I recently visited an event, I was neither playing nor directing the event, and an incident occurred.
A player with white had a pawn on the 7th rank, and the move. This player picked up a queen from along side the board and placed it on the 8th rank and then removed the pawn.
His opponent claimed that there was an illegal move as he should have moved the pawn to the 8th rank, and then replace it with the promoted piece, namely a queen in this case. The TD upheld the claim giving his opponent 2 minutes on his clock as a penalty to the first player. (The first player did win, so this incident did not impact the result but it just as well could had.)
I looked in the rule book and could not see where this particular occurrence was addressed.
My personal feeling is that this is a matter of etiquette but not an illegal move.
I would appreciate your thoughts and opinions and if available a reference to a rule or page that would clarify further.
Page 16 rule “8F6. Pawn promotion. On reaching the last rank…” Did the pawn reach the last rank in this case?
Depends what you think the move was. I think most people, including the player, would think the move was e8=Q (or whatever). That would be the pawn reaching the eighth rank and promoting to a queen.
However, the opponent and the TD apparently thought the move was “Queen parachutes in from nowhere on e8, then pawn on e7 teleports to another dimension” – which is not a legal move.
I find the TD’s interpretation bizarre, especially considering e8=Q seems a much more likely interpretation of the move, and also considering that the rulebook does not actually spell out precisely how the pieces are to be manipulated to effectuate a pawn promotion move (which, remember, might also involve a capture, meaning the removal of an opponent’s piece from the board). That being the case, it would seem that players have some latitude in the sequence of piece manipulations they use to have the board reflect the result of their pawn promotion moves. The only rule I find is 10H, which relates to touch-move and does not provide much guidance about this situation.
I mentioned captures. I wonder if on capture moves, this particular TD has opinions about how captures should be effectuated correctly: player moves piece followed by opponent’s piece removed; the other way around; or, perhaps, both simultaneously?
It is important that these things be done right, and I am glad that this TD is upholding proper standards – not.
Moderator Mode: Off
This seems picky and a bit extreme. Was this an illegal move or an improper performance of the move?
I can understand the technicality of the pawn needing to advance to the 8th rank and then be promoted. However, the pawn only has one legal move at in this situation as long as there is no piece of either side on the square directly in front of it and none of the opponent’s pieces on either diagonal on the 8th rank to that pawn. It is also obvious to anyone observing the game, including the players, that the pawn on the 7th rank is about to promote on the 8th rank. It is also common for the player that is going to promote the pawn to pick up a piece from the side of the board before making that promotion. Therefore the act of placing a Queen on the promoting square and picking up the pawn off the square on the 7th rank that is being promoted, is not necessarily illegal but a short cut handling of the move.
Now, it can be argued that the short cut is wrong. What about when a player castles using 2 hands, one hand grabbing the King and the other hand grabbing and moving the Rook?
Also, is it right to level a 2 minute penalty on the first “offense” of this? I think not.
In substance, I agree with Brian here.
TD could have explained correct pawn promotion procedure and given a warning, but calling it an “illegal move” and applying a time penalty is over the top in my (expired Club TD) opinion.
If I was the penalized player, I would have appealed the ruling.
Michael Langer
Like Ron, I would see this as an incorrect execution of a legal move - not as an illegal move.
The biggest issue I can see that could be raised by this method of execution is how the touch move rule would be applied. To take an extreme example, let’s imagine that white picked up a white queen from the side of the board, placed it on the 8th rank in front of the pawn and then, without releasing it, put it back at the side of the board and made a totally different move. Would this violate touch move in light of rule 10H?
What I would do is to give white a warning about the proper method of doing a piece promotion and then let play proceed without penalty.
Bob
.
There could be a situation in which the promotion piece gives checkmate once placed, but the promoting player’s flag falls before removing the pawn that was promoting… did he complete his move (and thus win by checkmate) before the flag fell or not? I don’t have a rule book with me to confirm, but I suspect that by a strict reading of the rule as to how promotion is done, the answer may be no.
Assuming a flag fall is not an issue however, the only question I see in this case is whether or not it was legal for the pawn to advance to the 8th rank. If it was, then whether it is technically correct or not, I’ve seen promotion done that way often enough (by adults and students alike) to consider it common practice and a legal move.
The touch move rule specifically says that a piece off the board is not considered touched until it is released on the promotion square.
So if the pawn was not first touched to move it to the 8th rank, it appears to me no piece has yet been touched and the player is free to make any move.
So, if the posters here so far were an appeals committee the leaning would be to give a warning to the offending player instead of adding two minutes to the opponent’s clock? Of course an explanation of the correct procedure would be included in the committee’s decision.
The real challenge here are the extreme cases. Those cases make good ANTD and NTD exam questions.
This situation could also make a good Senior (or below?) TD exam question with the correct answer being: “Give a warning to the player…” It might be a lot of fun to come up with the three wrong answers…anyone?
Thoughts?
Move completion normally occurs when the player hits his clock; but checkmate and stalemate are exceptions in that determination and completion occur simultaneously. A checkmating or stalemating move is complete upon determination (See the TD Tip under 9E.) The practical effect of this is that if a checkmate is determined and then the player’s flag falls before he hits his clock, it is still checkmate and the player wins. If the flag falls when the move is not (fully) determined, the player forfeits on time (assuming the other requirements for a time forfeit are satisfied.)
So in relation to checkmate, the question boils down to when is a pawn promotion move determined? For simple moves, a move is determined when the piece is transferred to its new square and released from the hand. So determination happens at the instant of “release” of the piece on its new square. For moves involving manipulating multiple pieces – possibly including captured opponent pieces – such as captures, castles, and pawn promotions, at what instant are those determined?
Rule 9 covers when moves, captures, and castles are all determined. For promotions, 9D states that the move is determined when the pawn has been removed from the board and the promoted piece has been placed on the queening square. Nothing is mentioned about the player having to advance the pawn onto the queening square. Also, nothing is mentioned about removing an opponent piece in the case of a pawn promotion involving a capture. That can perhaps be inferred to be all the elements in both 9B and 9D, in which case a pawn promotion involving a capture is determined when (1) the pawn is removed from the board; (2) the promoted piece (queen) is placed on the queening square and the hand released; and (3) the captured piece is at least touched. Not necessarily in that order.
Where are you finding a rule which establishes the “correct” way of performing a pawn promotion on the board? Without that, what would warrant a warning in this situation for violation of a rule? Which rule would you cite, if asked when giving the warning, as the violated rule?
By the way, saying that the TD should have given a warning is neither here nor there and does not answer the question. The question is what the rules require regarding this situation. Even if the first time you give a warning, eventually you have to impose a penalty if the behavior is repeated. If no rule is violated, neither a warning nor a penalty should be imposed. So if this is a situation where you would give a warning, you are saying that a rule is being violated and that at some point if the player continues to promote a pawns this way, a penalty should be imposed. is that what you are saying? Where is the rule which supports that?
I think it is a stretch to interpret the definition of pawn promotion in 8F6 (pawn advances to the last rank, etc) as a requirement for the player to enact the advancement and landing of the pawn on the queening square as part of performing a pawn promotion on the board. In fact, as I just mentioned in the previous post, the rule related to determination of promotions (9D) mentions nothing about the pawn being advanced to the queening square: it mentions only (1) the pawn being removed from the board; and (2) the queen being placed on the queening square. Those are the only two elements required to determine a pawn promotion. 9D mentions those two elements in that order; but it also does not state that the two elements have to be performed in that order.
If you require that the “advance to the last rank” wording must be physically enacted by the player on the board for the move to be done properly, do you also think that when pieces “capture” other pieces, the players must enact out a little capturing scene – with their piece taking the opponent piece prisoner – in order for it have been performed correctly? Would you give a warning (and eventually a penalty) if a player implements captures by removing the captured piece before the capturing piece advanced, affording no opportunity for the capturing piece to take the opponent piece prisoner? I doubt it; so why is promotion different?
The normal course of play has the pawn being pushed or picked up and placed on the destination square. This is especially so because there is only one square being traveled by the pawn.
The promotion of the pawn is more similar to a capture than a pawn move though.
In the action of capturing something with a pawn, it is more usual for the pawn to be picked up and the pawn or piece being captured, on the one square diagonal from the pawn, being picked up and replaced by the pawn. There are instances where a pawn or piece can be captured by more than one piece or pawn, and I have seen and played it such that I have taken the piece or pawn to be captured off the square first, on occasion. I will usually tell the opponent that I am going to capture that piece/pawn and then make a final decision as to how I am going to capture it and do that.
Now the promotion of a pawn is similar. The norm would be to either push or move the pawn to the 8th rank square, remove it from the board and replace it with the piece it is being promoted to. Sometimes it is normal to just say, “Queen.” when moving the pawn. The majority of the times that I have witnessed with experienced players, including Masters, is to grab the piece, usually a Queen, from the side of the board and have it ready for promotion. Putting the Queen on the promotion square before picking up the pawn is much like removing the captured piece from the square before replacing it with the capturing piece.
Yes Tim, I agree with Brian and actually challenge your statement of a warning because no rule has been broken, per se.
I was the one who first mentioned the warning and thus I apologize to Tim for setting him up for a vigorous criticism from Brian.
My main point was in answer to the original question that the occurence as described should not be classified as “illegal move” and the corresponsing penalty applied. If I was on the players appeals comittee, that would likely be the extent of my vote. I believe, the warnings should be generally left toTD’s discreption.
I agree about the similarity. Though, I would be mildly annoyed if my opponent did what you described: removed one of my pawns or pieces and then sat there thinking what to capture it with. I would probably even ask my opponent to put my pawn or piece back on the square while pondering that choice. I can see that it could possibly escalate to the point where I would call a TD over and ask for a warning.
Though, in full disclosure, out of 1000+ USCF regular rated games that I played, I asked for a warning to my opponent no more than a handful of times (usually because of my opponent making noises that were bothering me) and with mixed results.
Michael Langer
Well, I would find this annoying also, especially if it went on for more than a second or two, and was happening regularly. But this is annoying in the same way as a player picking up a piece and then spending a long time deciding where to move it.
In both cases, I don’t know that I would go so far as to complain to the TD, but if I did, the rule violated would be the one prohibiting annoying behavior (20G), which basically leaves it to the discretion of the TD as to whether something is “annoying”. So far as I can see, there is no rule giving a time limit on full determination of a move from the time you first start determining it (by touching a piece or the opponent piece to be captured.)
This is exactly my point. When in the course of human chess events, a player might occasionally keep a finger on a piece he just moved so as not to incur the touch move rule if it is released, or hold the piece off the board in the same instance, or pick up a piece to be taken and not move the taking piece to that square yet. These things are usually of a short duration as the player makes a final moment check and such.
There does present a problem if someone does one of the above for a protracted period of time.
Thanks a lot, by the way, now I need to start thinking about different noises I can make. Seriously, there is a 6th grade boy in my area that constantly coughs during a rated game. He’s done it in at least 2 different rated games against me, one in the Summer and one this past January. It is a dry type of cough that sounds non-illness related. He also does it in an apparently chronic manner while playing that game, but doesn’t cough when not playing. It’s annoying and I’ve mentioned it to his coach before. I think I might mention it again to his coach tonight at club.
Well, keep in mind that the rules specifically consider the possibility that the captured piece will be touched before the capturing piece is touched (see rule 10B). I see no such consideration given to the possibility that the promotion piece will be placed on the board before the pawn being promoted is touched, and the plainest reading of rule 8F6 would suggest the opposite (“On reaching the last rank, a pawn must immediately be exchanged… The promotion piece is placed on the eighth-rank square to which the pawn was moved.”)
If it is considered perfectly okay to place the promotion piece on the 8th-rank square and then to remove the pawn from the 7th-rank square, it’s hard to see why everyone shouldn’t start doing it that way, since it will effectively circumvent the touch-move rule for that move. In an extreme case, a player who had more than one pawn on the 7th rank could literally pick up the queen from the side of the board and place it in turn on each of the appropriate files (more than once!) without releasing it and could then decide which pawn to promote, or to promote none of them.
Bob
I see you are getting the idea of how to think about creating test questions!?
+1