In a FIDE rated tournament game the following position is reached: White has King on f6 and pawn on f7, Black has King on h7. White pushes the pawn to f8 and hits the clock without removing the pawn from the board and replacing it with a piece. Under FIDE rules White now loses the option of what piece will come down on the promotion square. He must replace the pawn with a Queen. This results in a stalemate on the board. However, the rule also says that hitting the clock without removing the pawn is an illegal move. White has previously made an illegal move in this game, and the FIDE rule on illegal moves is that the second one in a game is penalized by loss of the game. So, how should this game be scored?
a) 1/2 - 1/2 (the stalemate on the board takes precedence over the illegal move penalty)
b) 0 - 1 (the illegal move penalty takes precedence over the stalemate on the board)
c) 0 - 1/2 (the illegal move penalty takes precedence over the stalemate on the board, but Black cannot win because no sequence of legal moves could possibly lead to White being checkmated)
One would hope that a FIDE arbiter would use his discretion and ignore all three of the given options. The player is given the option of choosing the piece for promotion and given a warning about the proper procedure to use in the future would be my ruling, but I am thinking as a tournament director using USCF rules and discretion under 1a. Rules 8F6 and 9D cover promotion of the pawn, which has not been completed properly in the example given. Which leads to 9G on “determining” and “completing” a move, which I believe are not covered well enough under FIDE rules and is a bone of contention in discussions of difference between USCF and FIDE rules. The penalty options given seem too harsh to me and against the spirit of the game. A minor infraction should not lead to a drastic and unjust result.
So switching the white King to h5 and putting a black pawn on h6 would mean that if f8 & hit clock was played then white would draw if it was white’s first illegal move (stalemate) and if it was white’s second illegal move then white would still draw because the replacement of a pawn created a stalemate situation.
I suppose Mr. Magar has a right to his opinion on the consequences of a minor infraction, but he’s dead wrong on what would happen in a FIDE event. FWIW, minor infractions at certain times frequently have "drastic and unjust result"s. This is not remotely just in chess.
making such rulings as a FIDE arbiter would truly tear at me. Making nonsensical rulings simply because they are the written rule just seems like nonsense.
Thank goodness for the discretions allowed USCF tournament directors, enforcing USCF rules. I have zero inclination to run FIDE events ever except in a dire
need in service to others.
Some people like to think of it the other way Rob. The rules as FIDE have them written are very clear and B&W and all arbiters should end up making the exact same decision. A pawn promotion without replacing the pawn is an illegal move, this was the second illegal move, black is unable to checkmate white and so the game is drawn.
With USCF rules, I can guarantee that 10 different TDs will come up with at least 5 different interpretations and rulings on this exact scenario (and I’m probably being generous).
I do agree that minor infractions do have “drastic and unjust results” in life. That is not a good enough reason to act equally unjustly in chess. A penalty in life may be being killed by police for a traffic violation because of a misapplication of the law, as witnessed lately around the country. It is an appalling abuse of the law and proper procedure, which is being protested and changed.
The game example is being trumped by a misapplication of the rules and circumstances. Instead of educating the players in how to follow the rules through the use of a warning and application of the proper method of promotion, the rules are being used to kill the player’s result. That is grossly unfair and against the spirit of the game.
I guess a lot of arbiters are going to have to be suspended. Most of the ones I have seen apply better discretion and do not act as officiously as they should.
Or maybe this is a good example of why we need a separate rules set for amateur rated chess as it is played in the USA. For comparison, how would this be handled in a weeknight league game between club players in England or Germany?
I’d be incensed if I were playing a game and my opponent made a move which, according to the rules, resulted in immediate loss, and the arbiter decided he wouldn’t enforce that particular rule that particular day. Maybe TDCC needs to be more proactive.
Do you have a problem with the person having to promote to a Queen (producing stalemate here) if he starts the opponent’s clock without choosing a piece? That seems like a very reasonable rule to me. If the player pushes the pawn to the 8th, presses the clock and leaves the board, the arbiter (or even the opponent?) can simply replace the pawn with a Queen and life goes on. Under USCF rules, the only remedy is to put the opponent back on move (screwing up the move counters and increment) and the player might then notice that a Queen is a bad choice.
Yes, but under USCF rules it would not be a loss. Maybe this shows the arbitrariness of decreeing that two illegal moves equals a loss. (I’ve not been on either side of that, barring casual unrated Blitz, but once in a lifetime a player might legitimately overlook two checks or pins in one game.)
Or maybe that makes sense for professional play, but not so much for amateurs, some of whom are still learning.
Looks like lotsa folks are trying to work out what it would be like to run all USCF-rated events (possibly excepting scholastic) under the Laws of Chess. Interesting thought experiment…
In this particular situation. What about when I make a move that forces mate in one, double check, and then press my clock, but my time just expires. Are some saying we should treat it as a learning experience to not give me a loss because my position on the board was overwhelming and I was just a fraction of a second too late pressing my clock? Should we use 1A to justify this? I don’t think so.
Heck, today I received a magazine from an affiliate attempting to justify something against the rules by citing the 4th edition rulebook.
As usual, I prefer to discuss what the rule ought to do, rather than what it maybe actually does do depending on which chess lawyer you listen to.
In the case laid out by the OP, a player has begun a promotion move but has pressed his clock without actually making (FIDE) or determining (USCF) a legal move.
If the pawn had been promoted to a queen, the player would have immediately stalemated his opponent. If the pawn had been promoted to a rook, the player could have checkmated his opponent on the move immediately following.
Since the player has skrewed things up (by pressing his clock before making a legal move), he deserves a result which is less favorable (or at least no more favorable) than the result he would have achieved had he completed his move properly.
This “would have” result would have been either a win or a draw, depending on the (future) details of his still-incomplete move. Therefore, the player deserves a draw, at best.
So, under which version of the rule is justice best served? Is it –
a pawn left unpromoted is assumed to be a queen, OR
if a pawn is left unpromoted, the player must replace the pawn with the actual piece to which it is to be promoted
– ?
It should be obvious that version (a) is superior. Version (b) makes it possible for the opponent to achieve a better result than he is entitled to according to the logic above.
In this particular case it would be the FIDE events committee, not the TDCC. The downside of not doing anything about it would be the risk of FIDE not trusting FIDE-rated events from the US and doing things like not awarding norms if there is the smallest suspicion that something might not have been right (for some people that would be an upside, not a downside).
Actually it wouldn’t be bad for USCF to completely match FIDE in this rule - both with Pawn = Q and second illegal move is a loss. However, there should be a variation allowed something akin to "a lesser penalty may be applied, especially for amateur or lower level players. This way all bases are covered. Players, who know better, will get the appropriate penalty and beginning players are covered.
The reality is with lower level scholastics, I’ll probably just give a warning rather than the 2 minute penalty for the first offense. For truly beginning players I may even point it out to them as they are the ones most likely not to notice it even was an illegal move (followed by another illegal move and another and another…).
The result is 1/2-1/2 for the reasons Mr. Messenger gave in the first response to Mr. Parker’s question. No other response is correct in an event that adheres to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
(It is good to see Scott Parker, the first of many mentors in my TD career, participating here.)
You see, this is where we get in trouble as a federation. Some directors, trying to be nice, reduce or eliminate penalties that are black letter law. Then, when they play in a “more serious” section or event, they are astonished to see the rules being enforced. How does that help anyone?
The reason US Chess is the standard is that we have rules that are (or should be) applied unilaterally across all our events. For my next event, in Maine, I have an advance entry from Illinois. Isn’t it great that this player knows what he can expect when he shows up at my tournament? Isn’t it great that he knows that after, say, 45 minutes we won’t count how many pieces each player has and determine the winner based on that? Isn’t it great that he knows that he won’t have to play the top four players based on rating because I want to make sure the prizes go to locals?
We need to have more, not less, standardization federation-wide.
This is precisely why players in my events will write their moves on the scoresheet only after making them, and why they will touch the king first while castling or be instructed to move the rook, and why they will not be permitted to switch clocks in time pressure or claim a draw if they insist on using clocks that haven’t been standard for 21 years.
Sounds like it has been established that under FIDE rules, the result is a draw no matter which penalty is applied (promote to a queen, or loss of game which in this specific situation gets commuted to a draw anyway).
If under different circumstances the result were indeed a loss of game and that seems draconian to someone, I think they are overlooking the player’s responsibility to know and follow the fundamental requirement to make a legal more… for a second time. They already got one warning, how many more should they get?
It might at least be more regrettable if in the excitement of time pressure one overlooked uncovering a check on his own king or some such mental slip, but in this case, it also happens to be about how one promotes a piece. That is a physical process, not just mental, and one I should think would be just as natural as how to push the pawn in the first place. In addition, the rule requiring the entire process be completed before hitting the clock is hardly esoteric. I might be more lenient with uninformed infractions at a local scholastic tournament, but among adults? In a FIDE tournament?? Not so much.
Realistically I don’t see second illegal move = loss being claimed by players or strictly enforced by arbiters in more casual settings. But when money or titles are on the line, how else can you be fair to everyone when it really matters, other than to follow the rules?