I am considering submitting the following Advance Delegate Motion for the 2011 Annual Delegates Meeting. Comments are welcome.
Bob Messenger
Massachusetts Delegate
In Rule 8F6, after “The promotion piece is placed on the eighth-ranked square to which the pawn was moved.” add:
It is not necessary for the player to physically move the pawn to the last rank as long as the pawn is removed from the board and the new piece is placed on the promotion square, in either order.
This clarification would avoid the situation in which Bob and I were asked to rule on at the Eastern Chess Congress last November. I made the same ruling as if this wording was already in the rules but was forced to show the complainant in the rule book that the pawn would have to be promoted because White had already touched the pawn and the rules did not forbid the placing of the queen without the pawn physically touching the last rank.
That’s an excellent proposal. Simple, brief, and to the point.
Bill Smythe
I hesitate to ask, but couldn’t help myself: Shouldn’t Proposed ADMs be in USCF Issues and not Chess Tournaments?
It seems to me that they’re of interest to anyone directing or playing in USCF-rated chess tournaments. Isn’t that the purpose of this forum?
Right now Issues is the least interesting forum, and Tournaments is the most interesting. Let’s keep it that way.
Bill Smythe
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.
In Rule 8F6, after “The promotion piece is placed on the eighth-rank square to which the pawn was moved.” add:
It is not necessary for the player to physically move the pawn to the last rank as long as the pawn is removed from the board and the new piece is placed on the promotion square, in either order.
RATIONALE: This rules change recognizes the fact that many players remove the pawn from the board and place the new piece on the promotion square without actually moving the pawn to the last rank. Players should not be penalized for doing this. A proposed amendment to Rule 9D addresses the question of whether the move has been determined when the new piece has been placed on the board but the pawn has not yet been removed.
I will most likely submit my proposed amendments to rules 8F6 and 9D as a single ADM:
Amend the USCF tournament rules to state that it is not necessary for a player to physically move the pawn to the last rank when promoting a pawn.
In Rule 8F6, after “The promotion piece is placed on the eighth-rank square to which the pawn was moved.” add:
It is not necessary for the player to physically move the pawn to the last rank as long as the pawn is removed from the board and the new piece is placed on the promotion square, in either order.
In Rule 9D, after “If the player has released the pawn on the last rank, the move is not yet determined, but the player no longer has the right to play the pawn to another square.” add:
If the pawn is still on the board when the player’s hand has released the new piece on the promotion square, the move is not yet determined but the player cannot promote to a different piece or on a different square.
RATIONALE: This rules change recognizes the fact that many players remove the pawn from the board and place the new piece on the promotion square without actually moving the pawn to the last rank. Players should not be penalized for doing this. The proposed amendment to Rule 9D clarifies the situation when the new piece has been released on the promotion square but the pawn has not yet been removed by saying that although the move has not yet been determined (since, for example, there might be two pawns which can promote on the same square), the player can’t change his or or her mind and promote to different piece or on a different square.