Another Stupid FIDE Ruling.

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....icle&sid= 777


A ROOK IS A ROOK (NOT!)

James Schroeder
Vancouver, Washington

Q. The USCF rule book (page 17) states: "It is common practice to use
an upside down rook as a queen." But according to FIDE rules apparently
a rook is a rook, no matter which side is up, and not a queen.

In Chess Life (December 2005, page 21) Denis Strenzwilk reports on the
15th World Senior in Italy: "One case of culture clash occurred during
the blitz tournament on an off day. I wasn't playing, but I was
watching Leonid Balmazi's game. He pushed a pawn to the eighth rank. He
already had a queen on the board, so he grabbed a rook and turned it
upside down. The opponent was puzzled and called for an arbiter.
Different languages were spoken. The ruling was that he had touched a
rook and so had to promote the pawn to a rook, so turn it over and
continue to play. Balmazi was shocked, but he won anyway." Comment?

A. An incredible ruling. Chess sets have one queen and it's universally
accepted, especially in speed games, that a pawn can be queened by
turning a rook upside down.

jr wrote:
Another Stupid FIDE Ruling.

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....icle&sid= 777


A ROOK IS A ROOK (NOT!)

James Schroeder
Vancouver, Washington

Q. The USCF rule book (page 17) states: "It is common practice to use
an upside down rook as a queen." But according to FIDE rules apparently
a rook is a rook, no matter which side is up, and not a queen.

In Chess Life (December 2005, page 21) Denis Strenzwilk reports on the
15th World Senior in Italy: "One case of culture clash occurred during
the blitz tournament on an off day. I wasn't playing, but I was
watching Leonid Balmazi's game. He pushed a pawn to the eighth rank. He
already had a queen on the board, so he grabbed a rook and turned it
upside down. The opponent was puzzled and called for an arbiter.
Different languages were spoken. The ruling was that he had touched a
rook and so had to promote the pawn to a rook, so turn it over and
continue to play. Balmazi was shocked, but he won anyway." Comment?

A. An incredible ruling. Chess sets have one queen and it's universally
accepted, especially in speed games, that a pawn can be queened by
turning a rook upside down.

Obviously it is not universally accepted.

Vince Hart wrote:

A. An incredible ruling. Chess sets have one queen and it's universally
accepted, especially in speed games, that a pawn can be queened by
turning a rook upside down.


Obviously it is not universally accepted.

It is also not a universal truth that chess sets have one queen (they
have at least two although one would be of the wrong color). Many sell
sets with multiple queens.

One might also expect that a FIDE tournament would have multiple queens
on hand. I'm sorry, "Jr." but some half-assed second hand story just
isn't what should be in Chess Life.

Vince Hart wrote:

Obviously it is not universally accepted.

What a strange conclusion! Obviously
the official should be disbarred.

Furthermore, I can't fathom why the USCF would
pay for such a great column and not use it. The
information about Che Guevara alone was more
interesting than anything else in the June Chess Life.

Obviously it is not universally accepted.


What a strange conclusion! Obviously
the official should be disbarred.


Furthermore, I can't fathom why the USCF would
pay for such a great column and not use it. The
information about Che Guevara alone was more
interesting than anything else in the June Chess Life.


It is not a conclusion. It is an observation.


Here's another observation:

In the article quoted above, the author managed to find
some text from the USCF rulebook supporting his opinion
that an upside-down Rook can substitute for a Queen; yet
he failed to mention which portion of the rulebook it is from,
the verbatim FIDE rules, or the supplemental part which
applies only to USCF events. This is important since, in
Italy, any rules which apply only to USCF-rated events are
moot. More precisely, in any FIDE event, USCF rules are
moot.

The hierarchy is first FIDE, then USCF; "we" are just one
peon country out of many when it come to the rules of
chess.

-------

IMO, Jr is right *in the sense that* an arbiter ruling that the
player touched a Rook and therefore must promote to the
piece he touched is nonsense. A player does not ever
touch a Queen, and then place it upside-down and annouce:
"Rook!"; nor does a player use upside-down Rooks in order
to confound the opponent so he is unable to analyse the
position properly, worrying instead about scratching of his
expensive wooden board. No, a player (normally) grabs a
Rook and turns it upside-down *only* when he cannot avail
himself of a Queen of the proper color, and this most often
occurs when he is kicking his opponent's derriere!

Unfortunately, the remark that this flipping of Rooks is
"universally accepted" is indicative of narrow-minded thinking.
How would Jr "know" what is accepted in every culture or
country throughout the world? Obviously, his naive mind
has simply bitten off more than it can chew. In fact, the
original text quoted clearly implies that both the opponent,
who was said to be "puzzled", and the arbiter, were not a
part of Jr's illusory "universe", where everyone "thinks" alike.


-- help bot

jr wrote:


Furthermore, I can't fathom why the USCF would
pay for such a great column and not use it. The
information about Che Guevara alone was more
interesting than anything else in the June Chess Life.

The Che Guevara information is well-known, and has been, if I am not
mistaken, the subject of Evans' columns before. Next there will be a
stunning revelation that Pope John Paul was a chess problemist, another
Evans boner that the chess world knew to be false for several years
when he printed it; Evans simply regurgitated the old rumor and knowing
him, he probably will do so again.

I do believe that such constant regurgitation of the same information
is what got USCF to ask him to consider doing the column differently,
and then probably got him sacked.

99% cases I would want a Queen as after geting a Queen I can easily
win.

So even if I touch Rook I would call it a queen. I will get rooks only
if it leads to stalmate (in some cases)

When One Queen is already in use we have to understand.

I feel Chess players are intelligent enough else stop playing Chess.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:


Furthermore, I can't fathom why the USCF would
pay for such a great column and not use it. The
information about Che Guevara alone was more
interesting than anything else in the June Chess Life.

The Che Guevara information is well-known, and has been, if I am not
mistaken, the subject of Evans' columns before.

The picture is shown on Mark Taimanov's CD [Phillips]

Next there will be a
stunning revelation that Pope John Paul was a chess problemist, another
Evans boner that the chess world knew to be false for several years

What is this about?

when he printed it; Evans simply regurgitated the old rumor and knowing
him, he probably will do so again.

I do believe that such constant regurgitation of the same information
is what got USCF to ask him to consider doing the column differently,
and then probably got him sacked.

Editor Lucas has connections with the Vatican, and can assert something
other? But going back to Che, can friend Rynd tell us what Che said about
chess, since he knows so much.

Phil Innes

I certainly didn't know about Che Guevara's interest
in chess, and I'm sure many other readers didn't
know it either. That's why someone asked the question.

Duh.

Can Mr. know-it-all tell us what Che Guevara and Larry
Evans talked about when they were together in Havana?


wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:


Furthermore, I can't fathom why the USCF would
pay for such a great column and not use it. The
information about Che Guevara alone was more
interesting than anything else in the June Chess Life.

The Che Guevara information is well-known, and has been, if I am not
mistaken, the subject of Evans' columns before.

Chess One wrote:
Next there will be a
stunning revelation that Pope John Paul was a chess problemist, another
Evans boner that the chess world knew to be false for several years

What is this about?


A chess discussion. You are unqualified to be a part of it.