Vaguely relatedly, I think there are cases where a player has promoted a pawn when they already have a queen on the board, and used an upside-down rook to represent the new queen. The opponent can then call out an illegal move as soon as the 'queen' moves diagonally, because under the rules a rook is a rook no matter which way up it is.
Rule 12.6 seems a bit harsh. If it's really against the rules to annoy me "in any manner whatsoever"... well, getting beaten annoys me. Arbitrator!
Originally posted by Robin Johnson Vaguely relatedly, I think there are cases where a player has promoted a pawn when they already have a queen on the board, and used an upside-down rook to represent the new queen. The opponent can then call out an illegal move as soon as the 'queen' moves diagonally, because under the rules a rook is a rook no matter which way up it is.
Rule 12.6 se ...[text shortened]... rules to annoy me "in any manner whatsoever"... well, getting beaten annoys me. Arbitrator!
Back when I first started playing USCF tournaments back in 1974, chess sets were not
sold with additional queens as they are commonly done today in tournament sets.
The upside down rook was allowed as a "queen substitute" back then.
I would find that a very ticky tack rule enforcement if no piece was available
that could represent the additional queen.
Originally posted by Robin Johnson Vaguely relatedly, I think there are cases where a player has promoted a pawn when they already have a queen on the board, and used an upside-down rook to represent the new queen. The opponent can then call out an illegal move as soon as the 'queen' moves diagonally, because under the rules a rook is a rook no matter which way up it is.
Rule 12.6 se ...[text shortened]... rules to annoy me "in any manner whatsoever"... well, getting beaten annoys me. Arbitrator!
Playing at being an excremental specimen by insisting on bending the rules this way in itself falls under 12.1: bringing the game of chess in disrepute. Accordingly, the arbiter, under rule 13.2 and 13.4, has every right to ban the complainer from the venue from then on, and declare all his subsequent game forfeit, in order that the other players be allowed to play their tournament in a reasonable manner.
By the way, 3.7e does not allow for there not to be a spare queen. Should there not be one, I think you would be justified to pause the clocks. Anyone invoking the rules to claim that an upturned rook is not a queen should forfeit the game himself for not providing said spare queen.
Originally posted by IQ Would it be illegal in an OTB chess tournament (USCF tournament to be precise) to take your pieces, and rather than have them stand up normally, lay them down awkwardly? Not even saying my opponent would have to do it, too, just could I randomly lay them down on the squares?
I understand they could say "adjust" 16 times and put them back up, and maybe I could say "adjust" 16 more times and lay them back down. But is it legal?
"I think there are cases where a player has promoted a pawn when they already
have a queen on the board, and used an upside-down rook to represent the new queen."
I have seen this happen in a competition allegro game. Admitingly it was all in jest.
Aagaard - Ruxton (about 4 years ago) with Jacob doing the fooling and joking.
(he let it go)
But an illegal move in a allegro forfiets the game.
(well it does in my neck of the woods.)
Under other conditions. (Jacob and Keith are good friends.) it could have turned into an incident.
OTB Chess Tournament laying down pieces?
13 Jan '12 14:56
Back to Top