for defensive violations (fielder blocking baserunner). They can be ejected for conduct violations (arguing too much, unsportsmanlike conduct), and possibly suspended from further games.

Basketball: Unlimited substitution from the designated lineup, with five players maximum on the court at any one time. Players may be ejected for conduct violations, such as fouling out (maximum six fouls per game per player in NBA, five in college, international, and high school), and possibly suspended for further games.

Soccer: Maximum of three substitutions per team, per match. Players may be ejected for conduct violations, through 'red cards' assigned by the referee, leaving their team down a player for the rest of the match. Disqualifications can also carry over match to match.

Hockey: Unlimited substitutions during a game. Hockey is unique in that it allows substitutions while the play is still in progress; all other sports listed here see substitutions carried out at play stoppages. Players who commit minor fouls can be penalized for two minutes, during which time they leave the ice and their team plays short-handed until that time expires, or the opponents score, when they or a substitute can return. One penalty is for having too many men on the ice (improper substitution), another is for illegal equipment. Major and more significant penalties could include longer absences, ejection from the game, and possible suspension.

Football: Substitution rules are too complex to explain here in detail, but these are worked out by administrators and followed by coaches; specified positional alignments are often required or utilized for particular strategies. Penalties can include yardage added for the victimized team, and possible ejection of offending player. One penalty is for having too many players on the field; that is, improper substitution. Suspension for major violations, usually drug-related.

Note that if substitution rules are followed properly, for all of these sports, NO COACH can dictate which player(s) the opposing coach can utilize, in whichever situation. That was NOT the case in Sambuev vs. Noritsyn, Montreal blitz playoff 2017, when Sambuev physically controlled Noritsyn's planned substitution, upon promotion.

Holy tabarnac!