3 ms·

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 US

by 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.

by jibal 1y ago

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.