I am curious what is the difference when it comes to pawn promotion.
In the recently completed FIDE World Blitz championship, GM Nakamura lost the game to GM Grachev after he placed his pawn at the last rank, pushed the clock and only then replaced the pawn with the queen. Gm Grachev claimed the “impossible” move and had the point granted to him.
Hikaru commented somewhere that he used to play blitz by USCF rules for so many years and those rules are different. What is the difference?
He should have replaced the pawn with the queen (or whatever piece he wanted) and then hit the clock. He in essence made an illegal move by reversing the order he did it in, which is why the game was declared won by Grachev. Article 4.4d in the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Now a more interesting situation could have been if the piece he wanted was not available at his table (maybe a third queen if he already had two on the board), he would be within his right to stop his clock and summon the arbiter to fetch him a queen. His opponent couldn’t do squat about that.
Sevan, this is great explanation of Fide rules, but it did not answer my question.
My question was whether USCF rules would resolve this situation differently.
Under USCF rules, the opponent would be allowed to press the clock immediately without making a move to force the player to promote the pawn on his own time.
Under USCF blitz rules, if a player completes an illegal move, the opponent may claim a win before touching a piece himself. The interesting question here is whether leaving the pawn on the last rank without replacing it with a promotion piece constitutes an illegal move. Interestingly, rule 11 (“Illegal Positions”) uses the term “illegal move” frequently but does not actually define the term!
As a working definition of “illegal move,” I use this: a move is illegal if it does not conform with the requirements of rules 6 (“The Right to Move” – basically, whether White or Black is on the move), 8 (“The Moves of the Pieces”) and 12 (“Check”). Rule 8F6 describes pawn promotion:
The end of rule 8F7 states:
Now, if I had to make a ruling, I would conclude that leaving the pawn on the last rank without exchanging it for a promotion piece and pressing the clock violates rule 8F6. By my working definition, this would be an illegal move. So, I believe under USCF blitz rules the opponent could in fact claim a win by virtue of the player completing an illegal move.
(Just for completeness, there is a slight difference between the FIDE Laws of Chess and the USCF rules concerning pawn promotion. According to the Laws of Chess, the choice of promotion piece is finalized with no possibility of change when the promotion piece touches the promotion square. The USCF rules consider the choice of promotion piece to be final when the player’s hand releases the promotion piece on the promotion square.)
There is yet another wrinkle to this. The Blitz Chess rules in chapter 11 (pages 290-292) of the 5th edition (most current) of the USCF Official Rules of Chess are not the current blitz rules! GM Nakamura would almost certainly have learned to play blitz under the rules in the 4th edition of the rule book (published in 1993). Under the blitz rules printed in the 4th edition, a player completing an illegal move does not forfeit the game. Instead, the penalty is that two minutes are added to the opponent’s time. In the 5th edition, blitz rule 3 covers illegal moves, and there is a variation numbered 3A under which completing an illegal move causes loss of the game. (You might see blitz tournaments advertised as “rule 3A is in effect” – this means the tournament is using the “illegal move loses” variation.)
However, the blitz rules were “completely rewritten to comply with the most common practices of blitz chess and to standardize their application” in October, 2007. (That is a quote from the most recent “Rulebook Changes” document available from the USCF web site.) Rule 14 of the revised blitz rules provide for “illegal move loses.”
So, I think GM Nakamura would also have been surprised under the current USCF blitz rules.
Ken,
I think you’re missing rule 17 in the USCF Blitz rules which states:
“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.”
Why would this rule be in if promoting and leaving the pawn on the square was an illegal move? In fact, with this clearly stated in the USCF blitz rules, I would go as far as to say it is definitely not to be considered an illegal move should a player promote a pawn, leave the pawn on the square and then press the clock.
However, should a player do this, I believe this should be interpreted as the pawn is promoted to a queen unless the promoting player states it is a different piece.
(Personally I prefer the FIDE version on this and it should be up to the player promoting the pawn to stop the clock and grab the piece they want to promote the pawn to if it is not readily available. This makes much more sense.)
Indeed I did overlook blitz rule 17. So much for my complicated argument. 
Thanks for the correction.
What if they push to the eighth rank, hit the clock, THEN say queen or nothing at all? It wasn’t their move to declare what the promotion was?
I disagree with this statement, as interpretation would cause more confusion and problematic situations. This is an example of something that should be black and white, and no room for interpretation.
A player who leaves his Pawn on the 8th rank risks having his opponent replace it with a Bishop.