I am considering submitting the following Advance Delegate Motion for the 2011 Annual Delegates Meeting. This is one of three proposed ADMs dealing with pawn promotion. Comments are welcome, including comments on whether it would be better to submit the three motions dealing with pawn promotion as a single ADM.
Bob Messenger
Massachusetts Delegate
In Chapter 11 (as revised), under USCF Blitz Rules, delete rule 17 and renumber the remaining rules 18 and 19 as rules 17 and 18.
The existing rule 17 reads:
The intent of this rule appears to be to legitimize the practice of a player moving a pawn to the last rank, announcing “Queen”, and subsequently moving the pawn as if it were a queen, without replacing the pawn with a physical queen as required by Rules 8F6 and 8F7. This is clear when looking at the WBCA rule 17 on which is it based:
Whereas 8F6 and 8F7 make the player promoting a pawn responsible for replacing the pawn with a new piece, Blitz Rule 17 apparently shifts this responsibility to the opponent. It’s not clear how much of the regular rules 8F6 and 8F7 are superseded by Blitz Rule 17. I think it would be best to eliminate Blitz Rule 17 and let pawn promotion in blitz games be governed by regular rules 8F6 and 8F7.
I think it is best to leave the blitz rules contained in the chapter on blitz rules and not referred to anywhere else in the rulebook. It makes it much easier to print blitz rules out for posting at tournaments. The old WBCA rule, current USCF rule, leaves it up to the opponent whether this practice bothers them or not. Sounds like an interesting Rules workshop discussion
As I understand it, all the regular rules also apply to blitz games except where they’re superseded by specific blitz rules. If blitz rule 17 were deleted then pawn promotion would be governed by the regular rules, which say that the move isn’t determined until the new piece has been placed on the promotion square and the player’s hand has left the piece. The USCF version of blitz rule 17 doesn’t contradict this, except by implication.
Taken at face value this simply gives the opponent the option of stopping the clocks, and doesn’t change the pawn promotion rules. However, the intent of the rule appears to be that instead of replacing the pawn with the new piece the player can simply say “Queen”, “Knight” etc. and the pawn instantly becomes the new piece for game purposes, even if it’s physically still a pawn. Either player can replace the pawn with a new physical piece, although this isn’t required. If that’s what the rule means it should say so.
If you’d like to keep the blitz rules as self-contained as possible, instead of deleting blitz rule 17 maybe I could change my proposed ADM to replace the current rule 17 with a new one saying that players are required to replace a promoted pawn with a new piece before pressing the clock, and imposing a penalty if this is not done. (Under FIDE rules it would be an illegal move and therefore a forfeit.)
I’m changing my proposed ADM as follows:
In Chapter 11 (as revised) of the 5th edition rulebook, under USCF Blitz Rules, replace the period at the end of the sentence with a comma and add the following:
“or may restart the player’s clock without moving. Any move made by a pawn which has reached the last rank and has not been replaced is an illegal move. The player moving the pawn must first replace it with the new piece.”
Here is my proposed ADM again, this time with a rationale. If I submit the ADM I’ll include the rationale as part of it. I’ve also made a slight change to the text of the ADM.
In Chapter 11 (as revised) of the 5th edition rulebook, under USCF Blitz Rules, rule 17, replace the period at the end of the sentence with a comma and add the following:
“or may restart the player’s clock without moving. Any move made by a pawn which has reached the last rank and has not been replaced is an illegal move. The player moving the pawn must first replace it with the new piece.”
RATIONALE: This proposed amendment to the Blitz Chess rules addresses the situation where a player moves a pawn to the last rank and presses the clock, usually after having announced what piece the pawn is being promoted to, without replacing the pawn with a new piece. The current rule reads: “If a player promotes a pawn and leaves the pawn on the board, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found.” This implies, but doesn’t explicitly state, that the player never has to replace the pawn with the new piece and can continue play moving and capturing with the pawn as if it were the new piece. The implication is clearer in the World Blitz Chess Association (WBCA) rule 17 on which the USCF rule is based; the WBCA rule goes on to say, “up until the end of the game.” The proposed amendment eliminates the practice of moving the pawn as if it were the promoted piece; if the player does this the opponent can claim a win because the player has made an illegal move. The FIDE rules go even further by saying that moving a pawn to the last rank and then pressing the clock without replacing the pawn with the new piece is an illegal move, allowing the opponent to claim a win.
I’m having second thoughts about this ADM. Apparently the WBCA rule was that a player promoting a pawn didn’t have to replace the pawn with the new piece but could move and capture with the pawn as if it were the new piece. If this bothered the opponent, the opponent had the option of stopping the clocks and replacing the pawn with the new piece, up until the end of the game. The player promoting the pawn did not have this option. He either had to replace the pawn with the new piece on his own time, before pressing the clock, or had to leave the pawn as a pawn (but with the powers of the new piece). That’s how I interpret this version of rule 17 as stated in the October 1990 issue of Blitz Chess (Revised WBCA Blitz Rules, Revised September 12 1990, Approved by the Pro-Chess committee of Nick Defirmian, Maxim Dlugy, Yasser Seirawan and Walter Browne):
I suppose another way to interpret the word “only” in this sentence is to say that, unlike in regular chess where the opponent can restart the player’s clock and force him to replace the pawn while his clock is running, at blitz chess all the opponent can do is to stop the clocks while the pawn is replaced, or else leave the pawn on the board.
I’ve seen at least one player, an International Master, do this at the World Open Blitz. He promoted a pawn, said “Queen”, moved the pawn as if it were a queen, and won the game several moves later. The opponent didn’t object. If the opponent had made a complaint and demanded that the IM be penalized I’m not sure what I would have done. Now that I’ve researched this I think it’s legal to do what the IM did under the current USCF blitz rules, but not under regular or quick rules.
I think rule 17 needs to be clarified one way or the other: either it’s O.K. to promote a pawn without replacing the pawn with the new piece or it isn’t. I’m now inclined to say that the practice shoud still be allowed but rule 17 should be expended to make this explicit. Before I write a new ADM to address this I’d be interested in hearing comments from other TDs.
Proposed amendment to Blitz Rule 17:
In Chapter 11 (Blitz Chess) of the USCF’s Official Rules of Chess, as amended, in rule 17, after “If the player promotes a pawn and leaves the pawn on the board, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found.” add:
Otherwise the game continues with the pawn moving and capturing as whatever piece was announced by the player who promoted the pawn.
RATIONALE: The current USCF blitz rules are based on the World Blitz Chess Association (WBCA) rules. The WBCA version of rule 17 was: “If the player promotes a pawn and leaves the pawn on the board, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found, up until the end of the game.” The words “up until the end of the game” in the WBCA rule make the intent of the rule clearer, although it’s still not explicitly stated. The proposed amendment explicitly states that, unlike in regular and quick chess, in blitz chess it is legal to promote a pawn without physically replacing the pawn with the new piece. If this practice bothers the opponent, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found.
You might want to add why is this a problem - is it a matter of great confusion? Are TDs complaining?
I don’t know whether this rule is a matter of great confusion to other TDs but it was a matter of confusion to me until I looked into the WBCA history of the rule. Now that I’ve done that I know how I’ll rule in future blitz tournaments, but if a player challenges my ruling I’d like something more substantial to show him than the current rule 17. I’d also like to clarify the rule for the benefit of other TDs and players.
I’ll add some more text to the rationale stating that the current rule is ambiguous because it doesn’t clearly state that a pawn can move and capture as if it were the promoted piece, although I believe that this is implied. It’s not fair if some players know about this rule and others don’t, so the rule should be stated clearly and unambiguously. If and when I speak in favor of this motion at the Rules Workshop and the Delegates Meeting I’ll relate the World Open Blitz incident which I previously mentioned.
I’m still open to hearing from TDs who favor my original proposal, that the practice of leaving the pawn on the board after promoting a pawn in blitz games should be made illegal. As I’ve said, under FIDE blitz rules this is an illegal move and the player loses if the opponent calls it. That would certainly be a major change for U.S. players to get used to. My proposal was less harsh: it would only be an illegal move if the player moved the pawn after it reached the eighth rank.
Proposed amendment to Blitz Rule 17, with a revised rationale.
In Chapter 11 (Blitz Chess) of the USCF’s Official Rules of Chess, as amended, in rule 17, after “If the player promotes a pawn and leaves the pawn on the board, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found.” add:
Otherwise the game continues with the pawn moving and capturing as whatever piece was announced by the player who promoted the pawn.
RATIONALE: The current USCF blitz rules are based on the World Blitz Chess Association (WBCA) rules. The WBCA version of rule 17 was: “If the player promotes a pawn and leaves the pawn on the board, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found, up until the end of the game.” The words “up until the end of the game” in the WBCA rule make the intent of the rule clearer, although it’s still not explicitly stated. The proposed amendment explicitly states that, unlike in regular and quick chess, in blitz chess it is legal to promote a pawn without physically replacing the pawn with the new piece. If this practice bothers the opponent, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found.
Rules should be stated clearly and unambiguously, so that their meaning can be understood by all players and TDs. It’s not fair if some players know about a rule and others don’t. The current version of USCF blitz rule 17 is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation because it doesn’t explicitly say that a promoted pawn can move and capture as if it were the new piece, although this becomes more obvious when looking at the WBCA history of the rule. The proposed addition to the rule makes its meaning clear.
A slight changed to my previous proposed amendment to Blitz Rule 17: add the words “or to a queen if no piece was announced”.
In Chapter 11 (Blitz Chess) of the USCF’s Official Rules of Chess, as amended, in rule 17, after “If the player promotes a pawn and leaves the pawn on the board, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found.” add:
Otherwise the game continues with the pawn moving and capturing as whatever piece was announced by the player who promoted the pawn, or to a queen if no piece was announced.
RATIONALE: The current USCF blitz rules are based on the World Blitz Chess Association (WBCA) rules. The WBCA version of rule 17 was: “If the player promotes a pawn and leaves the pawn on the board, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found, up until the end of the game.” The words “up until the end of the game” in the WBCA rule make the intent of the rule clearer, although it’s still not explicitly stated. The proposed amendment explicitly states that, unlike in regular and quick chess, in blitz chess it is legal to promote a pawn without physically replacing the pawn with the new piece. If this practice bothers the opponent, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found.
Rules should be stated clearly and unambiguously, so that their meaning can be understood by all players and TDs. It’s not fair if some players know about a rule and others don’t. The current version of USCF blitz rule 17 is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation because it doesn’t explicitly say that a promoted pawn can move and capture as if it were the new piece, although this becomes more obvious when looking at the WBCA history of the rule. The proposed addition to the rule makes its meaning clear.
WBCA made several changes to their rules after 1990. I ran monthly WBCA events from 1992/3-2004 and during this time Walter added :
8. e) if both players each have just one identical piece, either may claim a draw by stopping the clock if neither side can show a forced win within 2 minutes
To this he added that one player was not penalized for having more than just a rook, so R + 3 pawns was not penalized for having extra pawns and could still get the ISL claim.
At angelfire.com/games5/chessod … zrules.htm is a version dated 12/17/99. I suspect this is one that I hand typed as the font was Comic Sans and several groups asked me to borrow it at the time. This version does not have the rule change listed below so it must have been after 2000 and one of the last changes.
Interesting, Mike. The 1999 version of the WBCA rules on angelfire.com is the one I looked at which has the “up until the end of the game” clause in rule 17. I was only a WBCA member for one year, so the 1990 rules are the only ones that I have in my own magazine collection. If someone can find the final version of the WBCA blitz rules maybe those changes can be applied to the USCF blitz rules.
I’ve written a set of “MACA Blitz Rules” which I’m planning to use at the Massachusetts Blitz Championship next weekend, assuming the rules are approved by MACA’s tournament committee. This includes my proposed amendment to rule 17, as well as stylistic changes to other rules. The MACA rules don’t allow any ILC claims but if I can find a post-1999 version of the WBCA rules maybe I’ll adopt some of those changes. Come to think of it, I really should incorporate the draw claims from the 1999 rules into the MACA rules.
It has been said that “everything in the WBCA rules is based on something that once happened to Walter Browne”. I don’t think anybody should worship the great god of a defunct organization.
If you want to allow a promoted pawn to remain the board, and continue to move, check, checkmate, and stalemate as though it were a queen, I suppose that is OK – as long as either player has the option, at any subsequent move, of physically exchanging the pawn for a queen. This option, I suppose, would have to include the right to pause the clock if necessary in order to search the tournament room for a spare queen.
As for underpromotion, the suggestion that the unexchanged pawn is automatically a queen unless specifically verbalized otherwise by its owner, could lead to serious problems. What if the promoting player mumbles “rook” under his breath, perhaps in a strange language nobody else in the room has ever heard of, and the opponent doesn’t hear it? Six “rook” moves later, when the position appears to be stalemate, but isn’t because the promoted piece is a rook instead of a queen, all hail could break loose.
All these desperation blitz rules, both those now on the books and those proposed, stem from the lack of a 2-second delay. I will never play in such an event. I would be happy, however, to play in a quick-rated event with a time control of G/6 d/2 (or G/5 d/2, if allowed), using quick-rated rules.
In the 4th and 5th edition rulebooks, “blitz” meant a 2-second delay by default, and there was none of this capture-the-king and illegal-move-loses nonsense. In recent years the term “blitz” has been hijacked to specifically include the nonsense, and this verbal-promotion stuff is just another example. It goes with the territory, I guess.
Bill Smythe
Apparently the WBCA rule was that only the opponent had the option of pausing the clock. There is some logic to that: it encourages the player promoting the pawn to replace the pawn with the new piece before pressing the clock. I think I’ll submit my ADM as it’s currently written (with one slight change) and see what people at the Rules Workshop think about it. If most people at the workshop say that either player should be alllowed to pause the clock I’ll accept that as friendly amendment.
The slight change I mentioned is that in the sentence I’m proposing to add, “Otherwise the game continues with the pawn moving and capturing as whatever piece was announced by the player who promoted the pawn, or to a queen if no piece was announced.”, change “to a queen” to “as a queen” since this fits better with the first part of the sentence.
That scenario seems far-fetched to me, although it’s true that in general if a player can announce the piece to which a pawn will be promoted there can be a dispute about what piece the player announced, since there would be no physical evidence. I wonder how many disputes like that there were in WBCA events.
What I’m trying to avoid by adding the clause “or as a queen if no piece was announced” is a situation where a pawn is promoted and it’s not clear, given all the facts, what piece it was promoted to. If the player promoting the pawn doesn’t replace it with a new piece and doesn’t say anything, he shouldn’t be allowed to decide later whether to promote it to a queen, a knight or whatever.
Delay vs. no delay and illegal move loses vs. time penalty for an illegal move are issues beyond the scope of my proposed ADM. I agree that there would be less need for a rule allowing players to move a promoted pawn as if it were a queen if players were using a 2-second delay. Forcing players to replace a promoted pawn with the new piece should be allowed as variation, but it seems to me that this is allowed by rule 1B1 in Chapter 1, which allows variations in general as long as they’re announced and/or posted.
If you had ever watched two strong foreign players battle it out at the National Open blitz, you wouldn’t think it was far-fetched at all.
I really think you should get rid of the verbally-announced-piece option in your proposed ADM. If you want an unexchanged pawn to be considered a queen, then at least make your rule so that an unexchanged promoted pawn is considered a queen, period.
In other words, a player could get away with leaving the pawn on the board as long as it’s a queen. But if a player wanted to underpromote, he would have to physically exchange the pawn for the promoted piece. A verbal announcement would not suffice.
Bill Smythe
I agree wholeheartedly with this. My preference (being known somewhat as “Captain Hardnose”) would be to disallow leaving the promoted pawn on the board at all and to require the player to replace the pawn with the promoted piece. (An incorrect widespread practice is still incorrect.)
The Captain has dealt with enough instances of players who mumble, players whose hearing isn’t quite what it used to be (“you didn’t say ‘adjust’” / “I did”), and noisy environments (imagine a clock-smash taking place at the next board) to sense a recipe for trouble.
I haven’t directed at the National Open Blitz but I’ve directed at the World Open Blitz, which is even bigger (144 players at the World Open Blitz in 2009 vs. 77 at the National Open Blitz.) I meant that your specific scenario seemed far-fetched to me. I agree that in general there is a potential for one player to misunderstand or not hear what the other player says.
I like that idea, assuming it’s legal for a player to leave the promoted pawn on the board. However…
The other members of the MACA Tournament Committee agree with you, Ken. I actually don’t have a strong preference either way. Leaving the pawn on the board was allowed in WBCA rules, but I don’t know how much support there is for those rules among players and directors. My main concern is that the current USCF blitz rule 17 is ambiguous. It should be clearly stated one way or the other: either it’s legal to promote a pawn and not exchange the pawn for the new piece or it isn’t.
I’m going to propose new wording for rule 17 in the MACA Blitz Rules for the blitz tournament this weekend and I’ll most likely submit this as my ADM, with a new rationale. I’m also planning to survey the players at the Massachusetts Blitz Championship and possibly at the World Open Blitz to see what rules the players would prefer. There doesn’t appear to be a consensus about this among the TDs, and I’m undecided about it myself. Hopefully by submitting an ADM on the subject I’ll at least stimulate debate about it at the Rules Workshop.
My proposed new wording for blitz rule 17 is a shortened version of 8F7 in the regular rules.
This is my revised ADM to amend Blitz Rule 17:
In Chapter 11 (Blitz Chess) of the USCF’s Official Rules of Chess, as amended, replace the current rule 17 with the following:
17.) If a player is promoting a pawn and the desired piece is not available, the player may stop both clocks in order to locate the piece and place it on the board. It is improper for the player to press the clock to start the opponent’s time with the pawn still on the last rank. If this is done, the opponent may immediately restart the player’s clock without moving.
RATIONALE: The existing rule 17 reads: “If the player promotes a pawn and leaves the pawn on the board, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found.” The intent of this rule appears to be to legitimize the practice of a player moving a pawn to the last rank, announcing “Queen”, and subsequently moving the pawn as if it were a queen, without replacing the pawn with a physical queen as required by rules 8F6 and 8F7. This is clearer when looking at the WBCA rule 17 on which is it based, which continues, “up until the end of the game”.
Rules should be stated clearly and unambiguously, so that their meaning can be understood by all players and TDs. It’s not fair if some players know about a rule and others don’t. The current version of USCF blitz rule 17 is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation because it doesn’t explicitly say that a promoted pawn can move and capture as if it were the new piece, although this becomes more obvious when looking at the WBCA history of the rule. The rule also doesn’t say whether the player promoting the pawn can simply announce the new piece, such as by saying “Queen” or “Knight”, or if an unexchanged pawn can only be a queen. A verbal announcement of the new piece might be misunderstood, which could lead to a dispute.
The proposed amendment makes it illegal for a player to promote a pawn and then press the clock without replacing the pawn with the new piece, as it is in regular and quick chess. The text of the proposed new rule is a shortened version of rule 8F7 in the regular USCF rules. Promoting a pawn and leaving the pawn on the board instead of replacing it with the new piece isn’t an illegal move, as it is under FIDE blitz rules, but the opponent can restart the player’s clock without moving.