Answers.Body: <p><strong>There is still a pawn on a2, and it wasn't touched.</strong></p>
  <p>The queen can only be on a1 due to a promotion, but you don't state the pawn was ever touched, and you say that nothing more than that happened.</p>
  <p>Now the puzzle becomes extremely technical, and I don't think the FIDE laws are precise enough to decide. Of course we're talking about</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p><strong>6.9</strong> Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Since the pawn is on a2 still, the move ...a1=Q <em>was not made</em>.</p>
  <p>But is it still legal for black to make another move?</p>
  <p>First, I am sure that <em>if this were still an ongoing game, black would not be allowed to make any other move anymore</em>. Namely,</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p><strong>4.6</strong> The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:</p>
  <p>[...]</p>
  <p><strong>4.6.2</strong> removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>and</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p><strong>4.4.4</strong> promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalize when the piece has touched the square of promotion.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Because the queen touched the square, it is now a touched piece on the board, putting a piece on the board is a legal way to start a promotion, and the choice is finalized. So no other piece can be moved anymore and the choice stands (no solutions to this puzzle involving minor promotion, sorry).</p>
  <p>What I am in doubt about is connecting this definition of legal move involving touched pieces to the one used in 6.9, to decide whether the game is lost or drawn. Rule 6.9 does not mention something like &quot;the series of legal moves must start with a move by a touched piece, if applicable&quot;, or so.</p>
  <p>Let's quote the Preface as well, my favourite part of the rules:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>My judgment is that they <em>can</em> be interpreted to be the same meaning of &quot;legal move&quot;, and that it is in the spirit of the laws to do interpret the rules like that here (with the queen on the board, arguing for a win based on a move other than ...a1=Q is unreasonable in my opinion). The alternative would be to give white a win based on a series of legal moves that black wouldn't be allowed to actually play, in my view that would be worse.</p>
  <p>Therefore I say that the result is a <strong>draw</strong> as after ...a1=Q white has no series of legal moves to checkmate black.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:42:23.163Z
Answers.Text: Very precise answer (upvoted), and this was going to be exactly my second argument for possibly ruling a draw. However I would still argue that your first point holds: the move ...a1=Q was not made. I think is the key point is that in 6.9, it refers to the _position_ (whatever that means), and I take black's incomplete move (see 4.7.3 - the piece must be placed and the pawn must be removed for the move to be made) to mean that the position hasn't changed, and black can be mated so 6.9 doesn't give a draw.
  
  (It's even worse if the white knight was on c2 instead - 5.2.2 is invoked.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:54:43.827Z
Answers.Text: Exactly, yes. But to argue for a win you'd have to give a series of legal moves that the player couldn't legally make anymore. That's not satisfactory either.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:58:54.497Z
Answers.Text: @Remellion: quoted the Preface now, how about that :-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-16T06:49:02.667Z
Answers.Text: With regard to your first reply, "a legal move the player couldn't legally make anymore" doesn't exist. In the glossary to the Laws, a "legal move" is defined unambiguously under 3.10.1, which requires just Article 3 to be fulfilled - no touch-move or clock shenanigans. So I think underpromotion is a legal move even if black touched the queen, as the move was not made and the position therefore unchanged. On the other hand I like you quoting the Preface - it's a good spirit to keep in mind.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:25:27.840Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-06-13T14:57:42.883Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-06-17T09:59:59.497Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>Yes, I am saying that <strong><em>releasing the queen on a1</em></strong> <strong>is not enough to be considered having made the move</strong>!</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>4.7 explicitly states that: </p>
  
  <blockquote class="spoiler">
    <p> When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. <strong>The move is considered to have been made in the case of</strong>: (...) <strong>promotion</strong>, when the player's hand has <strong><em>released the new piece on the square of promotion</em></strong> and the pawn has been removed from the board.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Thus, the </p>
  
  <blockquote class="spoiler">
    <p> pawn </p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>"cannot be moved to another square on this move". </p>
  
  <p>Thus, the "possible series of legal moves." from 6.9 HAS to start with this move (any other move could not be considered legal, as it would conflict with 4.7) and the game is drawn.</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>Edit:</p>
  
  <p>To further back up my opinion that Black HAS to "move" the queen, I invoke 4.3a:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing: one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>All requirements are met:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p>Black touched the chessboard with a piece with the intention of moving (obviously)</p></li>
  <li><p>It's his own piece (it's a <em>black</em> queen)</p></li>
  <li><p>the touched piece can be moved (there is one legal way to move it)</p></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>So he still has to make a move involving the queen in some way (to make his first legal move in the possible move sequence). And there is only one option for that.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T13:42:24.980Z
Answers.Text: The article you cite (4.7.3) is an "and" clause: "...and the pawn has been removed from the board." Note that black never did this. Nevertheless, there may be another article you can cite to back up your argument....
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T13:45:00.020Z
Answers.Text: @Remellion It's clearly absent in your diagram. ;)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T13:46:26.337Z
Answers.Text: The diagram is the position that _would have been reached_ if black completed the move. That's the puzzle part of the question: to deduce that indeed the last move would have been a promotion.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T13:48:51.043Z
Answers.Text: @Remellion I know, I know. Puzzles have to be treated very literally. "No more and no less".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:08:02.493Z
Answers.Text: Invoking 4.3... I didn't see this one coming. Not the article I expected, but there's a case for it. Here one could argue that the black queen can't be moved (it was off the board!), and the pawn was never touched... but you of course see why I'm asking the question. :) In any case upvoting, and I'll wait for further responses.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:09:07.577Z
Answers.Text: @Remellion Really? Which one did you expect?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:12:29.867Z
Answers.Text: 4.4.4. I'll edit my question later with the follow-up question and the article I would cite (give it a few hours for people to have some relatively unbiased reactions.) The FIDE Laws, while much improved, still leave room for this kind of question.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:13:38.670Z
Answers.Text: @Remellion I think one could also argue that the queen is not Black's "own piece" as long as the pawn is still on the board.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:20:57.977Z
Answers.Text: @Remellion I think we are not that far off: 4.4. technically only states that the *choice of the piece* is fixed... but what if the player suddenly decides that they don't want to promote after all? Then you need 4.3 (and the player might want to talk themselves out with article 7).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:22:08.423Z
Answers.Text: So yeah, the laws are still very wobbly in that area.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T16:23:41.470Z
Answers.Text: @Annatar What parts are you trying to protect in spoiler tags?
Answers.UserDisplayName: corsiKa
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T19:56:49.913Z
Answers.Text: @corsiKa The parts about promotion.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T13:26:35.673Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-06-14T08:49:58.850Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-06-14T08:49:58.850Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.Body: <p>Well, the solution to the first part of the puzzle is</p>
  
  <blockquote class="spoiler">
    <p> that the position above can only be reached if Black's last (non-completed) move is a2-a1=Q+. Therefore, before this move there was a position in which White still has enough material to win (when both sides are cooperating); Black needs a minor promotion for that to work.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T12:45:36.630Z
Answers.Text: Very fast and correct. So now is the meat of the problem: how does this knowledge impact the arbiter's ruling? (I'll still wait a couple hours before editing in my other argument for a draw - I want to see how people interpret the rules in this situation.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T15:18:13.733Z
Answers.Text: White does have the material to win, but there is no way to achieve checkmate.  In order to trap the king on a1, stalemate will occur before the knight could deliver the final check.  Therefore both positions would be a draw.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Fred Knight
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T15:22:19.503Z
Answers.Text: @FredKnight ah, of course, I confused this with the general KN vs. KP (rook pawn) ending.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T15:57:39.950Z
Answers.Text: No, @Glorfindel, your original answer is right. Black could have promoted to R, N or B, and in each case there is a helpmate possible.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T16:00:48.720Z
Answers.Text: Right. I've added some explanation to make it more clear.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T12:38:31.707Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-06-13T15:59:52.873Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-06-13T15:59:52.873Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.Body: <p>I am not surprised that such an excellent loophole exists in the FIDE laws, or that Remellion was the one to find it.</p>
  
  <p>To summarize: bPa2 was never removed, although the move could only end with that action. Moreover, the clock was never pushed. So by 6.2.1 the move was not complete. The key question is whether an illegal, unfinished move has any impact on position evaluation.</p>
  
  <p>In a FIDE tournament, such a question is resolved by one respected person's opinion: the arbiter's. Different arbiters might in principle have different opinions in different games, but that does not detract from their legitimate authority.</p>
  
  <p>But here in chess.stackexchange, we promote reason over opinion. And, when reason gives out, we admit that the question has no answer. Instead, I think this interesting novelty should be sent to the FIDE Rules Committee. The Laws are improving over time, and this may be of help and interest to them.</p>
  
  <p>I do want to say why I (a problemist mainly focusing on retros) think it's more coherent to rule that White has lost. This is because it's an important principle, not properly articulated until it comes into question as here, that moves are atomic. Except in joke problems, a move either happens or it doesn't, and until it is complete, it never happened. </p>
  
  <p>An arbiter in a tournament may choose to extrapolate what "must happen next" in the move, but breaking atomicity in this way creates more problems than it solves. Let me illustrate.</p>
  
  <p>A subtle question is <em>why</em> the arbiter extrapolates. Is it because he wants to complete the move so that 6.9 can be applied at the beginning of White's move? Or is it because he applies 6.9 immediately, in the middle of Black's move? In either case, there is an unhappy implication:</p>
  
  <pre><code>8/8/8/8/8/2k6/p7/q1K5 w - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>If the arbiter is allowed to intelligently extrapolate to the end of the move before applying 6.9, why shouldn't the same apply to checkmate? Here the clock has fallen. But if the arbiter is allowed to extrapolate to the end of the move, then bPa2 will be removed, there will be checkmate, and under 6.2.1 there is no need for Black to hit the clock! So Black wins.</p>
  
  <pre><code>8/8/8/2p5/8/k1P5/p7/K7 w - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Alternatively, if the arbiter can start evaluating under 6.9 in the middle of a move, then why should the same not apply to the dead position rule 9.6? In this case, with no clock issues, if Black touches bPc5, the game is immediately over, because under touch move rules the draw is inexorable.</p>
  
  <p>These absurd situations result from undermining the principle of atomicity. The real solution is for the Laws to state the protocol for different actions in a turn. 90% of the job is done, but arbiter's discretion, although a practical necessity, is no substitute for a high-level sequence of play that exists for any other serious table game (bridge, monopoly, go, magic the gathering etc). Atomicity is a key simplifying principle in such a protocol.</p>
  
  <p><strong>EDIT</strong>
  The FIDE definition of "position" appears in 9.2.2 (draw by repetition). It aligns with what Remellion proposed, and because it includes player to move, I feel it can't be invoked in the middle of a move. Petr effectively came down on the same side of the fence by commenting that: </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>...by putting the Queen on a1 the player committed to making the a2-a1Q
    move (there is no other move the player can make according to the
    Laws), hence, I think that the commitment has to be honoured (as long
    as the move is legal) and the position that is being examined must
    include that move.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>So we are looking at Case 1. The problem now is to explain why an arbiter would "honour a commitment" to move when it results in a 6.9 draw, but not when it results in checkmate. Maybe some "advantage rule" like in football exists but has never been mentioned? And this implies the arbiter evaluate the position comprehensively before he decides whether to "play on" until the end of the move. All very vague and unsatisfactory. It's not fair on the arbiter to be put in such an individious position, when the loophole could easily be cleared up so no opinion is needed.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-16T06:43:56.030Z
Answers.Text: An answer after my own heart, improved with the diagrams. The first matrix I had considered: wKc1, wBa3, bKc3, bQa1, and asking if there was any way for black to lose on time after releasing the Qa1 (same promotion idea). I really don't like the idea of touching a piece intending to move it being the end of the game (e.g. every selfmate a halfmove before the end), especially if the move was not made. It shouldn't be considered to stand if it wasn't made (under article 4 in general), should it?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-16T15:06:34.523Z
Answers.Text: I would not say that this is a loophole and it is certainly not a new situation, I have seen that before and even the FIDE rules and/or Arbiters commissions might have seen that. Probably nothing new to them. Regarding the first diagram, this is not a checkmate since the move has not been completed. Don't forget, that black might well push the clock in the position on the diagram (and I have seen this happen many times), in which case they would commit an illegal move, which might even result in them losing the game. Btw. there is no extrapolation, it is all inevitable under those conditions.
Answers.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-16T16:07:59.990Z
Answers.Text: @ IA Petr Harasimovic, thank very much for your feedback. I am surprised that this situation has been spotted before: is there a reference? I agree that the extrapolation is along a single forced path, that's why the arbiter might think it's safe to do so, but it is pernicious as my examples show. Please can you clarify under what basis you would extrapolate? Is it to apply 6.9 at the end of the move (leading to diagram 1 issue), or to apply 6.9 in the middle of the move (diagram 2 issue)? And I agree diagram 1 is not checkmate, that was my point.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-16T19:01:30.327Z
Answers.Text: Not really a good example for diagram 2, I think, since under 6.9 Black has a draw regardless. Try wKa1, bKc1, wPa2, bPa4 (and wPh3, bPh4 to make it legal with black to move). Black touches Pa4 with intention to move, draw? I'm not convinced that the Laws can be read in a way to accomodate that. ("Legal moves" are defined in 3.10.1, and only rely on article 3 - "touch-move" and the rest of article 4 do not influence what is legal.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T02:32:15.347Z
Answers.Text: @Remellion, yes I wondered if diagram 2 was a bit simplistic. I will change it above, so that either side can win if the pawn isn't touched, and that Black can normally force a win. It seems that diagram 2 is a bit academic: I was trying to understand possible rationales for an arbiter's apparently arbitrary arbitration
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T21:19:53.457Z
Answers.Text: @Laska In diagram one, it sounded like you were saying it was checkmate. But that does not matter. The move is not finished, therefore, it is not checkmate yet and, therefore, the game has not finished yet. This means that other things can still happen. For instance black may press the clock whereby committing a second illegal move. The result would thus be a draw. Similarly, if they did not press the clock and their time ran out then it would be a draw again.
Answers.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T21:24:59.533Z
Answers.Text: @Laska You should not be surprised since arbiters have the habit of coming up with lots of bizzare cases and wondering what the Laws would say. I am pretty certain I have seen similar situation discussed before and I would even bet that I have contributed to that discussion, unfortunately cannot remember where it was. It is possible that it was discussed at one of the seminars I attended in the last few years. Or it might have been discussed on Czech forums.
Answers.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T21:27:42.080Z
Answers.Text: @Laska For now, I can only point you to a similar situation, which is not likely to satisfy you but it may offer useful analogy. Look at case B in Arbiters magazine No. 1, page 9 (http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories/downloads/2015/FIDE_Arbiters_Magazine_No_1_-_July_2015.pdf). The move there was made but other than that it is the same situation.
Answers.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T21:36:12.997Z
Answers.Text: @Laska I don't see the point behind referring to article 9.2.2. That article does not define 'position', it is meant to define 'sameness' and that is not relevant for our discussion. Even before you pointed it out I was considering whether 9.2.2.2 would give a hint that Remellion is right but I don't think it does.
Answers.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T21:48:27.520Z
Answers.Text: I agree 9.2.2 does not define a position. It defines an equivalence relation on things that are called positions. In fact I see no definition of "position" in the laws, except for "illegal positions". This for me is the sticking point - I'm willing to accept both outcomes (draw/win) depending on whether anyone can provide coherent definitions of "position" for either, or both sides.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T21:54:03.540Z
Answers.Text: I have previously discussed retros and rules issues with Laska, and I believe (not 100% sure, this is a pernicious issue) we share similar ideas of what a position is. For me, it is the location of units on the board, plus side-to-move, castling rights, e.p. and 50-move information - a purely abstract notion, and no clock information. And for me, a position is changed only when a complete move is made - i.e. in full accordance with article 4, and without reference to article 6. Now, I'm open to the idea of a competing definition as long as it's consistent with the rest of the Laws.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-18T15:30:14.350Z
Answers.Text: Thanks for your responses. First, definition of position. I agree that 9.2.2 is not an explicit definition, but it's much too strong to say it's "not relevant". It's true 9.2.2 doesn't imply that there are any positions at all! But we have 3.10.3 to tell us about illegal positions, and then I suppose we are meant to think that in the same way legal positions can be defined. Legal positions + illegal positions = positions, and 9.2.2 then tells us the granularity. Petr, if you have an alternative definition of position, which is consistent with these 3 rules, please tell me.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-18T16:34:11.913Z
Answers.Text: @IAPetrHarasimovic: thanks for your time in pursuing this tiny point. In Remellion's position and in my first position, the moves are missing more than just the clock-hit. I am not saying that my first position definitely is a checkmate, I am saying that **if** Remellion's is a draw, **then** mine should be a checkmate. And then therefore the example in Arbiters' magazine where the move is done should also be a checkmate! This is clearly madness. So I think the basic problem is with your evaluation of Remellion's problem.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-19T13:32:56.027Z
Answers.Text: Petr gave a definition in the comments under my question - basically the physical board position. It seems to me self-consistent if applied to the Laws, so I have no issue with it. Another issue is that the positions we gave are not using the same Article, so there is no "if one then the other" relation here. I'm questioning the definition of "position" in 6.9. Yours explicitly depends on "Articles 3 and Articles 4.2-4.7" referred to in Article 5, and not the definition of "position".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-15T18:48:53.043Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-06-17T02:33:54.887Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-06-17T02:33:54.887Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.Body: <p>I will provide a different perspective on this problem than the other answers. This is meant to be a puzzle on the laws after all so here is a couple of alternative scenarios. </p>
  
  <p>Since nowhere in the question you say that all preceding moves were legal the move <code>a2-a1Q</code> is not the only possible move. I can easily imagine moves like <code>Qc1-a1</code> or <code>Kb5-a4</code> resulting in the same position (although you say the Queen was put on <code>a1</code> so not the latter). If that was the case then the arbiter would rule to return the game to a position before the illegal move was made and the game would continue from there. They would also adjust the time on the clock as they deemed appropriate. Theoretically, though, white could lose the game for having made a second illegal move. </p>
  
  <p>Or there might have had been a white piece on <code>a1</code> that was captured during the promotion in which case the promotion would be an illegal move. Then the move would be taken back and black would be required to make a move with his King. However, since they ran out of time and it was their fault (no reason for time compensation), the game would be declared lost on time for them since underpromotion would still be possible and white would have two pieces anyway.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-15T13:55:19.970Z
Answers.Text: Good catch - as a retro problemist my tendency is to take for granted that only legal moves are made. I agree with your judgements for the alternative scenarios you give.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-15T13:35:37.500Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-06-15T13:35:37.500Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Body: <p>[EDITED to include followup - EDIT 2 to include definition of position]</p>
  
  <p>This is in part a genuine question on the FIDE Laws of Chess, and in part a small puzzle to solve.</p>
  
  <p>Suppose that during a long time control tournament game under FIDE rules the endgame is reached. <strong>Black tries to make a move to reach the following position, but the flag falls before he manages to press his clock.</strong></p>
  
  <pre><code>8/8/8/8/k7/8/1K6/q2N4 w - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>The arbiter is called. Naturally, the arbiter needs to know the details of exactly what happened in the last moments. The sequence of events is exactly as follows, no more and no less:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>White pressed her clock after moving, completing her last move.</li>
  <li>Black placed the queen on a1 and released it.</li>
  <li>Black's flag falls and white calls it.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p><strong>The arbiter rules that white wins. (This is my understanding.) Why?</strong></p>
  
  <p>The main argument for giving a draw is that in the diagram, white can never checkmate black, so under 6.9 black might draw.</p>
  
  <p>I disagree with this; I argue that under article 4.7, the actions black took were not enough to complete his move, so the diagram position was not reached and 6.9 doesn't apply. (Yes, I am saying that releasing the queen on a1 is not enough to be considered having made the move!)</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <h2>Edit 1 (light spoiler)</h2>
  
  <p>So the first part is fairly easy to figure out: to reach the diagram, black must have been trying to play ...a2-a1=Q. (The queen can't legally come from anywhere else.)</p>
  
  <p>The scenario is therefore that black placed the queen on a1, and the flag fell before the pawn on a2 was removed. Now comes the part about applying the FIDE Laws. There are two arguments for a draw:</p>
  
  <p>Annatar <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/21794/15989">makes the argument</a> that invoking 4.3, black has "moved" the queen onto the board, and so must promote to a queen. By 6.9 therefore black can claim a draw.</p>
  
  <p>RemcoGerlich <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/21795/15989">cites a different article</a>, 4.4.4, to justify that when promoting, "the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square of promotion", so again black has finalised the choice of a queen and under 6.9 a draw can be claimed. (This was the other argument I had in mind when posting the question.)</p>
  
  <p>My viewpoint is different. Looking at article 4.7.3, a promotion move is considered to have been made if "the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion and the pawn has been removed from the board". Black has not removed the pawn here, so the move has not been made.</p>
  
  <p>Then looking at 6.9 in more detail, it says "the game is drawn if <em>the position</em> is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves". It refers to "the position", which is not defined as such in the Laws, but I would interpret as the board position plus information such as side to move and castling rights. Now, despite that black has "finalised" the promotion to queen (I don't dispute that), the move has not actually been made, so I argue that "the position" remains the one with a black pawn on a2 and no queen on the board. And from here there does exist a helpmate (...a1=N/B/R, etc.) so I would conclude that white wins.</p>
  
  <p>So, to refine the question: <strong>which interpretation is correct? And have there been precedents for similar situations?</strong> (e.g. Article 4.3, touch-move, about to play the only legal move with the piece - mate - but flag drops before releasing it.)</p>
  
  <p>tl;dr</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Argument for draw: Under 4.3/4.4.4 black has indicated intention to promote to queen. Then draw under 6.9 assuming black "obliged" to promote to queen in all legal sequences.</li>
  <li>Argument for white win: Under 4.7.3, the promotion was not made. Therefore under 6.9, "the position" means the one with a pawn still on a2. From this position black can underpromote for a helpmate, so white wins on time.</li>
  <li>Which is right?</li>
  </ul>
  
  <hr>
  
  <h2>EDIT 2: Further clarification</h2>
  
  <p>In the comments, IA Petr Harasimovic has helped to further clarify the issue and narrow down exactly where my disagreement with a draw lies. (A draw seems to be the intuitive outcome.) I take issue in particular with the term "position" referenced in 6.9 - nowhere in the FIDE Laws is this term defined (strangely enough). So my working definition is:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>The location of units on the board, plus side-to-move, castling
    rights, e.p. and 50-move information - a purely abstract notion, and
    no clock information. And for me, a position is changed only when a
    complete move is made - i.e. in full accordance with article 4 [and 3], and
    without reference to article 6.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>(Quoted from a response to Laska's answer.) I mention when I consider a position changed as a kludge fix to avoid illegal moves changing the position in nonsensical ways. (I should also mention that article 3 is a given?)</p>
  
  <p>I feel that this might not be everyone's understanding of the term, and so to determine exactly what article 6.9 means I want to ask for clarification: <strong>What is the definition of a "position"?</strong></p>
  
  <p>I also want to apologise for the amount of text this question has engendered - seems like it's not exactly straightforward.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:09:27.083Z
Comments.Text: Your question is confusing because where you say "the actions black took were not enough to complete his move" you actually mean that they weren't enough to _make_ his move. That it wasn't completed is obvious because his flag fell.
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-13T14:33:38.273Z
Comments.Text: Also, there really ought to be a "fide-rules" tag as the answers for USCF rules would probably be very different :-)
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-15T12:54:46.993Z
Comments.Text: I only had a quick look at the answers and did not really read them but according to what you say in the edit Annach and Remco Gerlich are right. The choice of the new piece has been made, therefore, there is no way how black could underpromote. Thus the result is a draw.
Comments.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-15T13:52:13.607Z
Comments.Text: @IAPetrHarasimovic: I agree that the queen was chosen, but the move as a whole was not completed (4.7.3). To rule a draw you are using 6.9, which depends on legal moves from "the position". If the move has not been made, does "the position" include the queen on a1? If not, then I think underpromotion is possible.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-16T15:55:53.983Z
Comments.Text: @Remellion I believe that 'position' is to be interpreted as 'at the time of the flag fall' and not when the opponent made his last move. The point is that by putting the Queen on a1 the player committed to making the `a2-a1Q` move (there is no other move the player can make according to the Laws), hence, I think that the commitment has to be honoured (as long as the move is legal) and the position that is being examined must include that move. I would even say that I have heard a recognized international arbiter agreeing with this logic but can't remember the details.
Comments.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-16T18:56:59.000Z
Comments.Text: @IAPetrHarasimovic I too have a vague recollection of some similar dispute being settled (it was something like a selfmate with article 4.3 'touch-move' applied at flag drop), but that was a couple years back and I can't seem to find the reference anywhere now. That aside, if you interpret the position as the one at flag fall, here it is by definition an illegal position (3.10.3), and then I'm not sure applying 6.9 for the draw is right. In the spirit of fair play I agree a draw is the right outcome - but reading the Laws I still can't quite rationalise it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T20:05:19.777Z
Comments.Text: @Remellion The position is not illegal (that has a specific meaning), the move would be illegal if completed (i.e. if the clock was pressed) while as you put it the move could, perhaps, be described as unfinished. In this situation, the player cannot take the already made half of the move back (this seems to be the crux of the argument) hence no other moves can be made from the position after the opponent completed their last move. To me it looks like fitting the intention of article 6.9 pretty well. Even if the opponent was allowed to play for both sides they could not deliver a checkmate.
Comments.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T20:52:29.153Z
Comments.Text: @IAPetrHarasimovic What definition of "position" are you using? If by position you mean "the physical pieces on the board": at the moment of flag fall it is wKb2/wNd1/bKa4/bPa2/bQa1, illegal by 3.10.3. No sequence of legal moves from the start could reach this. Laska has isolated one point making me uncomfortable with your logic - I don't see "half of the move", I only see an uncompleted move, which to me is as good as not moving as far as changing the "position" goes. Also I don't agree with using article 4 to restrict the "legal moves" (see 3.10.1) mentioned in 6.9. Only article 3 matters.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T21:06:17.670Z
Comments.Text: @Remellion You are right, the position would be illegal if the move was completed, I rushed too much. Did I use article 4 somewhere? I didn't, I think. The point with the unfinished move is that you cannot change it. It is not obvious that you can freely disregard it and pretend it did not happen. The position clearly changed, you cannot underpromote in your example, because the pawn has already been promoted to a Queen. It is not allowed to remove the Queen and do the promotion again. You are not comfortable accepting half-moves. And I am not comfortable making half-moves backwards.
Comments.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T21:36:57.530Z
Comments.Text: @IAPetrHarasimovic Alright, I see your viewpoint is self-consistent. The way I see you use article 4 is to claim that the queen choice can't be taken back because something changed, while I see nothing to take back as no move was played. I'm almost prepared to accept your viewpoint but for one thing that I ask again: **What is your definition of "position"?** For me everything hinges on how this term is defined.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T22:04:13.890Z
Comments.Text: @Remellion I see, yes, I guess I am involving article 4 then. What I have in mind is the resolution of ambiguity. In several places the Laws refer to 'position', which I believe is meant to be a physical arrangement of the pieces on the board, because what is on the board is unambiguous (as opposed to players' claims of what did or did not happen). If you touch a piece it can be disputed, if the piece is already standing on the board (in a new position) that cannot be disputed.  Therefore, if all ambiguity about the next move has been resolved then the position should include this move.
Comments.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T22:08:41.700Z
Comments.Text: cont.: Examples of the resolution of ambiguity would be: placing new piece on the square of promotion, moving the King on its final square when castling, when capturing a piece placing your piece on the final square (i.e. the captured piece not removed from the board yet).
Comments.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-17T22:19:16.067Z
Comments.Text: @IAPetrHarasimovic OK, I can see your definition, and from a practical point of view it makes sense (whereas I'm more abstract as a problemist.) It's self-consistent and works. The only thing I don't like is certain conclusions: In Laska's diagram 1, with this definition you seem to be saying that the position should include a2-a1=Q#, since the queen is on the board - no ambiguity, it's mate. And if there were another white pawn (say on h6) and black flagged, that black shouldn't lose on time. It's a valid definition, just that that conclusion seems really weird.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-18T06:15:44.140Z
Comments.Text: @remellion regardless of the definition, article 5 (checkmate, etc.) triggers after a move is made, not in the middle of the move. Article 6.9 can trigger at any time that is why we are having this discussion. I am not saying that my definition is the right one and there is nothing wrong with yours but mine seems to me to be more in the spirit of the best interest of the competition (preamble).
Comments.UserDisplayName: IA Petr Harasimovic
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-18T15:08:56.773Z
Comments.Text: @IAPetrHarasimovic You're right, article 5 wouldn't apply there. Article 6.9 still would so black would draw there (even with a white pawn added somewhere, but it's reasonable.) Going through all the Laws again I see nothing too weird when taking "position" as you define it. If you would like to type out an answer giving your definition and summarising why it's then a draw as we've discussed, I'd be happy to accept that answer. (Your definition is clearly the better one for actual play, mine's more for abstract rigour outside an actual game setting.) Thank you for the interesting discussion!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-19T11:13:21.347Z
Comments.Text: Sorry to be difficult but why is it relevant that mate only applies at the turn end. In both the 6.9 draw and the mate, the flag falls with the move incomplete. We then either roll back or, if it happens to be unique, roll forwards. If we roll forwards then we may find that there is a game end. (A checkmate does not require to hit the clock, so if we roll forwards I see no reason why the mate shouldn’t stand.) Make it simple: if the move is incomplete then roll it back. Is that really unacceptably unjust bearing in mind the great simplicity that results? Thanks
Comments.UserDisplayName: Laska
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-19T13:28:59.880Z
Comments.Text: The difference in our positions (6.9 draw/5.1 mate) is the article we are invoking. Under 6.9 there is reference made to a "position" - here Petr and I seem to agree that both our definitions diverge in verdict but are otherwise each compatible with the rest of the laws. Under 5.1.1 however, the checkmate only comes into force if "the move [...] was in accordance with Articles 3 and Articles 4.2-4.7", which is clearly not the case here. The point I'm poking at in the rules is the definition of "position", which isn't relevant to article 5, only to 6.9.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-21T00:21:38.290Z
Comments.Text: I am sorry that I am really busy right now with work and can only contribute occasionally to this very fragmented conversation. I am really surprised at the directions it is taking. I don’t seem to be getting direct answers to the questions I have posed. Anyway, the definition of position cannot include number of moves since last pawn move / capture because then it couldn’t be repeated in the normal way. I don’t understand why 9.2.2 is being ignored. I explained how it together with other factors leads to a definition. But I haven’t seen a response.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Laska
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-22T15:24:43.800Z
Comments.Text: @Remellion. The arrangement before the arbiter’s extrapolation was not the result of a legal move but his extrapolation completes a legal move and there is no reason this should not be checkmate.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Laska
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-23T07:10:07.180Z
Comments.Text: @Laska [I use the definition of position = physical position in this reply] The way I see it, the arbiter is "extrapolating" only where bound by the Laws, and crucially the arbiter is making no moves in doing so. In both our cases the arbiter arrives and sees the intermediate position. In my case, it's not mate, but is it a draw? Applying 6.9, it is (but the arbiter is not actually finishing the move). In your case, by the letter of 5.1, the move was not made, so no mate. Under 6.9 it's a draw again, but the arbiter is not completing the move by "extrapolating", so it's still not mate.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-06-23T07:31:28.297Z
Comments.Text: With respect to 9.2.2, I say it makes no claim as to the properties of a position - it doesn't require a position to include castling rights, for instance. Here, a position does not need to subsume castling rights etc., so to me the definition of "position = physical position" seems at least equally valid as the abstract one. (I'm not questioning your use of 9.2.2 leading to a definition at all; it is _a_ definition.) Essentially I'm saying that I see two competing definitions that are both self-consistent, and the question of which is better becomes subjective.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Tags: <rules><fide><chess-clocks><retrograde-analysis><loopholes>
Title: What is the result? (Rules + puzzle)
ThreadText: # What is the result? (Rules + puzzle)
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-06-13)
  
  [EDITED to include followup - EDIT 2 to include definition of position]
  
  This is in part a genuine question on the FIDE Laws of Chess, and in part a small puzzle to solve.
  
  Suppose that during a long time control tournament game under FIDE rules the endgame is reached. **Black tries to make a move to reach the following position, but the flag falls before he manages to press his clock.**
  
  ```
  8/8/8/8/k7/8/1K6/q2N4 w - - 0 1
  
  ```
  
  The arbiter is called. Naturally, the arbiter needs to know the details of exactly what happened in the last moments. The sequence of events is exactly as follows, no more and no less:
  
  * White pressed her clock after moving, completing her last move.
  * Black placed the queen on a1 and released it.
  * Black's flag falls and white calls it.
  
  **The arbiter rules that white wins. (This is my understanding.) Why?**
  
  The main argument for giving a draw is that in the diagram, white can never checkmate black, so under 6.9 black might draw.
  
  I disagree with this; I argue that under article 4.7, the actions black took were not enough to complete his move, so the diagram position was not reached and 6.9 doesn't apply. (Yes, I am saying that releasing the queen on a1 is not enough to be considered having made the move!)
  
  ---
  
  ## Edit 1 (light spoiler)
  
  So the first part is fairly easy to figure out: to reach the diagram, black must have been trying to play ...a2-a1=Q. (The queen can't legally come from anywhere else.)
  
  The scenario is therefore that black placed the queen on a1, and the flag fell before the pawn on a2 was removed. Now comes the part about applying the FIDE Laws. There are two arguments for a draw:
  
  username_4 [makes the argument](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/21794/15989) that invoking 4.3, black has "moved" the queen onto the board, and so must promote to a queen. By 6.9 therefore black can claim a draw.
  
  username_1 [cites a different article](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/21795/15989), 4.4.4, to justify that when promoting, "the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square of promotion", so again black has finalised the choice of a queen and under 6.9 a draw can be claimed. (This was the other argument I had in mind when posting the question.)
  
  My viewpoint is different. Looking at article 4.7.3, a promotion move is considered to have been made if "the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion and the pawn has been removed from the board". Black has not removed the pawn here, so the move has not been made.
  
  Then looking at 6.9 in more detail, it says "the game is drawn if *the position* is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves". It refers to "the position", which is not defined as such in the Laws, but I would interpret as the board position plus information such as side to move and castling rights. Now, despite that black has "finalised" the promotion to queen (I don't dispute that), the move has not actually been made, so I argue that "the position" remains the one with a black pawn on a2 and no queen on the board. And from here there does exist a helpmate (...a1=N/B/R, etc.) so I would conclude that white wins.
  
  So, to refine the question: **which interpretation is correct? And have there been precedents for similar situations?** (e.g. Article 4.3, touch-move, about to play the only legal move with the piece - mate - but flag drops before releasing it.)
  
  tl;dr
  
  * Argument for draw: Under 4.3/4.4.4 black has indicated intention to promote to queen. Then draw under 6.9 assuming black "obliged" to promote to queen in all legal sequences.
  * Argument for white win: Under 4.7.3, the promotion was not made. Therefore under 6.9, "the position" means the one with a pawn still on a2. From this position black can underpromote for a helpmate, so white wins on time.
  * Which is right?
  
  ---
  
  ## EDIT 2: Further clarification
  
  In the comments, IA Petr username_2 has helped to further clarify the issue and narrow down exactly where my disagreement with a draw lies. (A draw seems to be the intuitive outcome.) I take issue in particular with the term "position" referenced in 6.9 - nowhere in the FIDE Laws is this term defined (strangely enough). So my working definition is:
  
  > The location of units on the board, plus side-to-move, castling
  > rights, e.p. and 50-move information - a purely abstract notion, and
  > no clock information. And for me, a position is changed only when a
  > complete move is made - i.e. in full accordance with article 4 [and 3], and
  > without reference to article 6.
  
  (Quoted from a response to username_3's answer.) I mention when I consider a position changed as a kludge fix to avoid illegal moves changing the position in nonsensical ways. (I should also mention that article 3 is a given?)
  
  I feel that this might not be everyone's understanding of the term, and so to determine exactly what article 6.9 means I want to ask for clarification: **What is the definition of a "position"?**
  
  I also want to apologise for the amount of text this question has engendered - seems like it's not exactly straightforward.
  
  **Tags:** rules, fide, chess-clocks, retrograde-analysis, loopholes
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Your question is confusing because where you say "the actions black took were not enough to complete his move" you actually mean that they weren't enough to _make_ his move. That it wasn't completed is obvious because his flag fell.  
  > **username_1**: Also, there really ought to be a "fide-rules" tag as the answers for USCF rules would probably be very different :-)  
  > **username_2**: I only had a quick look at the answers and did not really read them but according to what you say in the edit Annach and Remco Gerlich are right. The choice of the new piece has been made, therefore, there is no way how black could underpromote. Thus the result is a draw.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2: I agree that the queen was chosen, but the move as a whole was not completed (4.7.3). To rule a draw you are using 6.9, which depends on legal moves from "the position". If the move has not been made, does "the position" include the queen on a1? If not, then I think underpromotion is possible.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 I believe that 'position' is to be interpreted as 'at the time of the flag fall' and not when the opponent made his last move. The point is that by putting the Queen on a1 the player committed to making the `a2-a1Q` move (there is no other move the player can make according to the Laws), hence, I think that the commitment has to be honoured (as long as the move is legal) and the position that is being examined must include that move. I would even say that I have heard a recognized international arbiter agreeing with this logic but can't remember the details.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 I too have a vague recollection of some similar dispute being settled (it was something like a selfmate with article 4.3 'touch-move' applied at flag drop), but that was a couple years back and I can't seem to find the reference anywhere now. That aside, if you interpret the position as the one at flag fall, here it is by definition an illegal position (3.10.3), and then I'm not sure applying 6.9 for the draw is right. In the spirit of fair play I agree a draw is the right outcome - but reading the Laws I still can't quite rationalise it.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 The position is not illegal (that has a specific meaning), the move would be illegal if completed (i.e. if the clock was pressed) while as you put it the move could, perhaps, be described as unfinished. In this situation, the player cannot take the already made half of the move back (this seems to be the crux of the argument) hence no other moves can be made from the position after the opponent completed their last move. To me it looks like fitting the intention of article 6.9 pretty well. Even if the opponent was allowed to play for both sides they could not deliver a checkmate.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 What definition of "position" are you using? If by position you mean "the physical pieces on the board": at the moment of flag fall it is wKb2/wNd1/bKa4/bPa2/bQa1, illegal by 3.10.3. No sequence of legal moves from the start could reach this. username_3 has isolated one point making me uncomfortable with your logic - I don't see "half of the move", I only see an uncompleted move, which to me is as good as not moving as far as changing the "position" goes. Also I don't agree with using article 4 to restrict the "legal moves" (see 3.10.1) mentioned in 6.9. Only article 3 matters.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 You are right, the position would be illegal if the move was completed, I rushed too much. Did I use article 4 somewhere? I didn't, I think. The point with the unfinished move is that you cannot change it. It is not obvious that you can freely disregard it and pretend it did not happen. The position clearly changed, you cannot underpromote in your example, because the pawn has already been promoted to a Queen. It is not allowed to remove the Queen and do the promotion again. You are not comfortable accepting half-moves. And I am not comfortable making half-moves backwards.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 Alright, I see your viewpoint is self-consistent. The way I see you use article 4 is to claim that the queen choice can't be taken back because something changed, while I see nothing to take back as no move was played. I'm almost prepared to accept your viewpoint but for one thing that I ask again: **What is your definition of "position"?** For me everything hinges on how this term is defined.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 I see, yes, I guess I am involving article 4 then. What I have in mind is the resolution of ambiguity. In several places the Laws refer to 'position', which I believe is meant to be a physical arrangement of the pieces on the board, because what is on the board is unambiguous (as opposed to players' claims of what did or did not happen). If you touch a piece it can be disputed, if the piece is already standing on the board (in a new position) that cannot be disputed.  Therefore, if all ambiguity about the next move has been resolved then the position should include this move.  
  > **username_2**: cont.: Examples of the resolution of ambiguity would be: placing new piece on the square of promotion, moving the King on its final square when castling, when capturing a piece placing your piece on the final square (i.e. the captured piece not removed from the board yet).  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 OK, I can see your definition, and from a practical point of view it makes sense (whereas I'm more abstract as a problemist.) It's self-consistent and works. The only thing I don't like is certain conclusions: In username_3's diagram 1, with this definition you seem to be saying that the position should include a2-a1=Q#, since the queen is on the board - no ambiguity, it's mate. And if there were another white pawn (say on h6) and black flagged, that black shouldn't lose on time. It's a valid definition, just that that conclusion seems really weird.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 regardless of the definition, article 5 (checkmate, etc.) triggers after a move is made, not in the middle of the move. Article 6.9 can trigger at any time that is why we are having this discussion. I am not saying that my definition is the right one and there is nothing wrong with yours but mine seems to me to be more in the spirit of the best interest of the competition (preamble).  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 You're right, article 5 wouldn't apply there. Article 6.9 still would so black would draw there (even with a white pawn added somewhere, but it's reasonable.) Going through all the Laws again I see nothing too weird when taking "position" as you define it. If you would like to type out an answer giving your definition and summarising why it's then a draw as we've discussed, I'd be happy to accept that answer. (Your definition is clearly the better one for actual play, mine's more for abstract rigour outside an actual game setting.) Thank you for the interesting discussion!  
  > **username_3**: Sorry to be difficult but why is it relevant that mate only applies at the turn end. In both the 6.9 draw and the mate, the flag falls with the move incomplete. We then either roll back or, if it happens to be unique, roll forwards. If we roll forwards then we may find that there is a game end. (A checkmate does not require to hit the clock, so if we roll forwards I see no reason why the mate shouldn’t stand.) Make it simple: if the move is incomplete then roll it back. Is that really unacceptably unjust bearing in mind the great simplicity that results? Thanks  
  > **username_0**: The difference in our positions (6.9 draw/5.1 mate) is the article we are invoking. Under 6.9 there is reference made to a "position" - here Petr and I seem to agree that both our definitions diverge in verdict but are otherwise each compatible with the rest of the laws. Under 5.1.1 however, the checkmate only comes into force if "the move [...] was in accordance with Articles 3 and Articles 4.2-4.7", which is clearly not the case here. The point I'm poking at in the rules is the definition of "position", which isn't relevant to article 5, only to 6.9.  
  > **username_3**: I am sorry that I am really busy right now with work and can only contribute occasionally to this very fragmented conversation. I am really surprised at the directions it is taking. I don’t seem to be getting direct answers to the questions I have posed. Anyway, the definition of position cannot include number of moves since last pawn move / capture because then it couldn’t be repeated in the normal way. I don’t understand why 9.2.2 is being ignored. I explained how it together with other factors leads to a definition. But I haven’t seen a response.  
  > **username_3**: @username_0. The arrangement before the arbiter’s extrapolation was not the result of a legal move but his extrapolation completes a legal move and there is no reason this should not be checkmate.  
  > **username_0**: @username_3 [I use the definition of position = physical position in this reply] The way I see it, the arbiter is "extrapolating" only where bound by the Laws, and crucially the arbiter is making no moves in doing so. In both our cases the arbiter arrives and sees the intermediate position. In my case, it's not mate, but is it a draw? Applying 6.9, it is (but the arbiter is not actually finishing the move). In your case, by the letter of 5.1, the move was not made, so no mate. Under 6.9 it's a draw again, but the arbiter is not completing the move by "extrapolating", so it's still not mate.  
  > **username_0**: With respect to 9.2.2, I say it makes no claim as to the properties of a position - it doesn't require a position to include castling rights, for instance. Here, a position does not need to subsume castling rights etc., so to me the definition of "position = physical position" seems at least equally valid as the abstract one. (I'm not questioning your use of 9.2.2 leading to a definition at all; it is _a_ definition.) Essentially I'm saying that I see two competing definitions that are both self-consistent, and the question of which is better becomes subjective.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2018-06-13. Score: 7
  
  **There is still a pawn on a2, and it wasn't touched.**
  
  The queen can only be on a1 due to a promotion, but you don't state the pawn was ever touched, and you say that nothing more than that happened.
  
  Now the puzzle becomes extremely technical, and I don't think the FIDE laws are precise enough to decide. Of course we're talking about
  
  > **6.9** Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
  
  Since the pawn is on a2 still, the move ...a1=Q *was not made*.
  
  But is it still legal for black to make another move?
  
  First, I am sure that *if this were still an ongoing game, black would not be allowed to make any other move anymore*. Namely,
  
  > **4.6** The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
  >
  > [...]
  >
  > **4.6.2** removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order.
  
  and
  
  > **4.4.4** promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalize when the piece has touched the square of promotion.
  
  Because the queen touched the square, it is now a touched piece on the board, putting a piece on the board is a legal way to start a promotion, and the choice is finalized. So no other piece can be moved anymore and the choice stands (no solutions to this puzzle involving minor promotion, sorry).
  
  What I am in doubt about is connecting this definition of legal move involving touched pieces to the one used in 6.9, to decide whether the game is lost or drawn. Rule 6.9 does not mention something like "the series of legal moves must start with a move by a touched piece, if applicable", or so.
  
  Let's quote the Preface as well, my favourite part of the rules:
  
  > The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.
  
  My judgment is that they *can* be interpreted to be the same meaning of "legal move", and that it is in the spirit of the laws to do interpret the rules like that here (with the queen on the board, arguing for a win based on a move other than ...a1=Q is unreasonable in my opinion). The alternative would be to give white a win based on a series of legal moves that black wouldn't be allowed to actually play, in my view that would be worse.
  
  Therefore I say that the result is a **draw** as after ...a1=Q white has no series of legal moves to checkmate black.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Very precise answer (upvoted), and this was going to be exactly my second argument for possibly ruling a draw. However I would still argue that your first point holds: the move ...a1=Q was not made. I think is the key point is that in 6.9, it refers to the _position_ (whatever that means), and I take black's incomplete move (see 4.7.3 - the piece must be placed and the pawn must be removed for the move to be made) to mean that the position hasn't changed, and black can be mated so 6.9 doesn't give a draw.  (It's even worse if the white username_7 was on c2 instead - 5.2.2 is invoked.)  
  > **username_1**: Exactly, yes. But to argue for a win you'd have to give a series of legal moves that the player couldn't legally make anymore. That's not satisfactory either.  
  > **username_1**: @username_0: quoted the Preface now, how about that :-)  
  > **username_0**: With regard to your first reply, "a legal move the player couldn't legally make anymore" doesn't exist. In the glossary to the Laws, a "legal move" is defined unambiguously under 3.10.1, which requires just Article 3 to be fulfilled - no touch-move or clock shenanigans. So I think underpromotion is a legal move even if black touched the queen, as the move was not made and the position therefore unchanged. On the other hand I like you quoting the Preface - it's a good spirit to keep in mind.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2018-06-13. Score: 5
  
  > Yes, I am saying that ***releasing the queen on a1*** **is not enough to be considered having made the move**!
  
  4.7 explicitly states that:
  
  > When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. **The move is considered to have been made in the case of**: (...) **promotion**, when the player's hand has ***released the new piece on the square of promotion*** and the pawn has been removed from the board.
  
  Thus, the
  
  > pawn
  
  "cannot be moved to another square on this move".
  
  Thus, the "possible series of legal moves." from 6.9 HAS to start with this move (any other move could not be considered legal, as it would conflict with 4.7) and the game is drawn.
  
  ---
  
  Edit:
  
  To further back up my opinion that Black HAS to "move" the queen, I invoke 4.3a:
  
  > Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing: one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
  
  All requirements are met:
  
  * Black touched the chessboard with a piece with the intention of moving (obviously)
  * It's his own piece (it's a *black* queen)
  * the touched piece can be moved (there is one legal way to move it)
  
  So he still has to make a move involving the queen in some way (to make his first legal move in the possible move sequence). And there is only one option for that.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: The article you cite (4.7.3) is an "and" clause: "...and the pawn has been removed from the board." Note that black never did this. Nevertheless, there may be another article you can cite to back up your argument....  
  > **username_4**: @username_0 It's clearly absent in your diagram. ;)  
  > **username_0**: The diagram is the position that _would have been reached_ if black completed the move. That's the puzzle part of the question: to deduce that indeed the last move would have been a promotion.  
  > **username_4**: @username_0 I know, I know. Puzzles have to be treated very literally. "No more and no less".  
  > **username_0**: Invoking 4.3... I didn't see this one coming. Not the article I expected, but there's a case for it. Here one could argue that the black queen can't be moved (it was off the board!), and the pawn was never touched... but you of course see why I'm asking the question. :) In any case upvoting, and I'll wait for further responses.  
  > **username_4**: @username_0 Really? Which one did you expect?  
  > **username_0**: 4.4.4. I'll edit my question later with the follow-up question and the article I would cite (give it a few hours for people to have some relatively unbiased reactions.) The FIDE Laws, while much improved, still leave room for this kind of question.  
  > **username_4**: @username_0 I think one could also argue that the queen is not Black's "own piece" as long as the pawn is still on the board.  
  > **username_4**: @username_0 I think we are not that far off: 4.4. technically only states that the *choice of the piece* is fixed... but what if the player suddenly decides that they don't want to promote after all? Then you need 4.3 (and the player might want to talk themselves out with article 7).  
  > **username_4**: So yeah, the laws are still very wobbly in that area.  
  > **username_5**: @username_4 What parts are you trying to protect in spoiler tags?  
  > **username_4**: @username_5 The parts about promotion.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2018-06-13. Score: 3
  
  Well, the solution to the first part of the puzzle is
  
  > that the position above can only be reached if Black's last (non-completed) move is a2-a1=Q+. Therefore, before this move there was a position in which White still has enough material to win (when both sides are cooperating); Black needs a minor promotion for that to work.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Very fast and correct. So now is the meat of the problem: how does this knowledge impact the arbiter's ruling? (I'll still wait a couple hours before editing in my other argument for a draw - I want to see how people interpret the rules in this situation.)  
  > **username_7**: White does have the material to win, but there is no way to achieve checkmate.  In order to trap the king on a1, stalemate will occur before the username_7 could deliver the final check.  Therefore both positions would be a draw.  
  > **username_6**: @username_7 ah, of course, I confused this with the general KN vs. KP (rook pawn) ending.  
  > **username_0**: No, @username_6, your original answer is right. Black could have promoted to R, N or B, and in each case there is a helpmate possible.  
  > **username_6**: Right. I've added some explanation to make it more clear.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2018-06-15. Score: 2
  
  I am not surprised that such an excellent loophole exists in the FIDE laws, or that username_0 was the one to find it.
  
  To summarize: bPa2 was never removed, although the move could only end with that action. Moreover, the clock was never pushed. So by 6.2.1 the move was not complete. The key question is whether an illegal, unfinished move has any impact on position evaluation.
  
  In a FIDE tournament, such a question is resolved by one respected person's opinion: the arbiter's. Different arbiters might in principle have different opinions in different games, but that does not detract from their legitimate authority.
  
  But here in chess.stackexchange, we promote reason over opinion. And, when reason gives out, we admit that the question has no answer. Instead, I think this interesting novelty should be sent to the FIDE Rules Committee. The Laws are improving over time, and this may be of help and interest to them.
  
  I do want to say why I (a problemist mainly focusing on retros) think it's more coherent to rule that White has lost. This is because it's an important principle, not properly articulated until it comes into question as here, that moves are atomic. Except in joke problems, a move either happens or it doesn't, and until it is complete, it never happened.
  
  An arbiter in a tournament may choose to extrapolate what "must happen next" in the move, but breaking atomicity in this way creates more problems than it solves. Let me illustrate.
  
  A subtle question is *why* the arbiter extrapolates. Is it because he wants to complete the move so that 6.9 can be applied at the beginning of White's move? Or is it because he applies 6.9 immediately, in the middle of Black's move? In either case, there is an unhappy implication:
  
  ```
  8/8/8/8/8/2k6/p7/q1K5 w - - 0 1
  
  ```
  
  If the arbiter is allowed to intelligently extrapolate to the end of the move before applying 6.9, why shouldn't the same apply to checkmate? Here the clock has fallen. But if the arbiter is allowed to extrapolate to the end of the move, then bPa2 will be removed, there will be checkmate, and under 6.2.1 there is no need for Black to hit the clock! So Black wins.
  
  ```
  8/8/8/2p5/8/k1P5/p7/K7 w - - 0 1
  
  ```
  
  Alternatively, if the arbiter can start evaluating under 6.9 in the middle of a move, then why should the same not apply to the dead position rule 9.6? In this case, with no clock issues, if Black touches bPc5, the game is immediately over, because under touch move rules the draw is inexorable.
  
  These absurd situations result from undermining the principle of atomicity. The real solution is for the Laws to state the protocol for different actions in a turn. 90% of the job is done, but arbiter's discretion, although a practical necessity, is no substitute for a high-level sequence of play that exists for any other serious table game (bridge, monopoly, go, magic the gathering etc). Atomicity is a key simplifying principle in such a protocol.
  
  **EDIT**
  The FIDE definition of "position" appears in 9.2.2 (draw by repetition). It aligns with what username_0 proposed, and because it includes player to move, I feel it can't be invoked in the middle of a move. Petr effectively came down on the same side of the fence by commenting that:
  
  > ...by putting the Queen on a1 the player committed to making the a2-a1Q
  > move (there is no other move the player can make according to the
  > Laws), hence, I think that the commitment has to be honoured (as long
  > as the move is legal) and the position that is being examined must
  > include that move.
  
  So we are looking at Case 1. The problem now is to explain why an arbiter would "honour a commitment" to move when it results in a 6.9 draw, but not when it results in checkmate. Maybe some "advantage rule" like in football exists but has never been mentioned? And this implies the arbiter evaluate the position comprehensively before he decides whether to "play on" until the end of the move. All very vague and unsatisfactory. It's not fair on the arbiter to be put in such an individious position, when the loophole could easily be cleared up so no opinion is needed.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: An answer after my own heart, improved with the diagrams. The first matrix I had considered: wKc1, wBa3, bKc3, bQa1, and asking if there was any way for black to lose on time after releasing the Qa1 (same promotion idea). I really don't like the idea of touching a piece intending to move it being the end of the game (e.g. every selfmate a halfmove before the end), especially if the move was not made. It shouldn't be considered to stand if it wasn't made (under article 4 in general), should it?  
  > **username_2**: I would not say that this is a loophole and it is certainly not a new situation, I have seen that before and even the FIDE rules and/or Arbiters commissions might have seen that. Probably nothing new to them. Regarding the first diagram, this is not a checkmate since the move has not been completed. Don't forget, that black might well push the clock in the position on the diagram (and I have seen this happen many times), in which case they would commit an illegal move, which might even result in them losing the game. Btw. there is no extrapolation, it is all inevitable under those conditions.  
  > **username_3**: @ IA Petr username_2, thank very much for your feedback. I am surprised that this situation has been spotted before: is there a reference? I agree that the extrapolation is along a single forced path, that's why the arbiter might think it's safe to do so, but it is pernicious as my examples show. Please can you clarify under what basis you would extrapolate? Is it to apply 6.9 at the end of the move (leading to diagram 1 issue), or to apply 6.9 in the middle of the move (diagram 2 issue)? And I agree diagram 1 is not checkmate, that was my point.  
  > **username_0**: Not really a good example for diagram 2, I think, since under 6.9 Black has a draw regardless. Try wKa1, bKc1, wPa2, bPa4 (and wPh3, bPh4 to make it legal with black to move). Black touches Pa4 with intention to move, draw? I'm not convinced that the Laws can be read in a way to accomodate that. ("Legal moves" are defined in 3.10.1, and only rely on article 3 - "touch-move" and the rest of article 4 do not influence what is legal.)  
  > **username_3**: @username_0, yes I wondered if diagram 2 was a bit simplistic. I will change it above, so that either side can win if the pawn isn't touched, and that Black can normally force a win. It seems that diagram 2 is a bit academic: I was trying to understand possible rationales for an arbiter's apparently arbitrary arbitration  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 In diagram one, it sounded like you were saying it was checkmate. But that does not matter. The move is not finished, therefore, it is not checkmate yet and, therefore, the game has not finished yet. This means that other things can still happen. For instance black may press the clock whereby committing a second illegal move. The result would thus be a draw. Similarly, if they did not press the clock and their time ran out then it would be a draw again.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 You should not be surprised since arbiters have the habit of coming up with lots of bizzare cases and wondering what the Laws would say. I am pretty certain I have seen similar situation discussed before and I would even bet that I have contributed to that discussion, unfortunately cannot remember where it was. It is possible that it was discussed at one of the seminars I attended in the last few years. Or it might have been discussed on Czech forums.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 For now, I can only point you to a similar situation, which is not likely to satisfy you but it may offer useful analogy. Look at case B in Arbiters magazine No. 1, page 9 (http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories/downloads/2015/FIDE_Arbiters_Magazine_No_1_-_July_2015.pdf). The move there was made but other than that it is the same situation.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 I don't see the point behind referring to article 9.2.2. That article does not define 'position', it is meant to define 'sameness' and that is not relevant for our discussion. Even before you pointed it out I was considering whether 9.2.2.2 would give a hint that username_0 is right but I don't think it does.  
  > **username_0**: I agree 9.2.2 does not define a position. It defines an equivalence relation on things that are called positions. In fact I see no definition of "position" in the laws, except for "illegal positions". This for me is the sticking point - I'm willing to accept both outcomes (draw/win) depending on whether anyone can provide coherent definitions of "position" for either, or both sides.  
  > **username_0**: I have previously discussed retros and rules issues with username_3, and I believe (not 100% sure, this is a pernicious issue) we share similar ideas of what a position is. For me, it is the location of units on the board, plus side-to-move, castling rights, e.p. and 50-move information - a purely abstract notion, and no clock information. And for me, a position is changed only when a complete move is made - i.e. in full accordance with article 4, and without reference to article 6. Now, I'm open to the idea of a competing definition as long as it's consistent with the rest of the Laws.  
  > **username_3**: Thanks for your responses. First, definition of position. I agree that 9.2.2 is not an explicit definition, but it's much too strong to say it's "not relevant". It's true 9.2.2 doesn't imply that there are any positions at all! But we have 3.10.3 to tell us about illegal positions, and then I suppose we are meant to think that in the same way legal positions can be defined. Legal positions + illegal positions = positions, and 9.2.2 then tells us the granularity. Petr, if you have an alternative definition of position, which is consistent with these 3 rules, please tell me.  
  > **username_3**: @username_2: thanks for your time in pursuing this tiny point. In username_0's position and in my first position, the moves are missing more than just the clock-hit. I am not saying that my first position definitely is a checkmate, I am saying that **if** username_0's is a draw, **then** mine should be a checkmate. And then therefore the example in Arbiters' magazine where the move is done should also be a checkmate! This is clearly madness. So I think the basic problem is with your evaluation of username_0's problem.  
  > **username_0**: Petr gave a definition in the comments under my question - basically the physical board position. It seems to me self-consistent if applied to the Laws, so I have no issue with it. Another issue is that the positions we gave are not using the same Article, so there is no "if one then the other" relation here. I'm questioning the definition of "position" in 6.9. Yours explicitly depends on "Articles 3 and Articles 4.2-4.7" referred to in Article 5, and not the definition of "position".  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2018-06-15. Score: 2
  
  I will provide a different perspective on this problem than the other answers. This is meant to be a puzzle on the laws after all so here is a couple of alternative scenarios.
  
  Since nowhere in the question you say that all preceding moves were legal the move `a2-a1Q` is not the only possible move. I can easily imagine moves like `Qc1-a1` or `Kb5-a4` resulting in the same position (although you say the Queen was put on `a1` so not the latter). If that was the case then the arbiter would rule to return the game to a position before the illegal move was made and the game would continue from there. They would also adjust the time on the clock as they deemed appropriate. Theoretically, though, white could lose the game for having made a second illegal move.
  
  Or there might have had been a white piece on `a1` that was captured during the promotion in which case the promotion would be an illegal move. Then the move would be taken back and black would be required to make a move with his King. However, since they ran out of time and it was their fault (no reason for time compensation), the game would be declared lost on time for them since underpromotion would still be possible and white would have two pieces anyway.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Good catch - as a retro problemist my tendency is to take for granted that only legal moves are made. I agree with your judgements for the alternative scenarios you give.  
  
  ---
  
  