Today, it is little known that for forty years at the height of the British Empire, dummy pawns were the scourge of tournament play, and even grandmasters ran scared. (Possible exaggeration here.)
The heresy raged from 1862-1904. See Eminent Victorian Chess Players: Ten Biographies by Tim Harding. However, the origins of the dummy pawn goes back ...
If you promote to a queen with 1. b8Q, black has:
1...Re2+ 2. Kd1 Rb2
attacking the queen and hinting at mate with Rb1++. If white takes the rook 3. Qxb2 it is stalemate.
Because of the mate threat white does not have any other good square for the queen either (no good check and no square that would defend b1).
If you promote to a rook, black does ...
Edward Winter cites Owen J. Clarkin (Ottawa, Canada) who quotes from The Modern Chess Instructor by W. Steinitz (New York, 1889) which in turn cites this example from Lowenthal's Book of the London Chess Congress, 1862:
[Title "Dummy pawn motivation"]
[fen "r/1Pp5/2P3p1/8/6pb/4p1kB/4P1p1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
So I grab a rook instead. Did I break a rule?
No, the FIDE Laws of Chess are very clear. The choice of piece is not decided until it touches the promotion square.
In so far as touch move applies to promotion the key is that the promotion must be performed with one hand. That is the same hand must be used to remove the pawn from the board (it does not have ...
Sometimes, choosing a bishop or a rook is the best move, because of stalemate possibilities. This happens most often with rooks, and very rarely with bishops.
For instance, in this famous position from the Saavedra problem:
[FEN "8/2P5/8/8/3r4/8/2K5/k7 w - - 0 1"]
If white plays 1.c8Q, then black plays 1...Rc4+. White needs to take it or lose his queen ...
Under USCF rule 8F7:, it is acceptable to place a rook upside-down if a spare queen is not available.
If the desired piece is not available to replace a promoted pawn, the player may stop both clocks in order to locate that piece and place it on the board. A player who cannot quickly find such a piece may request the assistance of the director. It is common ...
The procedure is (FIDE rules): move the pawn to its promotion square, then replace it with the piece you want. You can take it from the captured pieces yourself, your opponent does nothing. If the piece isn't readily available, you can stop the clock and ask the arbiter to bring one. Your choice of piece is only finalized when it touches the promotion square....
It's probably a trick problem with a promotion to a black knight.
Such promotions to the wrong colour are not allowed, and never were. In the official rules it is now specifically pointed out that the new piece has to have the same colour as the promoted pawn.
FIDE's laws of chess, Article 3.7 e:
When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting ...
It's because 1. exf8=Q+ Kxh7 2. Rxd7?? would be stalemate. I think it is a even a theoretical draw after 1. exf8=Q+ Kxh7 2. Qg7+. Therefore 1. exf8=B+! (with check!) is better, since white then can keep an extra piece and win easily.
[FEN "5r2/3qPbkB/8/7P/8/8/8/1K1R4 w - - 0 1"]
1. exf8=Q+ (1. exf8=B+!) Kxh7 2. Rxd7? (2. Qg7+)
From FIDE rules (3.7 e):
When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square 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 ‘...
The Matt Bengtson problem Prof. Elkies mentions is:
[Title "Matt Bengtson, Chess Braintwisters (Burt Hochberg), no. 103. White to move & draw."]
[FEN "4kn2/3p1pPp/4pPpK/6P1/8/2p5/1b6/8 w - - 0 1"]
However, the problem is actually cooked with a win for Black starting with “3... f6!”, and there is no stalemate for White. The solution and the cooking line ...
I suppose what is comes down to is that the way 3.8.2 is written can be argued to have a syntactic ambiguity. 3.8.2 can mean either "This is a move of the king, and either rook of the same colour, along the player’s first rank," or "This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank."
There's no ...
Yes, you should promote to a Queen forcibly. FIDE rules say that (emphasis mine):
4.4 If a player having the move:
4.4.4 promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has touched the square of promotion.
You placed the Queen in the promotion square, so you should promote to it.
However, I would suggest not to promote this way....
Once you have promoted your pawn do you get a second move to move it out
Or do you still only get the promotion as your move and it becomes
the opponents move?
From the FIDE Laws of Chess:
3.7.e When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from
its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part ...
Is there any glaring flaw in this rules lawyer case, or is it solid
until FIDE fixes it?
Yes, there is a glaring flaw in your case. The rook and king have to be on the same rank. This is clear from the text of the rule and the diagrams which follow. Here is the text from the latest FIDE Laws of Chess:
3.8.2 by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and ...
The Lomonosov 7-man Endgame Tablebase show that after promotion to a queen, Black can play 1. ... Re2+ 2. Kd1 Rb2! (sacrificing the rook) Qxb2, the Black king is stalemated. If White doesn’t take the rook, then Black will take the queen and draw the game.
[FEN "8/1P6/3N4/8/8/3k4/r7/4KN2 w - - 0 1"]
1. b8=Q? Re2+ 2. Kd1 Rb2! 3. Qxb2 (3. Kc1 Rxb8)
There was a time when the FIDE rules didn't specify that a king and rook
need to be on the same rank in order to castle. This meant that, assuming
the other requirements for castling were met, it was legal for White to
castle with a rook on e8 (or Black with a rook on e1), provided that rook
had never moved (which could only happen if it was a promoted pawn)...
Not Fischer. But there is the infamous Tim Krabbe vertical castling problem:
Although it appears this was already illegal as of the problem's publication in 1972.
This sounds like a job for Tim Krabbé, who presents two games with six queens: Szalanczy - Nguyen, Budapest 2009 and Anton - Franco, XXI Elgoibar Magistral 2011. I don't know how many of the participants were grandmasters.
There are some other games with 5+ queens at Chess Siberia. Of these, Miton - Benjamin, World Open Philadelphia 2005 definitely features ...
Your only problem here is logistical. You can promote your pawn to any piece except the King, even if that means you have two bishops on the same colour squares, or two (or more) queens on the board; but according to the official rules, you must replace it physically with a piece of the correct shape and colour. What to do if no such piece is to hand?
In a ...
No, according to FIDE's Laws of Chess, castling has to be done along the first rank.
3.8.2 by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same
colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the
king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its
original square two squares towards the rook on its ...
This question really needs a diagram with this position:
[FEN "8/8/4P3/3p4/2p3p1/1pP1kPPp/1P5P/R3K2R w KQkq - 0 1"]
White to mate in 3.
Tim Krabbé and Max Pam found the loophole in the rules that you are asking about -- when they composed this problem in 1972, the promoted rook did indeed enable castling, as the rules only talked about a rook that hadn't ...
So if your opponent promotes a pawn to a Queen and accidentally places
your Queen on the board instead of his own, can you claim a win
because of an illegal move?
No, you can't. There is no illegal move until the player either presses the clock or makes another move (after the opponent has moved).
Here is what the FIDE Laws of Chess have to say:
Notice that black's last check is pushing the white king one row away from their passed e-pawn. Once black promotes the b-pawn, white will have to give up the rook for it. After which white's king is simply not in position to cover the advance of the e-pawn and therefore additional tempi will have to be spent with king moves to try and reach ...
No, it is not.
FIDE Laws of chess, clause 3.7e:
When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it
must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a
new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour.
The two previous answers both suggested that this position is a draw, but I believe it's a win for White.
Stockfish 5 evaluates the position at more than +10 if left to run for long enough (e.g., to depth 40), which sounds pretty decisive, but of course Stockfish isn't infallible. I generated a FinalGen tablebase for the position, but unfortunately it wasn'...
There are even positions where one promotes R or B to save a draw by getting stalemated (rather than win by avoiding stalemate). One example is the Traxler-Dedrle setup:
[FEN "4rN1K/5qP1/8/8/8/8/k7/8 w - - 0 1"]
1. g8=B!! (1. g8=Q Rxf8 2. Qxf8 Qxf8) Rxf8
WTM loses with 1 g8Q? Rxf8 2 Qxf8 Qxf8+ but draws with 1 g8B!! when Rxf8 is stalemate (NB the g8B ...
Per FIDE Chess Laws, rule 3.1, a piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the player’s piece can make a capture on that square (and in one more special case not relevant here). In full:
It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour. If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is ...