I would like to have the following situation clarified for me by experienced TDs.
I recently played in a team tournament (teams of 4 players). In one of the rounds, our third board fell victim to a so-called Lasker trap in Albin Contragambit. For those not very familiar with this opening the culprit of the trap is when black underpromotes the pawn into a Knight with a check and wins material.
However the way this move was made in the particular game left me somewhat uneasy : a younger opponent of our third board, placed his black pawn on the first rank, announced loudly : “Knight, check” and turned his pawn sideways so it was laying down on the square. After that he pressed the clock. Our player did not make a big deal out of it, captured this “piece” right next move and the game quickly ended in blacks favor 5-6 moves later.
What is the right procedure for promoting (underpromoting) in this situation?
I checked the “official rules of chess” 6th edition and all I found is rule 8F7 which appears to be relevant. It states in part, that it is improper to start the opponents clock with a pawn still on the last rank, but no penalties are described. Am I missing some other rule that maybe also relevant?
Do any of the team players have any right to intervene on behalf of their player? For example to ask that opponents stop the clock and look for a spare Knight to replace the pawn. In that particular situation, everyone kept silent.
The path to resist longer in Lasker trap is actually not to capture the promoted Knight. Suppose the game went this way for a few moves with a laying pawn still on the board. Suppose that piece made a Knight move later in the game. Is that move considered a legal move?
The tournament was USCF tournament not a FIDE one. I understand that FIDE rules may have worked differently. I would like to ask that we limit the discussion to USCF rules.
Best is to find an unused knight and promote to it. If it was a tournament where the players provide their own boards and sets then it may be difficult finding an unused knight that early in the round. In one of the lower-rated sections at the Midwest Class that problem occurred with the players (correctly) pausing their clock for help. After failing to find a knight in any of the nearby boards I handled it by allowing two “crossed” pawns to represent the knight (which was captured immediately). That is more problematic if the knight is going to be on the board for multiple moves and in that case I would have searched throughout the tournament hall to see if there was an available knight.
One problem with the “crossed pawns” solution is that it might subconsciously (and very subtly) increase the opponent’s desire to capture the knight, in order to get rid of the ugly pawns as soon as possible. It could depend on how much of a neat freak the players are.
Same as for a queen. Black should replace his pawn with the desired piece, and if he can’t do it immediately, stop the clock and ask the TD for the piece.
Standard penalty is appropriate. 2 minutes added to White’s clock. Since this is not a FIDE event, the pawn does not automatically become a queen.
Spectators have no special rights. Note that if variation 11D1 is used, not even the TD can intervene.
Not particularly relevant. Black never completed his (n-5)th move. It gets interesting if it has been more than ten moves since the “knight” moved.
Would it be appropriate to suggest that player (white pieces) lost his ability to make any further claims, since he didn’t object the way promotion was made in the first place?
I don’t think so. Bellowing “knight” doesn’t mean anything anymore than bellowing “Draw” is a proper way to claim three fold repetition. If you and I were playing and I were to do so, even when the position has been repeated, and press my clock, you’re under no obligation to accept the draw. I suppose it would be treated as a pawn, again assuming it is too late to fix the incomplete move.
Nothing I say during a game is binding except for resignation and draw offers. Black is not obligated to promote to a knight no matter what he says and White shouldn’t treat a pawn at a funny angle like a knight.
The way rule 8F7 is written it somewhat suggests that the only remedy for pressing the clock without replacing the pawn is to restart the clock. “If this is done, the opponent may immediately restart the player’s clock without moving.” If instead of restarting the clock the opponent paused the clock and summoned the TD what action would you take? Would you award 2 minutes or simply restart the clock. There is, of course, the situation where a player really low on time can unfairly gain time by incorrectly pressing the clock. Even if the clock is restarted immediately he now has an extra delay or increment added to his move.
A US Chess rules lawyer would say that they weren’t a knight moves, but rather illegal moves by a pawn that were not claimed to be illegal, with the statement that (once ten moves were played since its last move) it is now a pawn.
The only proper way to promote is to find the desired piece before starting the opponent’s clock. Period. A game with a sideways or crossed pawn is no longer chess and should prompt an intervention by the TD in all cases.
It’s a chess tournament. There’s an extra knight somewhere.
,
VERY Correct response. I have seen crossed pawns used for promoted queens as well. And then ensuing arguments as to what the crossed
pawns represented. When players play in “inexact” ways, they should expect “inexact” TD Rulings. As few of us have super wizard powers
to know all, then players who allow their opponents to get away with nonsense of placing their pieces on multiple squares, then moving the
piece from whichever square is “best”, promoting to uncertain pieces, etc, then well, the TD must either “guess”. I have seen some TDs
adjudicate such nonsense games as a draw. But, in any event, players who play in nonsensical fashion cannot really expect TD rulings that
are not guesses.