When was the last time you used a upside down rook to represent a queen in a rated game of chess

[Paul McKeown]

Please complete this poll to comtribute towards the progress of science.

[Paul Cooksey]

Don't tell him Pike!

[Matt Mackenzie]

During a league match when no spare queens were available (as the other boards all still had theirs in play)

EDIT: this happened in another game not my own, but I am still counting it for the purposes of this poll.

[Angus French]

I don't recall having done this. Nor do I recall having stopped the clocks to find a queen to promote to... There used to be a website: chesscafe.com with a column - An Arbiter's Notebook - by Geurt Gijssen which addressed questions on pawn promotion and such.

[Ian Thompson]

I voted for "I might have done once but it is so long ago I really can't remember".

I do recall though, 30 years ago, under-promoting to a rook when a queen wasn't readily available without turning it upside down, so I clearly wasn't comfortable with using upturned rooks that long ago. It didn't make any difference in the game because my opponent's only reasonable next move was to capture the promoted piece.

It turns out it wouldn't have mattered if I had promoted to an upturned rook because the game was against this forum's most prolific poster.

[Reg Clucas]

During a league match when no spare queens were available (as the other boards all still had theirs in play)

EDIT: this happened in another game not my own, but I am still counting it for the purposes of this poll.

That isn't answering the question correctly though, is it?

[Mike Gunn]

I remember doing it when I was at school about 60 years ago, but as this doesn't fit any of the options I can't vote in the poll.

[Matt Mackenzie]

During a league match when no spare queens were available (as the other boards all still had theirs in play)

EDIT: this happened in another game not my own, but I am still counting it for the purposes of this poll.

That isn't answering the question correctly though, is it?

No, and I said as much.

[Paul Cooksey]

It does seem a useful answer given the situation is rare. Useful because I assume the intent of the poll is to establish that players do indeed know an upturned rook is a queen so the arbiters guidance can be updated.

[Ian Thompson]

It does seem a useful answer given the situation is rare. Useful because I assume the intent of the poll is to establish that players do indeed know an upturned rook is a queen so the arbiters guidance can be updated.

The Laws of Chess, and the Arbiters Manual, apply worldwide though. Does every player in the world know this? Do players visiting the UK and playing in a tournament know this? Do younger British players who weren't around decades ago know this?

[Keith Arkell]

Does anyone remember the rapidplay at Hastings, possibly in 1996 around the time of the Hastings Summer International? It was a big event - qualifying for something or other with the top players.

Anyway somebody promoted to a pawn and proceeded to move the pawn around as if it was a Queen. Who remembers what Stewart Reuben's ruling was? Clue: It was the most bizarre ruling I've ever seen!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Does anyone remember the rapidplay at Hastings, possibly in 1996 around the time of the Hastings Summer International? It was a big event - qualifying for something or other with the top players.

Anyway somebody promoted to a pawn and proceeded to move the pawn around as if it was a Queen. Who remembers what Steward Reuben's ruling was? Clue: It was the most bizarre ruling I've ever seen!

Keith, are you describing the same incident that Richard Bates described here?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14475&p=314429#p314429

It sounds like the ruling was to keep the promoted pawn as a pawn, but in the position when the arbiter (Stewart Reuben) was asked to make a ruling.

[Keith Arkell]

Hi Christopher, yes, that looks roughly how I remember it, except I thought that the pawn was placed on the promotion square and had to remain as a pawn on the 8th rank. It's easy to have a false memory of the details though.

[Paul McKeown]

It does seem a useful answer given the situation is rare. Useful because I assume the intent of the poll is to establish that players do indeed know an upturned rook is a queen so the arbiters guidance can be updated.

Arbiter's advice does not need to be updated. The practise is simply illegal - you entirely failed to establish anywhere in the Laws any freedom in declaring a rook anything other than a rook.

[Roger de Coverly]

Arbiter's advice does not need to be updated. The practise is simply illegal - you entirely failed to establish anywhere in the Laws any freedom in declaring a rook anything other than a rook.

What then is the advice to players when a second queen is simply not available? That's probably rare given the infrequency of competitions played outside of tournaments and chess venues. I think Hartston once suggested an upturned wine classes. The USCF rules quoted earlier give guidance on this and this was at one time the UK practice as well. Thus at some unknown moment the previous practice became deemed illegal, but when was this?