“Since the player’s first action was to touch a queen of his own color, per the touch-move rule, require him to move his own queen.” 
And here’s another hypothetical situation …
A player picks up a Queen from the side of the board, places it on the 8th rank in front of the pawn he is going to promote, notices that a stalemate will occur and replaces the Queen with a Rook (or suddenly sees that, just like in his tactics books, promoting to a Knight would give a smothered mate and so replaces the Queen with a Knight), then removes the pawn from the 7th rank.
Would that be considered unfair or even cheating? Players certainly aren’t allowed to move the pieces around while considering their move (CC chess notwithstanding! 
). Wouldn’t this hypothetical situation be akin to moving the pieces while determining your move? And the effect of placing a piece, examining the board briefly then replacing the piece with another would be similar to the effect of using an electronic score sheet device that uses a chessboard for recording moves (like the Monroi) - either would give the player a view of the resulting position and allow them a chance to study it (didn’t FIDE briefly prohibit the writing of a move before it was determined? ).
According to the USCF Official Rules of Chess, the choice of promotion piece is not final until the player has released the piece on the promotion square. This differs from the FIDE Laws of Chess, in which the choice of promotion piece is final as soon as the piece touches the promotion square.
So, in your hypothetical scenario, according to USCF rules, the player is allowed to change his mind about the promotion piece provided he has not released the piece from his hand. Yes, it does feel like “testing out” the promotion and an aid to visualization.
Also, the FIDE Laws of Chess do not make the distinction that the USCF rules do between “determined” and “completed” moves. The Laws of Chess do prohibit writing the move on the scoresheet before it is made on the board. (The lack of distinction between “determined” and “completed” moves also makes the discussion of an opponent moving before a player has pressed the clock more interesting.)
Yes, that could happen, in the same annoying way as a person can pick up a piece and play helicopter with it until deciding where to put it down; or picking up the opponent piece and then deciding which of several of his pieces is going to capture it.
You could have two pawns on the last rank each able to capture and queen on e8. It seems to me that there is no rule which prohibits you from taking the opponent piece on e8 off the board, taking a queen and placing it on e8, and then playing eeny-meeny-miny-moe to decide which one of the two pawns (on d7 and f7) to remove. This would be an unconventional way of doing it, though you can’t say it doesn’t have some flair and humor, considering the unusual situation. I think I wouldn’t try this, but only because a TD would be within his rights to say it was annoying (at least the eeny-meeny-miny-moe part).
The point is that the only two elements for determining a promotion are removal of the pawn and placement (and release) of the “queen”. As with other multi-element determinations (such as for castling and capturing), I don’t see any reason why the multiple elements of a promotion cannot be done in any order. Even with castling, where one sequence (king then rook) is definitely preferred by the rules, the other sequence is still admitted, as long as you don’t waste too much time before moving the king so that it looks like you turned an intended rook move into Castles at the last minute.
Agreed. 8F6, 9D, and 10H all assume the pawn is moved from 7th to 8th rank, but the order is not prescribed.
Had I been the TD, I would’ve rejected the illegal move claim as invalid (b/c it’s not an illegal move) and…at most…recommended to the promoting player that the pawn be moved to the 8th before replacing with the promotion piece. The situation described is not so much an illegal move as it’s a difference in opinion over move sequence. This situation is very similar to touching the rook first in castling – not illegal, but not recommended.
Just to add another “move sequence” similarity…if I pick up an opponent’s (attacked) piece, a capture is assumed. There is no need for me to move my piece into the square of the attached/captured piece and then remove the captured piece. Whether capturing or promoting, the opponent can clearly see the intent.
Ultimately, the claim was spiteful (especially in a losing position).
Somebody please tell me who this TD is, so I can avoid playing in his tournaments.
In my experience, about 70% of tournament players promote by first placing the queen on the eighth, then removing the pawn from the seventh. That 70% includes me. It’s simply more efficient that way – only two motions are required, rather than three.
The situation does not call for even a warning, much less a penalty. If I were the TD, I would have rejected the illegal move claim out of hand, and instructed the players to continue the game without further delay.
Yes, that could be a problem. Under USCF rules, that player would incur no obligation whatsoever. Under FIDE rules (if I understand them correctly), if a player picks up a piece from off the board and then causes it to touch a square on the eighth rank, he is obligated to promote to that piece on that square if legal. Here is a case where the FIDE version is superior.
Bill Smythe
I don’t really see this as so much of an issue. There are plenty of boundary cases where players can get up to all sorts of antics without help from the pawn promotion rules, nominally with impunity. For example, if your King is in check, you can go merrily touching pieces including opponent pieces with more or less abandon. You can play mass murderer with your pieces, having one piece machine-gun down opponent pieces, complete with “realistic” mouth noises. A veritable Columbine right there on the chess board. Your knight can commit ritual suicide in the middle of the board. You can have lots of “fun” of the type that I’ve seen kids, especially boys, getting up to in the chess club. Then you move your king out of check. All without triggering the touch-move rule.
That pawn promotion provides some opportunities for, um, creativity, is nothing new. The thing that prevents all this is the rule against annoying behavior (not to mention growing up.)
This all seems similar to the thread about the blitz players not hitting their clocks and then claiming illegal move, and should be handled in the same way, IMO.
Alex Relyea
Agreed on all counts. This whole thread just seems silly to me.
From what I’ve seen, most players just plop the queen down on the 8th rank and then pull the pawn off the 7th, myself included. The possibility that this might be improper never even occurred to me. The only time it may seem weird is if two hands are used in a time trouble situation.
And I agree with preferring the FIDE rule, though I also agree that it’s trivial enough that the annoyance rule is just as likely to cover any real situation as the touch move rule, even under FIDE rules.
I agree with those that say this shouldn’t have been an illegal move etc, but everyone should try this sequence vs a computer or a computer opponent. Go ahead and try putting the queen on the square without moving the pawn there first. 
A computer also won’t let you pick up the piece you’re capturing before moving your own piece to that square, yet that’s also standard practice in OTB games. In fact, that one’s even explicitly covered by the touch move rule as being allowed.
And 100 corners on every square, 1000 on every cube, 10000 on every hybercube, etc. 
Bill Smythe
:mrgreen:
I am the player who is the subject of this post, who “made an illegal move” --according to my opponent. I just found out yesterday from ‘VryItllgNUT’ that this whole discussion took place.
I would like to state that it was never my intention to engage in ‘gamesmanship’ by trying to annoy my opponent, or push the envelope. I was merely performing and action that I had done hundreds of times in the past, one that I had learned from watching other players.
As the pawn promotion occurred early in the middle game, and I two queens on the board at that point, I thought it was a resignable position for my opponent, and didn’t care that he was awarded two extra minutes on the clock.
On the other hand, there is another aspect of the incident was not discussed by anyone.
My opponent clearly was clearly losing at that point, and by claiming that I had made an “illegal move” he stirred up controversy in the entire playing hall (approximately 20 - 30 players). It took five or ten minutes to bring the TD over (it was his first ever time directing) to the board, explain what had occurred, and then wait for a long dig through the USCF rule book before he determined that I had broken the rules and should be penalized.
It was my opponent who was engaging in gamesmanship, trying to win at all costs. When the dust had settled, and we resumed play, it turned out that I was fairly rattled by what had just transpired and proceeded to make a number of poor moves.
By the time I pulled myself together, I was only up a piece, and my opponent had the initiative and an attack. I suddenly realized that I was in danger of actually losing! As VryItllgNUT pointed out, I did eventually win, but it took much longer and many more moves than it should have.
I don’t suppose there is any way for the rule book to take into account the emotional impact that this kind of gamesmanship exacts on the other player’s ability to focus on the game.
I don’t suppose there’s even a way for TD’s to take this into account when they are adjudicating a dispute, since they must maintain the appearance of neutrality.
But I thought I’d put this out there for consideration.
As an FYI FIDE adjusted the pawn promotion Laws from July 1, 2014 to allow the method used in the opening post.
The latest FIDE version is perfect. USCF should immediately adopt it too.
I think I heard of a similar dispute occurring in an important FIDE event, and the arbiter there made the same stupid ruling the USCF TD did at the top of this thread. That’s probably what prompted FIDE to make its 2014 improvement.
Bill Smythe
I agree.
Bob
I just checked the 2017 rules update and there has been no change in the “acceptable promotion procedure”.
I had a player recently claim that the pawn must be moved first (no penalty or TD involvement, just annoyance). I would like an official ruling on what should be a non-issue.
FIDE seems to have the right idea:
4.6
The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
4.6.1 the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
4.6.2 removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order.
Can this be in the next rules update, and can someone (Tim?) in an official capacity, state an acceptable procedure so I can stop these players from using unclear rules as weapons? Or, if what seems to be a standard practice is wrong, state so explicitly so that the behavior change?
Not likely. You’re the TD, make you’re ruling. If you’re the player and it is ruled against you, appeal. I promise special referees have common sense. It is precisely to clarify unclear rules that our rulebook is monstrously huge, and we are no clearer to solving the problem than we were when the rulebook was ten pages long.
Alex Relyea
Indeed. We have a couple of NTDs as delegates who keep wanting to right new rules because they encountered some odd situation and want to write a rule to “clarify”. It seems to me that usually no clarification is needed. Simply make a ruling and stick to it.