[Retros] Promotion: legal order of partial actions

[Juha Saukkola]

Hi gG,
 
I cannot see any promising future in your thoughts because of no
discussion of rules is not allowed ( rules by Codex XX by da Vinci (1516) ).Did you got an idea?> To: retros at janko.at> Subject: Re: [Retros] Promotion: legal order of partial actions> > > Hi Roberto,> > Some decades ago Tim Krabbé wrote his famous "Schaakcuriosa" booklets in which he made a similar observation - though the rules have changed a bit since then. In a position where Queening a Pawn would stalemate the game, his devilish personae would take a Queen out of the box, place it innocently on the promotion square (not releasing it), and then with sudden insight withdraw it and place the winning Rook instead! To be absolutely sure of the support of the referee he would secretly stir his coffee with that Rook during the proceedings so he could always claim that he touched the Rook first!> > This in itself funny story also offers a lesson to learn. Reading the players intention to make the Queen promotion is complicated by actions outside the direct environment of the chess board such as stirring the coffee. We therefore need to restrict which types of acts, spaces and objects can be part of the rule evaluation process. I dislike to include "touching the Queen or any other off-board promotion piece" as acceptable evidence, but "placing and releasing the piece on a possible promotion square" could be reasonably allowed in. On that point I agree with you that the rules look somewhat illogical.> > Nevertheless I can also see a logical principle underlying the current FIDE approach. Let's assume that the FIDE only ratifies (partial) acts which are legal immediate successors to previously ratified acts. Another way to put it is by saying that you cannot assemble legal bits and pieces that are scattered over the time track in order to deduce the intended (or enforceable) move. In your cases a) and b) the required bridging act of moving up the Pawn to the promotion rank is missing and the Queen-placing act is therefore taken out of the equation as an isolated event. Compare that to a regular example like: white Qd1 is picked up and dropped on h6; on the way back, the players hand touches a black Bishop on g1. What to do? The first legal act was: touching and picking up the Queen. It was followed by the illegal act of dropping the Queen on h8, which must therefore be retracted. The subsequent touching of Bg1 is a legal immediate successor to the previous legal act, and implies that the Bishop must be captured. Resulting action: Qd1xBg1.> > Whether or not this is the actual FIDE philosophy I do not know. It is just the one that comes to mind when reading the FIDE articles.> > Best,> Guus Rol.> > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----> Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens raosorio at fibertel.com.ar> Verzonden: dinsdag 12 februari 2008 20:25> Aan: retros at janko.at> Onderwerp: [Retros] Promotion: legal order of partial actions> > Hi Joost,> > I think that my yesterday's mail was a bit dissordered. Sorry.> > Let's take the following example as a position in a real game,> > > 5nbr/4Pppk/7p/8/8/pq6/8/K7> white to move> > a) the white side player takes a white Queen, places it on e8, removes the e7 pawn and presses the clock.> > b) the player takes a white Queen, places it on e8 and presses the clock.> > Let's assume that in both cases the judge is looking the game.> > In both cases the move would be illegal (formally in case a). So, it has to be retracted and there is a 2 min penalty. But what after that?> > In case a) we could say that the player touched the pawn and he is forced to move it, (article 4) paying no attention to the Queen he placed on e8. Then, the player is free to play e7xNf8++.> > In case b) the situation is even worst. The pawn was not touched and the player is free to make what he wants to (including e7xNf8++).> > Something here is is in strong conflict with the common sense. The player made an illegal> (formal) move, putting things (a queen) on the board with a clear indication of his intention to promote a queen. Could him be beneficiated by his illegality while there were clear indication of a queen promotion, made in a just formally illegal way?> > Isn't it much more logical to interpretate that article 4.6 spirit has to be applied here?> (4.6 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square). As an extension, it could be interpretated that the player is forced, after the 7.4 retraction, to make exactly the move he intended to do but in a formally proper way (all of this is a bit strange, but to leave the player free after the illegality is even stranger in my opinion).> > Best,> Roberto> > _______________________________________________> Retros mailing list> Retros at janko.at> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20080215/afc6f1d7/attachment.htm>