Why Is the Rook so Short?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
xuhongkang123 wrote:
The shortness of the Rook has now become a topic all chess.com members must see because this thread, at its prime, has gone beyond the limitations of being a mere topic discussion. It is now the lounge of Chess.com, the ultimate chatting room, a bay to lay your restless heart and words...
Thanks for hitting the milestone. Well done.
You make a good point. It has become a chat room of sorts. Having a title like this one makes it easy for people to veer far from the topic, which is good because a constant discussion about the rook's height would get old quickly. We wouldn't have gotten close to 800 if we stayed on this topic. 
@xuhongkang123: Since you believe this thread is worth visiting, how about spreading the word? More visitors will make it better.
By the way, if you like this one, you'll probably also like My Rematch Request was Rejected! That one is a parody of the countless threads created by members who were denied their God-given right to rematches. Like this one, the thread veers off topic regularly. Try it out if you haven't already.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/my-rematch-request-was-rejected
Mar 4, 2018
0
#744
The curse of the upside down rook
The 2017 Canadian Championship seems to have ended with some controversy after the final playoff game saw an all to familiar issue involving promotion. IM Nikolay Noritsyn and GM Bator Sambuev had tied for first place, and were even after 5 playoff games. In a 5m+3 blitz game Noritsyn promoted a pawn, but not being able to find a queen went for the old blitz standby of an upside down rook. At this point the chief arbiter stopped the clock and ensured that the piece on the board was a correctly placed rook. Sambuev then promoted (to a queen) and went on to win.
Despite the rules concerning promotion being quite clear for a number of years, players still manage to get this wrong. The key point is that if the piece you wish to promote to is not available you can stop the clock and request the arbiter fetch you a piece. In this case Noritsyn could not find the queen in among the already captured pieces, and there is a suggestion that Sambuev had the piece in his hand. (NB This is not against the rules, and indeed should make the case for stopping the clock even more obvious).
Personally I have little sympathy for players who get this wrong. While it may be argued that it is hard to think straight with seconds left on the clock, this is one of the few situations where you are legally allowed to 'steal' thinking time. If you recognise that promotion is likely to occur and you are short of time, the smarter thing to do is to remind yourself to stop the clock if necessary 30 seconds out, rather than kicking yourself after the game is over.
BTW I must commend the chief arbiter IA Pierre Denommee for handling the situation this way. The alternative would have been to say nothing (assuming Sambuev did not complain) and then default Noritsyn if he moved the rook diagonally.
Despite the rules concerning promotion being quite clear for a number of years, players still manage to get this wrong. The key point is that if the piece you wish to promote to is not available you can stop the clock and request the arbiter fetch you a piece. In this case Noritsyn could not find the queen in among the already captured pieces, and there is a suggestion that Sambuev had the piece in his hand. (NB This is not against the rules, and indeed should make the case for stopping the clock even more obvious).
Personally I have little sympathy for players who get this wrong. While it may be argued that it is hard to think straight with seconds left on the clock, this is one of the few situations where you are legally allowed to 'steal' thinking time. If you recognise that promotion is likely to occur and you are short of time, the smarter thing to do is to remind yourself to stop the clock if necessary 30 seconds out, rather than kicking yourself after the game is over.
BTW I must commend the chief arbiter IA Pierre Denommee for handling the situation this way. The alternative would have been to say nothing (assuming Sambuev did not complain) and then default Noritsyn if he moved the rook diagonally.
Mar 4, 2018
0
#745
disagree with both Arbiter and author. Violates the spirit of rule; folks know it's a queen (as if he'd really make a rook not queen, and if so like he would not place it right side up, as though he'd make a knight and lie it sideways) plus not only that, disqualify the guy holding it and keeping it from him.
Firstcomment wrote:
disagree with both Arbiter and author. Violates the spirit of rule; folks know it's a queen (as if he'd really make a rook not queen, and if so like he would not place it right side up, as though he'd make a knight and lie it sideways) plus not only that, disqualify the guy holding it and keeping it from him.
I remember that story. I'm with you on both counts. When a rook is placed upside down, everybody recognizes it as a queen. That should confuse nobody. But if the rules required the use of an actual queen, the opponent should've been sanctioned for hiding it. That amounted to cheating.
ilovesmetuna wrote:
would you believe ?? rooks are limbo dancers. who saw that one coming ?
Not me.
@chessspy1: We need to talk about your attendance.
Being a company historian would be a cool job. The only company I know of that has one is Smith & Wesson but no doubt there are others. Roy Jinks has been S&W's historian for almost 50 years. What a job! The guy can take a week off without using vacation time or even letting anyone know. What if the CEO asks, "Roy, where were you last week?" That's an easy one for the company historian. "I was researching the Model 3 American. Why do you ask?" Now the CEO is worried that he's offended the most famous company historian in the world. "Oh. Well, I just asked because I gave you a raise on Tuesday and I was looking forward to telling you. That's all." Oh yeah, company historian must be a great gig.
Whe you play online, all pieces are almost same height 😊
AbdullahAlsheber wrote:
Whe you play online, all pieces are almost same height 😊
You've given me something to think about but I won't.
To be or not to be. That's not really a question. (Jean-Luc Godard)
Chinese chess pieces are all the same height, but you need a degree in linguistics to know which piece is which...
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
Chinese chess pieces are all the same height, but you need a degree in linguistics to know which piece is which...
That's why I don't play Chinese chess. The game looks interesting but I just don't have time to get the degree in linguistics.
chessspy1 wrote:
No comment? Is that from your collection? Work with me, man.
Ah, Fred,
I wish, I really do. Leuchars were one of the early retailers of Jaques Staunton sets in 1849. They even went as far as scrubbing off the JAQUES stamp and substituting their own LEUCHARS stamp.
Worth bloody thousands.
There are one known Leuchars overstamped wood set and several in ivory.
I own none of them sadly.
chessspy1 wrote:
Ah, Fred,
I wish, I really do. Leuchars were one of the early retailers of Jaques Staunton sets in 1849. They even went as far as scrubbing off the JAQUES stamp and substituting their own LEUCHARS stamp.
Worth bloody thousands.
There are one known Leuchars overstamped wood set and several in ivory.
I own none of them sadly.
Me neither. 
