January’s 2022 column starts the year out with a little rules thinking exercise.
https://new.uschess.org/news/just-rules-slippery-slope
I recommend that everybody take a look at this, especially example 3.
If a player promotes a pawn by first placing the queen (or other piece) on the eighth rank, and only then removing the pawn from the seventh, at what point does the player incur the obligation to promote to that piece on that square?
For years I have felt that the rule should be that the obligation is incurred as soon as the player has caused that piece (e.g. queen) to touch that square. This way creates the closest possible analogy to “touch-move” in other situations.
What would be the alternatives? (1) To incur the obligation when the player touches the off-the-board piece? No, that would be too strict. The player might well just be fiddling with the off-the-board pieces standing near the clock. (2) To incur the obligation only when the player releases the piece after placing it on the eighth rank? No, that would be too lenient. It would be analogous to allowing a player to touch an on-the-board piece without having to move it, or to touch an opponent’s piece without having to capture it.
One fine day a few years ago, both FIDE and U.S. Chess adopted my preference as the standard rule. If a player causes a piece off the board to touch a square on the board, the player must promote to that piece on that square if legal. They listened to me! 
GMTA.
Bill Smythe
i have had question #1:
actually occur in a tournament. I had to overrule two Senior TDs who were attempting answer (a).
I had to think about that one for a minute or two, but ultimately concluded (b). I also got the other two right (I’m a Senior TD).
I had to overrule another TD concerning threefold repetition at a recent tournament. The scoresheets showed (only) two obvious back-and-forth repetitions of King and Knight moves, so the other TD was convinced that it was only two repetitions and not three. However, the previous move pair (not by King and Knight) had established a position, and the second repetition of moves repeated that position for the third time (by looking back 10 moves or so, I could see that the King and Knight had been on the same squares that they returned to twice). It’s bad enough when you have to argue with players. It was a bit embarrassing to have to argue with another TD in front of the players. But I prevailed, (a) because I was the Chief TD for that tournament, and (b) because I was able to convince the other TD that I was right.
The point, of course, is that since the player has not yet pressed the clock, the player has not unfairly deprived the opponent of any time, so no adjustment is necessary.
Bill Smythe
As a matter of fact, it almost always happens this way when there is a triple occurrence.
It’s a classical case of the “fencepost effect”, also known as an “off by one” error. If you are building a fence and there are 10 sections of fence, how many fenceposts will you need?
It turns out that either 9 or 11 is a better answer than 10. If the fence is free-standing in the middle of nowhere, you’ll need 11 fenceposts. If you are a building a fence from the corner of your house to the corner of the barn, you’ll need 9 fenceposts, with the house and the barn serving as the fenceposts on each end.
With triple occurrence, the 3 fenceposts are the three occurrences of the position, while the 2 sections of fence are the two occurrences of the moves.
It comes as no shock to me that you had to go back several moves to find the first occurrence of the position. In fact, I’d say that’s the way it usually works. Going back that far can save you the trouble of having to actually replay the game from the start to find the three occurrences of the position.
Bill Smythe
Yeah, well, I always play through the whole game. Very rarely does the opponent reject the draw to be a jerk, but rather because he genuinely doesn’t believe (or isn’t sure) that the position has been repeated three times. If I can clearly convince both players that my decision is correct, and not risk making the wrong decision due to a sloppy scoresheet, then I have satisfied customers.
Alex Relyea
^ This.
Not to piggy back, but the important thing for a TD is not to get the right answer but to get both players to agree you got the right answer, and not in a “Fine. Whatever.” kind of way.
Alex Relyea
Not to piggy back, but the important thing for a TD is not to get the right answer but to get both players to agree you got the right answer, and not in a “Fine. Whatever.” kind of way.
Alex Relyea
While this is the “optimum” - quite, if not most often, simply not practical-and in large tournaments, not really feasible. Tournament directors once they have made a ruling, and explained that ruling, need to move on to resolving
other situations on the floor - and should not be “held up”- by those who “do not agree”. Tell them to appeal, let them appeal. The overall smooth running of the ENTIRE tournament must take precedence over the “satisfaction” of a few.
My thoughts,
Rob Jones
One should almost always be able to achieve Alex’s ideal in an adult tournament. In a scholastic tournament, which is of course Rob’s niche, you have parents in the equation, and often they know little about the rules. In that case, Rob’s perspective may be the necessary approach.
I’ve moved discussion about whether the phrase “the last ten moves” in rules 11A and 11B is ambiguous to the new topic Last 10 moves - rules 11A and 11B in Running Chess Tournaments.