5 ms·

Can you explain why that is? I'd like to believe there's a reasonable explanation. Using a proxy piece seems like an expedient, reasonable solution. A small

by opello 1y ago

Can you explain why that is? I'd like to believe there's a reasonable explanation. Using a proxy piece seems like an expedient, reasonable solution. A small square of paper with a Q on it?

jibal 1y ago
As stated it's wrong--there aren't special rules for "serious play" as opposed to non-serious play. However, it's illegal under FIDE rules, but allowed under USCF rules (which cover many "serious" tournaments). And I'm amused by another response that says that it's more common than I think and then cited a case where it "almost" happened, and says "many active tournament players will see it every year or two", as if that's not "extremely rare".
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  > there aren't special rules for "serious play" as opposed to non-serious play Of course there are. We don’t follow every rule in the FIDE handbook when I play at Christmas with my brother in law. For example, I would bet that in 99% of home games, touch-move is not enforced. > allowed under USCF rules interesting, I didn’t know that.
  - jibal 1y ago
    The discussion was about tournament rules, not what you do at Christmas, where the FIDE rules have no jurisdiction. And even if they did, what are these "special rules"? I don't think that you made a serious attempt to engage with what I wrote but instead were intent on naysaying, so I won't comment further.
- opello 1y ago
  > As stated it's wrong Restatement of the premise is not an explanation. I asked "why." > However, it's illegal under FIDE rules Under which rule[1]? I anticipate the argument being one of identity, such as "a rook is a rook whether it is right side up or upside down." This is an argument of convention. I don't see a CAD model that describes a rook's physical representation. If both players were to agree that for the sake of a promotion that an overturned rook would in fact be played like a queen the piece identity requirement would be satisfied and no descriptive rule would be violated. Or perhaps a coin, or a stone, or anything of suitable size and ergonomics. [1] https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    FIDE arbiter guidelines, page 17: > When a player places an inverted (upside–down) Rook on the promotion square and continues the game, the piece is considered as a Rook, even if he names it as a “Queen” or any other piece. If he moves the upside-down rook diagonally, it becomes an illegal move. Link: https://arbiters.fide.com/wp-content/uploads/Publications/Manual/ARBManual2022.pdf https://arbiters.fide.com/wp-content/uploads/Publications/Ma... This is not a philosophical question about metaphysics, where the rook’s true essence can be converted to that of a queen because really, what are the queens and rooks anyway but abstract symbols? The rook is the physical object that everyone in the tournament hall recognizes as a rook, which nobody has a problem identifying in practice.
    - opello 1y ago
      That's interesting, but I wonder if it's not more accurate to say "tradition doesn't support the use of an inverted rook as a promoted queen's proxy" or "FIDE would prefer not using inverted rooks as a promoted queen proxy" instead? Unfortunately neither explain why this is the preference, but avoiding ambiguity for observers seems obvious. My thinking is that if we take "many active tournament players will see it every year or two" as the absence of a strict prohibition, and that this description of how it is illegal occurs in the "Arbiters' Manual," which self-describes as guidelines for arbiters and in the preface explains that rules can't cover every situation which is why the arbiters exist, but not in the actual rules document, it seems less "illegal" and more "unadvised." I did not wax metaphysical, quite the opposite with the desire to find a definition for how one identifies a given piece. I imagine there are some other tournament organizational guidelines which outlines how chess sets are chosen for official events. These conventions taken in aggregate would provide some perspective, but still not answer the original question. I wager that everyone in your tournament hall would also recognize the use of an inverted rook as a promoted queen. So if it's not a question of avoiding ambiguity, then I wonder again, "why?" There is a shorter version of this reply, which I will now include below: At the end of the table of contents there is another interesting note in an offset grey box, just like the box which contains the note you quoted above: > IMPORTANT: > Throughout this manual, text which appears in a box such as this one is given as advice and is the opinion of a number of experienced arbiters. It does not form part of the Laws nor the Regulations in which it appears.
School-Cotton 1y ago
Apparently it’s allowed under USCF (US Chess Federation) rules, according to my sibling comment, just not under FIDE (international) rules. Anyway, I’ve never stopped and thought about why it’s not allowed — it just seems like it obviously shouldn’t be, in serious competition. If at an NBA game they ran out of basketballs, they’d stop the game until they got one, not use a soccer ball instead. It’s hard to imagine that at an actual FIDE-rated tournament with arbiters, etc., they would be unable to find a queen piece to use.
- opello 1y ago
  > it just seems like it obviously shouldn’t be, in serious competition Why does it seem obvious? Out of some sense of accessibility to third party observers? > If at an NBA game they ran out of basketballs, they’d stop the game until they got one, not use a soccer ball instead. This is an unreasonable straw man because basketballs and soccer balls behave quite differently. A marble would be less suitable than an overturned rook because it may roll away, but both are similarly graspable with similar dexterity.
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    > Why does it seem obvious? Out of some sense of accessibility to third party observers? I can think of lots of reasons. 1. It looks cheesy and unprofessional to use random objects instead of the pieces the game is supposed to be played with; you might not think this is a good reason but keep in mind we are talking about a game that until recently everyone played wearing a suit and tie. 2. It is distracting and impedes comprehension and calculation if the design of the actual pieces is burned into your pattern recognition — not only for observers, but for the players themselves. A lot of official chess rules, e.g. the touch-move rule, are just about not annoying your opponent. 3. It opens up ambiguity about what was actually intended. What if later the player tries to claim they really did mean a rook? What if a player accidentally turns one of their actual rooks upside down during the course of a game — is it still a rook, or are they trying to cheat by turning it into a queen? Etc. 4. It does not work with high-end electronic chessboards that automatically record moves (DGT). 5. Last but not least: there is absolutely no reason to allow this, because it’s impossible to imagine that at a serious tournament the arbiter wouldn’t be able to find an extra queen. And stopping the clock and asking for an arbiter, while still a bit distracting to others, is surely less distracting than starting a discussion with the opponent about whether it’s okay to use an overturned rook or any other random object as the queen.

by opello 1y ago

Can you explain why that is? I'd like to believe there's a reasonable explanation. Using a proxy piece seems like an expedient, reasonable solution. A small square of paper with a Q on it?

jibal 1y ago

As stated it's wrong--there aren't special rules for "serious play" as opposed to non-serious play. However, it's illegal under FIDE rules, but allowed under USCF rules (which cover many "serious" tournaments). And I'm amused by another response that says that it's more common than I think and then cited a case where it "almost" happened, and says "many active tournament players will see it every year or two", as if that's not "extremely rare".

School-Cotton 1y ago
> there aren't special rules for "serious play" as opposed to non-serious play Of course there are. We don’t follow every rule in the FIDE handbook when I play at Christmas with my brother in law. For example, I would bet that in 99% of home games, touch-move is not enforced. > allowed under USCF rules interesting, I didn’t know that.
- jibal 1y ago
  The discussion was about tournament rules, not what you do at Christmas, where the FIDE rules have no jurisdiction. And even if they did, what are these "special rules"? I don't think that you made a serious attempt to engage with what I wrote but instead were intent on naysaying, so I won't comment further.
opello 1y ago
> As stated it's wrong Restatement of the premise is not an explanation. I asked "why." > However, it's illegal under FIDE rules Under which rule[1]? I anticipate the argument being one of identity, such as "a rook is a rook whether it is right side up or upside down." This is an argument of convention. I don't see a CAD model that describes a rook's physical representation. If both players were to agree that for the sake of a promotion that an overturned rook would in fact be played like a queen the piece identity requirement would be satisfied and no descriptive rule would be violated. Or perhaps a coin, or a stone, or anything of suitable size and ergonomics. [1] https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  FIDE arbiter guidelines, page 17: > When a player places an inverted (upside–down) Rook on the promotion square and continues the game, the piece is considered as a Rook, even if he names it as a “Queen” or any other piece. If he moves the upside-down rook diagonally, it becomes an illegal move. Link: https://arbiters.fide.com/wp-content/uploads/Publications/Manual/ARBManual2022.pdf https://arbiters.fide.com/wp-content/uploads/Publications/Ma... This is not a philosophical question about metaphysics, where the rook’s true essence can be converted to that of a queen because really, what are the queens and rooks anyway but abstract symbols? The rook is the physical object that everyone in the tournament hall recognizes as a rook, which nobody has a problem identifying in practice.
  - opello 1y ago
    That's interesting, but I wonder if it's not more accurate to say "tradition doesn't support the use of an inverted rook as a promoted queen's proxy" or "FIDE would prefer not using inverted rooks as a promoted queen proxy" instead? Unfortunately neither explain why this is the preference, but avoiding ambiguity for observers seems obvious. My thinking is that if we take "many active tournament players will see it every year or two" as the absence of a strict prohibition, and that this description of how it is illegal occurs in the "Arbiters' Manual," which self-describes as guidelines for arbiters and in the preface explains that rules can't cover every situation which is why the arbiters exist, but not in the actual rules document, it seems less "illegal" and more "unadvised." I did not wax metaphysical, quite the opposite with the desire to find a definition for how one identifies a given piece. I imagine there are some other tournament organizational guidelines which outlines how chess sets are chosen for official events. These conventions taken in aggregate would provide some perspective, but still not answer the original question. I wager that everyone in your tournament hall would also recognize the use of an inverted rook as a promoted queen. So if it's not a question of avoiding ambiguity, then I wonder again, "why?" There is a shorter version of this reply, which I will now include below: At the end of the table of contents there is another interesting note in an offset grey box, just like the box which contains the note you quoted above: > IMPORTANT: > Throughout this manual, text which appears in a box such as this one is given as advice and is the opinion of a number of experienced arbiters. It does not form part of the Laws nor the Regulations in which it appears.

School-Cotton 1y ago

Apparently it’s allowed under USCF (US Chess Federation) rules, according to my sibling comment, just not under FIDE (international) rules. Anyway, I’ve never stopped and thought about why it’s not allowed — it just seems like it obviously shouldn’t be, in serious competition. If at an NBA game they ran out of basketballs, they’d stop the game until they got one, not use a soccer ball instead. It’s hard to imagine that at an actual FIDE-rated tournament with arbiters, etc., they would be unable to find a queen piece to use.

opello 1y ago
> it just seems like it obviously shouldn’t be, in serious competition Why does it seem obvious? Out of some sense of accessibility to third party observers? > If at an NBA game they ran out of basketballs, they’d stop the game until they got one, not use a soccer ball instead. This is an unreasonable straw man because basketballs and soccer balls behave quite differently. A marble would be less suitable than an overturned rook because it may roll away, but both are similarly graspable with similar dexterity.
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  > Why does it seem obvious? Out of some sense of accessibility to third party observers? I can think of lots of reasons. 1. It looks cheesy and unprofessional to use random objects instead of the pieces the game is supposed to be played with; you might not think this is a good reason but keep in mind we are talking about a game that until recently everyone played wearing a suit and tie. 2. It is distracting and impedes comprehension and calculation if the design of the actual pieces is burned into your pattern recognition — not only for observers, but for the players themselves. A lot of official chess rules, e.g. the touch-move rule, are just about not annoying your opponent. 3. It opens up ambiguity about what was actually intended. What if later the player tries to claim they really did mean a rook? What if a player accidentally turns one of their actual rooks upside down during the course of a game — is it still a rook, or are they trying to cheat by turning it into a queen? Etc. 4. It does not work with high-end electronic chessboards that automatically record moves (DGT). 5. Last but not least: there is absolutely no reason to allow this, because it’s impossible to imagine that at a serious tournament the arbiter wouldn’t be able to find an extra queen. And stopping the clock and asking for an arbiter, while still a bit distracting to others, is surely less distracting than starting a discussion with the opponent about whether it’s okay to use an overturned rook or any other random object as the queen.