[Retros] Promotion: legal order of partial actions

[raosorio at fibertel.com.ar]

Hi Joost,

Thanks for your answer.

This is quite peculiar. Article 4 does not stablish any penalty related to
"legal order of partial actions" when promoting as it does for the castling case.  

Based on this, my reassoning was "how could it be illegal having no consequences?
Only in Argentina!

Then I found in article 7.4 the following,
----------------------
7.4  If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position. 

After the action taken under Article 7.4(a), for the first two illegal moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. 
 ------------------------


but this is the  Irregularities article. Since the promotion case has no penalty in article 4, what should
we assume? If we find the "illegal" order of a promotion in a chess problem should we iterate within
article 7.4 up to conclude that that side looses the game?

This question makes sense for chess problems. I repeat here the antecedent showing the
reversed order,

Lothar Finzer
(I) Die Schwalbe 8 04/1971
R6B/P7/4P3/1Q1Bp3/8/3N2p1/8/k5KR
#0,5
3 solutions

It was accepted that time. This problem forces the promotion by the stipulation, but I have
compossed some examples where the half promotion (reversed order) is clear from the
retroanalysis. This alternative provides a very rich field to composse fractional move
problems. Isn't it the richer the better?

Some question for the real game:
if the player installs a Queen in the promotion square and remove the pawn after that, then
apparently 7.4 applies. So, the Queen touching is equivalent to a chair touching, resulting in no
comeetment? Is the player allowed to promote a Knight after? Is he allowed to promote on other 
square (capturing)?

Roberto Osorio



Message: 3
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:04:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Joost de Heer <joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: [Retros] Promotion: legal order of partial actions
To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List <retros at janko.at>
Message-ID: <20080211120153.M38216 at router.joost.localnet>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed


> Defining the cases of partial legal moves a question appears.

> I have in mind the image that nobody touches the eight rank with

> the pawn. So, I tend to interpretate straight promotion as a sum of

> two partial actions,

>

> a)  to pick out the pawn

> b) to install the promoted piece on the promotion square

>

> But, is there a legal order? I know many players (including me) that makes b) first.



>From the FIDE rules:

3.7e: When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it 
must be exchanged as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop 
or knight of the same colour. The player`s choice is not restricted to 
pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for 
another piece is called `promotion` and the effect of the new piece is 
immediate.

4.6c: in the case of the promotion of a pawn, when the pawn has been 
removed from the chessboard and the player`s hand has released the new 
piece after placing it on the promotion square. If the player has released 
from his hand the pawn that has reached the promotion square, the move is 
not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to play the pawn to 
another square.

Both (IMO) indicate that first the pawn move must be made, and then the 
substitute piece must be added. It even implies (again, IMO) that the pawn 
move to the promotion rank must be made, you can't remove a pawn from the 
7th rank and then place a rook on the 8th, instead you have to move the 
pawn to the promotion rank, remove it, and then substitute it.

Joost