Like this ?....
Do you find it Odd when a Queen is an Upside Down Castle ?
Sort:
I don't mind at all. That used to be the way I played when I learned chess and we didn't have an extra queen in the set. Haven't seen it done in a while though.
But that's the thing....How do we know it's a queen ? It could be a horse or other, no ?
That's hilarious 5th !....and thank you for this morning's laff !....
....
I find it odd when a Rook is called a "castle" (or calling a Knight a "horse" or "horsey"), but no, an upside down Rook doesn't strike me as odd... If you see the felt bottom of the piece on top, you easily identify it as a promoted piece.
Martin_Stahl wrote:
I don't mind at all. That used to be the way I played when I learned chess and we didn't have an extra queen in the set. Haven't seen it done in a while though.
I had to do it recently... for a 3rd Queen. Guess who won? 
I likes it! a castle doing handstands is way cooler than a little pawn morphing.
On a physical board I haven't ever seen a second Queen represented in any other way. Having extra Queens in a set would obviously be preferable, but in the absence of that upending a Rook seems the easiest solution.
A dead field mouse also works well, but do state it's a Queen in case your opponent mistakes it for a horse.
There's no provision for it in the rules of chess, it's just convention. Strictly you're meant to stop the clock and find another queen I think. So if your opponent promotes to an upside-down rook, you're perfectly entitled to say it counts as a rook, as which way up it is is irrelevant!
NomadicKnight wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
I don't mind at all. That used to be the way I played when I learned chess and we didn't have an extra queen in the set. Haven't seen it done in a while though.
I had to do it recently... for a 3rd Queen. Guess who won?
Polygamy ftw?
is that even legal to turn over a rook and call it queen?
According to an older forum topic it depends whether it is a FIDE event (no) or a USCF one (yes), that forum topic is a couple of years old though.
I've even seen people turn a pawn on its side, to call it a queen, in bughouse.
NomadicKnight wrote:
I find it odd when a Rook is called a "castle" (or calling a Knight a "horse" or "horsey"), but no, an upside down Rook doesn't strike me as odd... If you see the felt bottom of the piece on top, you easily identify it as a promoted piece.
I promise I won't call you NomadicHorsey....
I call it caballo. I couldn't imagine calling it caballero...
Murgen wrote:
According to an older forum topic it depends whether it is a FIDE event (no) or a USCF one (yes), that forum topic is a couple of years old though.
....as to #16 (madhacker):
I had heard it did matter. I will try to get a federation judgement out of the rulebooks now.
NomadicKnight wrote:
I find it odd when a Rook is called a "castle" (or calling a Knight a "horse" or "horsey"),
I do this all of the time in real life when people start questioning me about my level of proficiency at chess. As soon as you mention the "horse" or "castle" pieces, they seem satisfied and apparently cease to feel a need to play.
From: http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12723/668/
FIDE USCF
| It is illegal to use an inverted rook to mean "queen" when promoting a pawn. If a promotion piece is not readily available, the player must stop the clocks and ask the arbiter for assistance. (Technically, I think an arbiter would be within his rights to rule that the player had promoted to a rook. I don't see anything in the Laws of Chess that require the base of the piece to touch the chess board!) | The USCF rules explicitly state that, when promoting a pawn, an upside-down rook is to be considered to be a queen. |
It's kinda annoying to me....yet interestingly inventive. How do you feel ?