Answers.Body: <p>There is no loophole. Rules 3.7.1 to 3.7.4 allow pawns to move forwards along the same file, or diagonally forwards onto an adjacent file.</p>
  
  <p>The only argument here seems to be that "forwards" is not explicitly defined but it is implicitly defined by 3.7.5.1 which beings with the following quote: "When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position". </p>
  
  <p>As the pawn can only move forwards and we know that a pawn can reach the rank furthest from its start position, then forwards must mean "towards the rank on which his opponent's king was set up".</p>
  
  <p>The diagram accompanying 3.7.3 also make it clear which direction forwards is:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>3.7.1 The pawn may move forward to the square immediately in front of it on the same file, provided that this square is unoccupied, or<br>
    3.7.2 on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.1 or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file, provided that both squares are unoccupied, or<br>
    3.7.3 the pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece.<br>
    <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/WH7Dc.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/WH7Dc.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br>
    <sub>Source: <a href="https://old.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&amp;view=article" rel="noreferrer">https://old.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&amp;view=article</a></sub></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Even if for some bizarre reason you were to setup the board with the white pieces next to the black player and vice versa, there is no ambiguity as to which direction "front" is. For a white pawn, forwards is always towards the rank where the black king was set up.</p>
  
  <p>There are also no rules allowing for any sort of rotation of a piece, so even if you had say the viking style chess pieces where the pawn model itself has a face, the direction in which the pawn model faces has no meaning in the rules.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T08:32:39.380Z
Answers.Text: A pawn starting on A2 or B2 can reach the rank furthest from the player even when "forwards" is towards H2.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Fax
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T09:25:06.277Z
Answers.Text: @Fax for a pawn on A2, forwards being towards H2 is explicitly ruled out by the fact that the rules refer to moving forwards along a file.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PenguinsRock
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T12:50:10.907Z
Answers.Text: That's a good point. However, if we define "forward" as "towards the 1st rank or towards the 8th rank", the pawns can still reach the rank furthest from their starting position. Indeed, the diagram in 3.7.3 illustrates that very definition with one pawn moving towards the 8th and one towards the 1st. The missing piece of the puzzle is "if your pawn is of color X then forwards is towards Y", which is nowhere to be found in the rules.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Fax
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-12T17:34:54.183Z
Answers.Text: @Fax As the diagram shows the white pawn being able to choose between moving 1 or 2 spaces along the file, it is clearly in the initial position (as per rule 3.7.2) - which clears up that ambiguity of which is closest to the original rank
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chronocidal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-13T12:39:39.897Z
Answers.Text: @Chronocidal That's true, although I wasn't arguing that. My argument is that the rules don't specify that a particular pawn can only move one way along a file, and the diagram doesn't disprove that. In particular, if you take the dots in the diagram to illustrate all possible moves for each of the pawns, you could just as easily come to the conclusion that a pawn on a white square can go up the chess board while a pawn on a black square can go down.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Fax
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T15:21:52.263Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-11T09:37:39.707Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-12-11T09:37:39.707Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PenguinsRock
Answers.Body: <p>This is a good question, as much as some may be instinctively frustrated by it, because finding room for improvement in rulesets is useful and can prevent future issues where arbitration is required.</p>
  
  <p>My understanding is that "front" is defined by the piece's colour, not it's rotational orientation. This is consistent with the definition of "last rank" in the case of queening a pawn.</p>
  
  <p>However, I'm not familiar enough with the FIDE ruleset to know where (if anywhere) this is mentioned.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T03:09:06.153Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-10T03:09:06.153Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jase
Answers.Body: <p>No matter how a chess piece is shaped, FIDE rules do not define "front" or any other direction relative to the orientation of the piece. </p>
  
  <p>Chess pieces do not have a front, rear, direction of advance, and so forth. Only the board has these. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T11:40:08.390Z
Answers.Text: The issue I'm seeing is that they don't define "front" at all, neither relative to the piece, the board, the starting setup or the player.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Magma
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-12T14:24:59.870Z
Answers.Text: @Magma: They don't define “such”, “corner” or “initial” either, I believe, but those are all English words with a mostly shared meaning. And the same holds for “front”: the dictionary included in my computer says: “the position directly ahead of someone or something; the most forward position or place”. The chessboard is in front of the player, the square is in front of the pawn.
Answers.UserDisplayName: DaG
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-12T18:05:32.630Z
Answers.Text: @DaG The issue in this question is that the English phrase "in front of the pawn" is ambiguous. Particularly if you have a more artistic set, where the pawns don't look lathed, so that they have a defined front side (like knights usually do). Then "In front of the pawn" may just as well refer to the way it happens to be turned. Now, I know and you know that that's not how chess works, but the question here is whether there is any kind of _official_ reference to settle this issue, even in the face of pedantry.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arthur
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-12T19:02:06.620Z
Answers.Text: "...a more artistic set" I had a friend who insisted on using his set, which was some very fanciful figurines. He hoped I would confuse the queen with a bishop or something. I responded by always facing the pieces in random directions, it drove him crazy. I guess that's what happens when a couple of rubbish players look for some advantage instead of trying to improve...
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. I. Breveleri
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-12T21:54:46.710Z
Answers.Text: @Arthur: Since a specific “front” of a pawn is _not_ defined (with an arrow or a smiling face, say), I'd say that no amount of nitpickery or pedantry (and I am not lacking in that sector either) could suggest an interpretation different from the one afforded by the default, literal meaning of the words (as I wrote, the chessboard is in front of the player, the square is in front of the pawn).
Answers.UserDisplayName: DaG
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T08:55:52.003Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-10T08:55:52.003Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: A. I. Breveleri
Answers.Body: <p>The official PDF of the FIDE Laws of Chess includes illustrations of the legal moves for each piece.  These clearly show the white pawn moving "up" the file (including the two-square move from the starting rank), and the black pawn moving "down" (only one square, because it's shown away from the starting rank).</p>
  
  <p>Moving the pawn along a rank is explicitly ruled out by the text, which mentions movement only along the file except for captures, which always occur in the adjacent files on the next rank.  The definition of "rank" and "file" is given in Article 2.4.</p>
  
  <p>The direction of "forward" from the starting rank is unambiguous, since no fewer than <em>three</em> movement rules involving the pawn only make sense for one along-file direction for each player.  These are 3.7.b (double move permitted from the starting rank; this would land off-board if reversed), 3.7.d (the en-passant rule, which requires pawns of opposite colour to approach each other on adjacent files), and 3.7.e (promotion upon reaching the furthest rank from the starting rank, which would be impossible if only allowed to move away from it).</p>
  
  <p>The very concept of a "forward direction" being mentioned in the movement rules, but no provision being made in those rules for rotating or reversing that direction, indicates clearly that the direction implied by the above paragraph is invariant for all subsequent pawn moves as well.  That which is not explicitly permitted is implied to be forbidden.</p>
  
  <p>Furthermore, FIDE tournaments are normally conducted with standard Staunton-style pieces, in which the pawn is rotationally symmetric and has no apparent "front".  Indeed only the knights and bishops lack this property, but unlike the pawn they have rotationally symmetric movement patterns.  The rules do not explicitly mention Staunton pieces except in the context of visually impaired players (who must identify pieces by touch), but providing an exotic form of chess pieces for a tournament game would be highly irregular, and could legitimately be considered unfair in itself.</p>
  
  <p>I do agree that an explicit definition of "forward" would make a precise interpretation easier to arrive at purely from the text.  This could be "along the file, towards the rank furthest from the player".  This is unambiguous even for Black, since Article 2.1 places the board between the players and specifies its orientation (though even this could be improved, since it doesn't specify that the players must sit on the side of the board at which their pieces start).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T09:36:53.340Z
Answers.Text: An explicit definition of "forward" would work better if it were based upon where each colour was initially set up as that is invariant and prevents the OP from arguing that a player could walk around to the other side of the board to reverse the direction of movement of a pawn.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PenguinsRock
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-12T12:14:11.780Z
Answers.Text: The Staunton pieces are explicitly mentioned in the FIDE equipment standards (https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Standards_of_Chess_Equipment_and_tournament_venue.pdf) but the wording is surprisingly weak: "Recommended for use in FIDE competitions are pieces of Staunton style". The USCF rules are a bit stronger in this regard: "The conventional Staunton pattern is the standard. [...] Minor variations in design may be tolerated, especially in sets that are widely used."
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T17:52:59.350Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-10T18:16:56.203Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-12-10T18:16:56.203Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chromatix
Answers.Body: <p>The "on the same file" language already takes care of this.
  2.4 The eight vertical columns of squares are called ‘files’</p>
  
  <p>Moving based on some notional "facing'" of the pawn would take the pawn off the file.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T07:50:26.807Z
Answers.Text: But you could still use this loophole to move the pawn backwards, like `2. e4-e3`. That's on the same file.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Federico Poloni
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T13:04:17.403Z
Answers.Text: you cant - as "forward" or "in front" is defined as "away from the player owning the pawn" .. so white moves pawns to higher numbers, black moves their pawns towards lower numbers - ALWAYS - even when taking other figures - or making an "en passent" move ...
Answers.UserDisplayName: eagle275
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T17:41:06.933Z
Answers.Text: @eagle275 " "forward" or "in front" is defined as "away from the player owning the pawn"" Cite?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Acccumulation
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T06:33:47.657Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-10T06:33:47.657Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SoronelHaetir
Answers.Body: <p>Sorry I am late to this party.</p>
  
  <p>The question is about how FIDE resolves this issue. I can only answer about chess problems. </p>
  
  <p>Although the text says that they only apply to over-the-board chess, I know from discussions with a FIDE rules writer that they have been concerned about their responsibilities as owners of a document which problemists will take seriously, maybe even more literally than players.</p>
  
  <p>For over-the-board chess there are arbiters to help interpret the language, but what about the poor lost lambs who are fairy chess enthusiasts who want to know what happens if you change the rules. E.g. if a pawn ends up on a1 somehow, how can it move?</p>
  
  <p>It is always possible to read text in multiple ways. Some are just silly e.g. suppose the players are bridge players. Or suppose the pieces melt in the middle of a game and occupy multiple squares. Some of these silly ideas can form the basis of so-called joke problems. See “Outrageous Chess Problems” by Bert Hochberg for many of these.</p>
  
  <p>A couple more points about your idea.</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p>If pawns can be rotated then we can’t assume in a problem that a pawn in second rank can necessarily make double move. It might already have moved and after rotation come back to the second rank again.</p></li>
  <li><p>If a pawn has been rotated some angle which is not a multiple of 90 degrees, it won’t be able to move at all. Maybe this is what a dummy pawn is?</p></li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T06:24:59.667Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-12T06:10:51.757Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-12-12T06:10:51.757Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.Body: <p>Front is meant to be the next square that the pawn could normally advance to unless it were making a diagonal capture.  Pawns and pieces per se have no front or back.  Maybe FIDE should define it that way for people who want to be lawyers and pick at the rules. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T11:38:11.480Z
Answers.Text: "Front is meant to be the next square that the pawn could normally advance to": As I quoted, the next square the pawn could advance to is already defined as the square in front of the pawn, so your suggestion would be a circular definition.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Magma
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T13:02:18.843Z
Answers.Text: no .. "front" is defined as direction of the "battlefield" chessboard - away from you, the player.
Answers.UserDisplayName: eagle275
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T01:36:04.800Z
Answers.Text: @eagle275  Where? You are just making stuff up and posting it in all the comments here, which is very unconstructive.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Apollys supports Monica
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T10:16:58.703Z
Answers.Text: @eagle275 the FIDE laws don't prescribe where a player should be in relation to the board either (and indeed probably the majority of modern chess games are played with the player viewing the board from "above", on a screen, rather than sitting on one side of it)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Will
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T12:20:48.423Z
Answers.Text: And somehow OP, you and a few others find reason to debate about something that is obvious to everybody playing chess. First world problems if any at all
Answers.UserDisplayName: eagle275
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T15:40:50.870Z
Answers.Text: @Will as far as OP wrote himself - the players are sitting on 2 specific sides - which are described (remember the part with a white square bottom right)  and even when playing from "above" in 99 of 100 cases you play figures from the bottom up, which in most cases happens by driving the tiles with a mouse move away from you ..
Answers.UserDisplayName: eagle275
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T17:56:03.520Z
Answers.Text: @eagle275 fair point that the bottom right white square rule implies a player position, although I think it's still a stretch to say that the laws *describe* the player positions...
Answers.UserDisplayName: Will
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-09T18:24:22.990Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-11T01:18:04.797Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-12-11T01:18:04.797Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.Body: <p>There's another loophole with 3.7.3 and it happens when you turn the pawn's front to the left or to the right. You can then capture opponent's piece at the diagonal at the previous rank. Since it's at the adjacent file, the move is a "bona fide!" chess move. ex: white pawn at e4 turning to left and  capturing Knight at d3. 
  These loopholes can be removed by introducing  an amendment 3.7.xx like "pawns can not move to a lower rank with the exception of 'en-passant' law, where they're technically moved by the opponent one rank below and captured, if the opponent prefers at the immediate move after the two square move of the pawn."</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T11:33:51.007Z
Answers.Text: That's the second example I mentioned in my question.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Magma
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T13:05:44.117Z
Answers.Text: there is no loophole - as every move of a pawn is foremost "forward" - away from its owner. Even moving diagonally to take a figure is still basically away from the owning player
Answers.UserDisplayName: eagle275
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T10:48:19.060Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-10T10:48:19.060Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: zirekm
Answers.Body: <p>This sort of thing is what the Preface of the Laws of Chess is for:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p><strong>PREFACE</strong></p>
    
    <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 discussed  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
    the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special
    factors.</p>
    
    <p>FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>No, the laws don't define what the square in front of a pawn is. But arbiters have freedom of judgement to deal with that kind of omission from the rules.</p>
  
  <p>And there is no way an arbiter will let you move a pawn in an illegal way during a FIDE tournament based on this argument.</p>
  
  <p>It will just be treated as an illegal move (some bonus time for the opponent, have to make a legal move with the pawn if possible, and if it happens a second time the game is lost).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T11:13:07.433Z
Answers.Text: Still funny that the laws don't define something as simple as this pawn direction. Yes, lots of situations around _a physical game_ of chess can't be covered exhaustively, but the rules of _chess as an abstract game_ definitely _could_ be covered in a rigorous mathematical description.
Answers.UserDisplayName: leftaroundabout
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T12:44:30.403Z
Answers.Text: they DO - "in front in the same file"  meaning an white A-pawn moves along the A-file - forward being ruled by your direction of assault. Always remember that chess is meant to display a battlefield - white moves from 1 and 2 towards higher numbers , black moves from 7 and 8 toward lower numbers - Applying both makes it pretty obvious what is "in front" for a particular pawn. Adding in that pawn figures don't have anything resembling a face usually opposed to knights
Answers.UserDisplayName: eagle275
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T16:13:16.820Z
Answers.Text: I agree. Arbiters apply common sense backed up by the preface of the Laws of Chess.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Daniel Alfredo Sottile
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T17:40:19.800Z
Answers.Text: @eagle275 Yes, it's obvious what is meant, but your comment does nothing to address the claim the rules don't define what is "in front".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Acccumulation
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T01:34:34.710Z
Answers.Text: @eagle275 You say "they DO" and then proceed to say a bunch of stuff that comes from your head, not the rules.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Apollys supports Monica
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T17:19:14.833Z
Answers.Text: @ApollyssupportsMonica The first thing eagle275 doe **is** quotes Rules 3.7.1 and 3.7.2: *"in the same file"*.  Now, this limits the Pawn to 2 directions, towards you and away from you.  While you are looking at the board, which of those directions is "in front", and which is "behind"?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chronocidal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T19:41:30.090Z
Answers.Text: That's exactly question sir...
Answers.UserDisplayName: Apollys supports Monica
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-12T16:49:28.243Z
Answers.Text: @Voo Rule 3.7.5 starts *"When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position..."*.  This indicates that the Pawn must be able to move in that direction.  (Also, the FIDE Handbook includes illustrations that make the direction clear)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chronocidal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-12T17:10:14.530Z
Answers.Text: @Chronocidal Yeah I read that part later in another answer and deleted the comment accordingly.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Voo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-09T13:45:51.610Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-09T13:45:51.610Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Body: <p>While browsing the Chess and Puzzling Stack Exchange sites, I've come across several instances where people have found loopholes in the rules of chess, causing these loopholes to be patched out eventually. In fact, while reading through the current (since Jan 1, 2018) FIDE Laws of Chess, I noticed the following paragraphs:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>3.7.1 The pawn may move forward to the square immediately in front of it on the same file, provided that this square is unoccupied, or</p>
  <p>3.7.2 on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.1 or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file, provided that both squares are unoccupied, or</p>
  <p>3.7.3 the pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Now I'm curious about the wording of these paragraphs, especially the phrase &quot;in front of it&quot;. This &quot;front&quot; direction is not defined or mentioned anywhere in the Laws. Its usual meaning is &quot;towards the rank furthest away from the pawn's initial location&quot;, but what if it weren't?</p>
  <p>Suppose &quot;front&quot; is taken to mean the facing of the physical pawn (imagine figurine pieces with a clearly identifiable &quot;front&quot;). In that case, if a pawn is placed facing a different direction than usual, White could move a pawn to a lower rank or capture on a lower rank. Moving along the same rank is forbidden by the wording of 3.7.2.</p>
  <p>Here are two examples I'm thinking of:</p>
  <p>1. e4(facing e3) e5 2. e4e3</p>
  <p>1. e4 d5 2.e5(facing d5) d4 3. e5xd4</p>
  <p>In this case, it could even be technically permitted to rotate a pawn (changing what is &quot;in front of it&quot;) using &quot;j'adoube&quot; before moving it.</p>
  <p>Alternatively, the &quot;front&quot; direction could be defined as the direction the player is facing. However, in this case, Article 2 insufficiently defines how the chessboard is to be placed:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>2.1 The chessboard is composed of an 8 x 8 grid of 64 equal squares alternately light (the ‘white’ squares) and dark (the ‘black’ squares).</p>
  <p>The chessboard is placed between the players in such a way that the near corner square to the right of the player is white.</p>
  <p>[...]</p>
  <p>2.3 The initial position of the pieces on the chessboard is as follows: [depiction of standard positions]</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>It is not mentioned which pieces start closer to which player, so according to this interpretation, it is technically not illegal to start with the white pieces on the side of the board closer to Black. &quot;Front&quot; would then mean that pawns could only move one step (assuming you get the pieces out of the way), but not promote afterward (since the promotion rank is defined in paragraph 3.7.5.1 as &quot;the rank furthest from its starting position&quot;). Alternatively, a player could rotate the chessboard by 180° before moving.</p>
  <p>I'm aware that all this is nitpicking the rules, of course, that's not the intended way to play chess, I get that. So here's the question I'm actually interested in: Suppose that during a FIDE tournament, some player makes a move that is legal only by one of the above interpretations of the rules. How would this situation be resolved properly, considering Articles 11 and 12 of the Laws?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T00:57:44.937Z
Comments.Text: If I were still directing tournaments I would forfeit the game , chew your butt out, and tell you if you did such things again I would throw you out of the tournament.
Comments.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T03:35:26.397Z
Comments.Text: Pawns are typically uniform - if you rotate it then it is not facing in a different direction.  And the answer is of course that is not a rule.  Forward in this case always means towards your opponent.
Comments.UserDisplayName: JK.
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T10:01:08.037Z
Comments.Text: You seem to be ignoring the `on the same file` part of `3.7.1` and `3.7.2`. Even if you decide to "rotate" the pawn and try to move it "forward" in it's new oritenation, it would no longer be moving on the same file and thus would be breaking these rules
Comments.UserDisplayName: Darren H
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T12:46:57.453Z
Comments.Text: the orientation and placement scheme clearly describe which figures are "closer" to which player (king and queen always closest - pawn row in front of those ...)
Comments.UserDisplayName: eagle275
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T13:08:04.500Z
Comments.Text: @eagle275 You are correct, but what isn't specified is whether the pieces closer to you should be your own pieces or your opponent's pieces.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Magma
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T13:10:45.470Z
Comments.Text: that makes no sense - as a chessboard is a symbolized battlefield - what king would hide behind enemy forces ? ... of course you place your figures directly before you - and as the lower right corner has to be white - this also makes clear where to place and move your figures. But even if you rotate the board by 180° - that would include shifting "in front" as well by same 180°
Comments.UserDisplayName: eagle275
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T13:14:53.953Z
Comments.Text: @eagle275 You're arguing from the rules as you know them. Of course it makes sense, and that's how I would play chess too. It's just that the things you're saying are missing from the current FIDE laws.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Magma
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T17:56:20.960Z
Comments.Text: This question makes me happy
Comments.UserDisplayName: Sam Sabin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T19:31:39.733Z
Comments.Text: @eagle275 You have commented many times in this Q&A about your preference as to which way is the front, but all of those claims rely on logic external to the game. "... is a symbolized battlefield" for example: not only is that irrelevant here, because on an actual battlefield pawns would go in whatever direction they needed to, but even if that weren't the case the real problem OP is seeing is _it's not in the rules_. I'm not saying OP would be in the right to try the tactic; it would be obnoxious, and you (eagle) would be right to call OP a cheater. For the rules lawyer, ...
Comments.UserDisplayName: Loduwijk
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T19:34:41.263Z
Comments.Text: … instead of starting with reasonable logic, which can be countered with their own further-rules-lawyering logic, you need to make a stand somewhere which they cannot assail. For example: "We must all agree to be rational in our interpretation of the rules as they are obviously intended, otherwise there is no end to the problems. The rules also do not define what a 'board' is or what 'white' or 'black' are; you are expected to be sensible, otherwise you are a cheater even if you follow the rules to a T in your cheating."
Comments.UserDisplayName: Loduwijk
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T20:21:17.567Z
Comments.Text: Definitely +1 Funny
Comments.UserDisplayName: Carl Witthoft
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-10T21:02:11.083Z
Comments.Text: You could be a "good" lawyer.
Comments.UserDisplayName: stopkillinggames.com
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T04:32:11.000Z
Comments.Text: There's nothing in the FIDE laws that forbid a pawn from stealing the hat from a neighbouring bishop, climbing on a nearby horsie, galloping to the top of a castle and throwing the bishop's hat, pointy end first, at the opposing queen.  Good luck convincing the tournament director of the legality of this maneouvre.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Dawood ibn Kareem
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T04:37:40.173Z
Comments.Text: @DawoodsaysreinstateMonica I think 3.10.1 and 3.10.2 forbid that.
Comments.UserDisplayName: D M
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T08:36:02.040Z
Comments.Text: Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1552/
Comments.UserDisplayName: nick012000
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T15:39:44.683Z
Comments.Text: "...but what if it weren't?" - then you wouldn't be playing chess anymore and you could make up whatever rules you wanted. QED.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-11T17:10:21.120Z
Comments.Text: I may be a little presumptuous, but someone once threw a Dungeon Master's Guide at you, didn't they?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Comic Sans Seraphim
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-01-05T16:17:17.943Z
Comments.Text: The specific piece shapes are not relevant to chess rules. The game of chess and its rules can be built at a level of abstraction that does not allow the supposed loophole that you claim. For example, pawns can never move "backward," they can move only "forward" - that is, towards the 8th rank for White or the 1st rank for Black. Similar with descriptive notation. The ranks are unambiguous. So there is nothing really to nitpick here - you are trying to make it seem like the FIDE rules are allowing or ignoring something that is possible, but it is not.
Comments.UserDisplayName: jrdevdba
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-01-05T16:34:09.207Z
Comments.Text: PS Also, I noticed that you stated "Moving along the same rank is forbidden by the wording of 3.7.2." Just curious why you stated this. I see that 3.7.2 uses the word "advance," which is defined as moving forward. If your issue is that "front" is not defined, how can you accept that "advance" is? 
  
  Finally, 2.3 shows an image of the starting chess position. Any other position is by definition not legal under FIDE rules, would you agree?
Comments.UserDisplayName: jrdevdba
Tags: <rules><fide><pawns><loopholes>
Title: Is rotating a pawn so that it faces a different direction and then moves in that direction technically permitted according to the 2018 FIDE Laws?
ThreadText: # Is rotating a pawn so that it faces a different direction and then moves in that direction technically permitted according to the 2018 FIDE Laws?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-12-09)
  
  While browsing the Chess and Puzzling Stack Exchange sites, I've come across several instances where people have found loopholes in the rules of chess, causing these loopholes to be patched out eventually. In fact, while reading through the current (since Jan 1, 2018) FIDE Laws of Chess, I noticed the following paragraphs:
  
  > 3.7.1 The pawn may move forward to the square immediately in front of it on the same file, provided that this square is unoccupied, or
  >
  > 3.7.2 on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.1 or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file, provided that both squares are unoccupied, or
  >
  > 3.7.3 the pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece.
  
  Now I'm curious about the wording of these paragraphs, especially the phrase "in front of it". This "front" direction is not defined or mentioned anywhere in the Laws. Its usual meaning is "towards the rank furthest away from the pawn's initial location", but what if it weren't?
  
  Suppose "front" is taken to mean the facing of the physical pawn (imagine figurine pieces with a clearly identifiable "front"). In that case, if a pawn is placed facing a different direction than usual, White could move a pawn to a lower rank or capture on a lower rank. Moving along the same rank is forbidden by the wording of 3.7.2.
  
  Here are two examples I'm thinking of:
  
  1. e4(facing e3) e5 2. e4e3
  
  1. e4 d5 2.e5(facing d5) d4 3. e5xd4
  
  In this case, it could even be technically permitted to rotate a pawn (changing what is "in front of it") using "j'adoube" before moving it.
  
  Alternatively, the "front" direction could be defined as the direction the player is facing. However, in this case, Article 2 insufficiently defines how the chessboard is to be placed:
  
  > 2.1 The chessboard is composed of an 8 x 8 grid of 64 equal squares alternately light (the ‘white’ squares) and dark (the ‘black’ squares).
  >
  > The chessboard is placed between the players in such a way that the near corner square to the right of the player is white.
  >
  > [...]
  >
  > 2.3 The initial position of the pieces on the chessboard is as follows: [depiction of standard positions]
  
  It is not mentioned which pieces start closer to which player, so according to this interpretation, it is technically not illegal to start with the white pieces on the side of the board closer to Black. "Front" would then mean that pawns could only move one step (assuming you get the pieces out of the way), but not promote afterward (since the promotion rank is defined in paragraph 3.7.5.1 as "the rank furthest from its starting position"). Alternatively, a player could rotate the chessboard by 180° before moving.
  
  I'm aware that all this is nitpicking the rules, of course, that's not the intended way to play chess, I get that. So here's the question I'm actually interested in: Suppose that during a FIDE tournament, some player makes a move that is legal only by one of the above interpretations of the rules. How would this situation be resolved properly, considering Articles 11 and 12 of the Laws?
  
  **Tags:** rules, fide, pawns, loopholes
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: If I were still directing tournaments I would forfeit the game , chew your butt out, and tell you if you did such things again I would throw you out of the tournament.  
  > **username_2**: Pawns are typically uniform - if you rotate it then it is not facing in a different direction.  And the answer is of course that is not a rule.  Forward in this case always means towards your opponent.  
  > **username_3**: You seem to be ignoring the `on the same file` part of `3.7.1` and `3.7.2`. Even if you decide to "rotate" the pawn and try to move it "forward" in it's new oritenation, it would no longer be moving on the same file and thus would be breaking these rules  
  > **username_4**: the orientation and placement scheme clearly describe which figures are "closer" to which player (king and queen always closest - pawn row in front of those ...)  
  > **username_0**: @username_4 You are correct, but what isn't specified is whether the pieces closer to you should be your own pieces or your opponent's pieces.  
  > **username_4**: that makes no sense - as a chessboard is a symbolized battlefield - what king would hide behind enemy forces ? ... of course you place your figures directly before you - and as the lower right corner has to be white - this also makes clear where to place and move your figures. But even if you rotate the board by 180° - that would include shifting "in front" as well by same 180°  
  > **username_0**: @username_4 You're arguing from the rules as you know them. Of course it makes sense, and that's how I would play chess too. It's just that the things you're saying are missing from the current FIDE laws.  
  > **username_5**: This question makes me happy  
  > **username_6**: @username_4 You have commented many times in this Q&A about your preference as to which way is the front, but all of those claims rely on logic external to the game. "... is a symbolized battlefield" for example: not only is that irrelevant here, because on an actual battlefield pawns would go in whatever direction they needed to, but even if that weren't the case the real problem OP is seeing is _it's not in the rules_. I'm not saying OP would be in the right to try the tactic; it would be obnoxious, and you (eagle) would be right to call OP a cheater. For the rules lawyer, ...  
  > **username_6**: … instead of starting with reasonable logic, which can be countered with their own further-rules-lawyering logic, you need to make a stand somewhere which they cannot assail. For example: "We must all agree to be rational in our interpretation of the rules as they are obviously intended, otherwise there is no end to the problems. The rules also do not define what a 'board' is or what 'white' or 'black' are; you are expected to be sensible, otherwise you are a cheater even if you follow the rules to a T in your cheating."  
  > **username_7**: Definitely +1 Funny  
  > **username_8**: You could be a "good" lawyer.  
  > **username_9**: There's nothing in the FIDE laws that forbid a pawn from stealing the hat from a neighbouring bishop, climbing on a nearby horsie, galloping to the top of a castle and throwing the bishop's hat, pointy end first, at the opposing queen.  Good luck convincing the tournament director of the legality of this maneouvre.  
  > **username_10**: @DawoodsaysreinstateMonica I think 3.10.1 and 3.10.2 forbid that.  
  > **username_11**: Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1552/  
  > **username_12**: "...but what if it weren't?" - then you wouldn't be playing chess anymore and you could make up whatever rules you wanted. QED.  
  > **username_13**: I may be a little presumptuous, but someone once threw a Dungeon Master's Guide at you, didn't they?  
  > **username_14**: The specific piece shapes are not relevant to chess rules. The game of chess and its rules can be built at a level of abstraction that does not allow the supposed loophole that you claim. For example, pawns can never move "backward," they can move only "forward" - that is, towards the 8th rank for White or the 1st rank for Black. Similar with descriptive notation. The ranks are unambiguous. So there is nothing really to nitpick here - you are trying to make it seem like the FIDE rules are allowing or ignoring something that is possible, but it is not.  
  > **username_14**: PS Also, I noticed that you stated "Moving along the same rank is forbidden by the wording of 3.7.2." Just curious why you stated this. I see that 3.7.2 uses the word "advance," which is defined as moving forward. If your issue is that "front" is not defined, how can you accept that "advance" is?   Finally, 2.3 shows an image of the starting chess position. Any other position is by definition not legal under FIDE rules, would you agree?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 9 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_31 on 2019-12-09. Score: 59 | Accepted answer
  
  This sort of thing is what the Preface of the Laws of Chess is for:
  
  > **PREFACE**
  >
  > 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 discussed 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
  > the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special
  > factors.
  >
  > FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.
  
  No, the laws don't define what the square in front of a pawn is. But arbiters have freedom of judgement to deal with that kind of omission from the rules.
  
  And there is no way an arbiter username_29 let you move a pawn in an illegal way during a FIDE tournament based on this argument.
  
  It username_29 just be treated as an illegal move (some bonus time for the opponent, have to make a legal move with the pawn if possible, and if it happens a second time the game is lost).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_32**: Still funny that the laws don't define something as simple as this pawn direction. Yes, lots of situations around _a physical game_ of chess can't be covered exhaustively, but the rules of _chess as an abstract game_ definitely _could_ be covered in a rigorous mathematical description.  
  > **username_4**: they DO - "in front in the same file"  meaning an white A-pawn moves along the A-file - forward being ruled by your direction of assault. Always remember that chess is meant to display a battlefield - white moves from 1 and 2 towards higher numbers , black moves from 7 and 8 toward lower numbers - Applying both makes it pretty obvious what is "in front" for a particular pawn. Adding in that pawn figures don't have anything resembling a face usually opposed to knights  
  > **username_33**: I agree. Arbiters apply common sense backed up by the preface of the Laws of Chess.  
  > **username_26**: @username_4 Yes, it's obvious what is meant, but your comment does nothing to address the claim the rules don't define what is "in front".  
  > **username_28**: @username_4 You say "they DO" and then proceed to say a bunch of stuff that comes from your head, not the rules.  
  > **username_17**: @username_28 The first thing username_4 doe **is** quotes Rules 3.7.1 and 3.7.2: *"in the same file"*.  Now, this limits the Pawn to 2 directions, towards you and away from you.  While you are looking at the board, which of those directions is "in front", and which is "behind"?  
  > **username_28**: That's exactly question sir...  
  > **username_17**: @username_34 Rule 3.7.5 starts *"When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position..."*.  This indicates that the Pawn must be able to move in that direction.  (Also, the FIDE Handbook includes illustrations that make the direction clear)  
  > **username_34**: @username_17 Yeah I read that part later in another answer and deleted the comment accordingly.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_15 on 2019-12-10. Score: 21
  
  There is no loophole. Rules 3.7.1 to 3.7.4 allow pawns to move forwards along the same file, or diagonally forwards onto an adjacent file.
  
  The only argument here seems to be that "forwards" is not explicitly defined but it is implicitly defined by 3.7.5.1 which beings with the following quote: "When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position".
  
  As the pawn can only move forwards and we know that a pawn can reach the rank furthest from its start position, then forwards must mean "towards the rank on which his opponent's king was set up".
  
  The diagram accompanying 3.7.3 also make it clear which direction forwards is:
  
  > 3.7.1 The pawn may move forward to the square immediately in front of it on the same file, provided that this square is unoccupied, or  
  > 3.7.2 on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.1 or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file, provided that both squares are unoccupied, or  
  > 3.7.3 the pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece.  
  > [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/WH7Dc.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/WH7Dc.png)  
  > Source: <https://old.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&view=article>
  
  Even if for some bizarre reason you were to setup the board with the white pieces next to the black player and vice versa, there is no ambiguity as to which direction "front" is. For a white pawn, forwards is always towards the rank where the black king was set up.
  
  There are also no rules allowing for any sort of rotation of a piece, so even if you had say the viking style chess pieces where the pawn model itself has a face, the direction in which the pawn model faces has no meaning in the rules.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_16**: A pawn starting on A2 or B2 can reach the rank furthest from the player even when "forwards" is towards H2.  
  > **username_15**: @username_16 for a pawn on A2, forwards being towards H2 is explicitly ruled out by the fact that the rules refer to moving forwards along a file.  
  > **username_16**: That's a good point. However, if we define "forward" as "towards the 1st rank or towards the 8th rank", the pawns can still reach the rank furthest from their starting position. Indeed, the diagram in 3.7.3 illustrates that very definition with one pawn moving towards the 8th and one towards the 1st. The missing piece of the puzzle is "if your pawn is of color X then forwards is towards Y", which is nowhere to be found in the rules.  
  > **username_17**: @username_16 As the diagram shows the white pawn being able to choose between moving 1 or 2 spaces along the file, it is clearly in the initial position (as per rule 3.7.2) - which clears up that ambiguity of which is closest to the original rank  
  > **username_16**: @username_17 That's true, although I wasn't arguing that. My argument is that the rules don't specify that a particular pawn can only move one way along a file, and the diagram doesn't disprove that. In particular, if you take the dots in the diagram to illustrate all possible moves for each of the pawns, you could just as easily come to the conclusion that a pawn on a white square can go up the chess board while a pawn on a black square can go down.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_18 on 2019-12-10. Score: 15
  
  This is a good question, as much as some may be instinctively frustrated by it, because finding room for improvement in rulesets is useful and can prevent future issues where arbitration is required.
  
  My understanding is that "front" is defined by the piece's colour, not it's rotational orientation. This is consistent with the definition of "last rank" in the case of queening a pawn.
  
  However, I'm not familiar enough with the FIDE ruleset to know where (if anywhere) this is mentioned.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_19 on 2019-12-10. Score: 14
  
  No matter how a chess piece is shaped, FIDE rules do not define "front" or any other direction relative to the orientation of the piece.
  
  Chess pieces do not have a front, rear, direction of advance, and so forth. Only the board has these.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: The issue I'm seeing is that they don't define "front" at all, neither relative to the piece, the board, the starting setup or the player.  
  > **username_20**: @username_0: They don't define “such”, “corner” or “initial” either, I believe, but those are all English words with a mostly shared meaning. And the same holds for “front”: the dictionary included in my computer says: “the position directly ahead of someone or something; the most forward position or place”. The chessboard is in front of the player, the square is in front of the pawn.  
  > **username_21**: @username_20 The issue in this question is that the English phrase "in front of the pawn" is ambiguous. Particularly if you have a more artistic set, where the pawns don't look lathed, so that they have a defined front side (like knights usually do). Then "In front of the pawn" may just as well refer to the way it happens to be turned. Now, I know and you know that that's not how chess works, but the question here is whether there is any kind of _official_ reference to settle this issue, even in the face of pedantry.  
  > **username_19**: "...a more artistic set" I had a friend who insisted on using his set, which was some very fanciful figurines. He hoped I would confuse the queen with a bishop or something. I responded by always facing the pieces in random directions, it drove him crazy. I guess that's what happens when a couple of rubbish players look for some advantage instead of trying to improve...  
  > **username_20**: @username_21: Since a specific “front” of a pawn is _not_ defined (with an arrow or a smiling face, say), I'd say that no amount of nitpickery or pedantry (and I am not lacking in that sector either) could suggest an interpretation different from the one afforded by the default, literal meaning of the words (as I wrote, the chessboard is in front of the player, the square is in front of the pawn).  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_22 on 2019-12-10. Score: 12
  
  The official PDF of the FIDE Laws of Chess includes illustrations of the legal moves for each piece. These clearly show the white pawn moving "up" the file (including the two-square move from the starting rank), and the black pawn moving "down" (only one square, because it's shown away from the starting rank).
  
  Moving the pawn along a rank is explicitly ruled out by the text, which mentions movement only along the file except for captures, which always occur in the adjacent files on the next rank. The definition of "rank" and "file" is given in Article 2.4.
  
  The direction of "forward" from the starting rank is unambiguous, since no fewer than *three* movement rules involving the pawn only make sense for one along-file direction for each player. These are 3.7.b (double move permitted from the starting rank; this would land off-board if reversed), 3.7.d (the en-passant rule, which requires pawns of opposite colour to approach each other on adjacent files), and 3.7.e (promotion upon reaching the furthest rank from the starting rank, which would be impossible if only allowed to move away from it).
  
  The very concept of a "forward direction" being mentioned in the movement rules, but no provision being made in those rules for rotating or reversing that direction, indicates clearly that the direction implied by the above paragraph is invariant for all subsequent pawn moves as well. That which is not explicitly permitted is implied to be forbidden.
  
  Furthermore, FIDE tournaments are normally conducted with standard Staunton-style pieces, in which the pawn is rotationally symmetric and has no apparent "front". Indeed only the knights and bishops lack this property, but unlike the pawn they have rotationally symmetric movement patterns. The rules do not explicitly mention Staunton pieces except in the context of visually impaired players (who must identify pieces by touch), but providing an exotic form of chess pieces for a tournament game would be highly irregular, and could legitimately be considered unfair in itself.
  
  I do agree that an explicit definition of "forward" would make a precise interpretation easier to arrive at purely from the text. This could be "along the file, towards the rank furthest from the player". This is unambiguous even for Black, since Article 2.1 places the board between the players and specifies its orientation (though even this could be improved, since it doesn't specify that the players must sit on the side of the board at which their pieces start).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_15**: An explicit definition of "forward" would work better if it were based upon where each colour was initially set up as that is invariant and prevents the OP from arguing that a player could walk around to the other side of the board to reverse the direction of movement of a pawn.  
  > **username_23**: The Staunton pieces are explicitly mentioned in the FIDE equipment standards (https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Standards_of_Chess_Equipment_and_tournament_venue.pdf) but the wording is surprisingly weak: "Recommended for use in FIDE competitions are pieces of Staunton style". The USCF rules are a bit stronger in this regard: "The conventional Staunton pattern is the standard. [...] Minor variations in design may be tolerated, especially in sets that are widely used."  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_24 on 2019-12-10. Score: 5
  
  The "on the same file" language already takes care of this.
  2.4 The eight vertical columns of squares are called ‘files’
  
  Moving based on some notional "facing'" of the pawn would take the pawn off the file.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_25**: But you could still use this loophole to move the pawn backwards, like `2. e4-e3`. That's on the same file.  
  > **username_4**: you cant - as "forward" or "in front" is defined as "away from the player owning the pawn" .. so white moves pawns to higher numbers, black moves their pawns towards lower numbers - ALWAYS - even when taking other figures - or making an "en passent" move ...  
  > **username_26**: @username_4 " "forward" or "in front" is defined as "away from the player owning the pawn"" Cite?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_27 on 2019-12-11. Score: 3
  
  Sorry I am late to this party.
  
  The question is about how FIDE resolves this issue. I can only answer about chess problems.
  
  Although the text says that they only apply to over-the-board chess, I know from discussions with a FIDE rules writer that they have been concerned about their responsibilities as owners of a document which problemists username_29 take seriously, maybe even more literally than players.
  
  For over-the-board chess there are arbiters to help interpret the language, but what about the poor lost lambs who are fairy chess enthusiasts who want to know what happens if you change the rules. E.g. if a pawn ends up on a1 somehow, how can it move?
  
  It is always possible to read text in multiple ways. Some are just silly e.g. suppose the players are bridge players. Or suppose the pieces melt in the middle of a game and occupy multiple squares. Some of these silly ideas can form the basis of so-called joke problems. See “Outrageous Chess Problems” by Bert Hochberg for many of these.
  
  A couple more points about your idea.
  
  * If pawns can be rotated then we can’t assume in a problem that a pawn in second rank can necessarily make double move. It might already have moved and after rotation come back to the second rank again.
  * If a pawn has been rotated some angle which is not a multiple of 90 degrees, it won’t be able to move at all. Maybe this is what a dummy pawn is?
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2019-12-09. Score: 2
  
  Front is meant to be the next square that the pawn could normally advance to unless it were making a diagonal capture. Pawns and pieces per se have no front or back. Maybe FIDE should define it that way for people who want to be lawyers and pick at the rules.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: "Front is meant to be the next square that the pawn could normally advance to": As I quoted, the next square the pawn could advance to is already defined as the square in front of the pawn, so your suggestion would be a circular definition.  
  > **username_4**: no .. "front" is defined as direction of the "battlefield" chessboard - away from you, the player.  
  > **username_28**: @username_4  Where? You are just making stuff up and posting it in all the comments here, which is very unconstructive.  
  > **username_29**: @username_4 the FIDE laws don't prescribe where a player should be in relation to the board either (and indeed probably the majority of modern chess games are played with the player viewing the board from "above", on a screen, rather than sitting on one side of it)  
  > **username_4**: And somehow OP, you and a few others find reason to debate about something that is obvious to everybody playing chess. First world problems if any at all  
  > **username_4**: @username_29 as far as OP wrote himself - the players are sitting on 2 specific sides - which are described (remember the part with a white square bottom right)  and even when playing from "above" in 99 of 100 cases you play figures from the bottom up, which in most cases happens by driving the tiles with a mouse move away from you ..  
  > **username_29**: @username_4 fair point that the bottom right white square rule implies a player position, although I think it's still a stretch to say that the laws *describe* the player positions...  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_30 on 2019-12-10. Score: -1
  
  There's another loophole with 3.7.3 and it happens when you turn the pawn's front to the left or to the right. You can then capture opponent's piece at the diagonal at the previous rank. Since it's at the adjacent file, the move is a "bona fide!" chess move. ex: white pawn at e4 turning to left and capturing Knight at d3.
  These loopholes can be removed by introducing an amendment 3.7.xx like "pawns can not move to a lower rank with the exception of 'en-passant' law, where they're technically moved by the opponent one rank below and captured, if the opponent prefers at the immediate move after the two square move of the pawn."
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: That's the second example I mentioned in my question.  
  > **username_4**: there is no loophole - as every move of a pawn is foremost "forward" - away from its owner. Even moving diagonally to take a figure is still basically away from the owning player  
  
  ---
  
  