Simple, because in this scenario the action takes place slowly, in front of several spectators as well as the TD, there are no illegal moves, and there is no question of what happened. Its just a matter of interperetation of the rules. So, player X is playing player Y. Player X is on move, and without saying ‘adjust’ picks up piece A as if to move it, then sets it right back down where it was. The same player X then does exactly the same thing with another piece B, and it is possible for player X to make a legal move with piece B. Player X then completes a legal move with the first piece, A. Lets say that the opponent Y would rather have player X move piece B. Rule 10B clearly says that the first piece touched must be moved or captured, and so it seems that payer X’s completed move of piece A will stand. Other TDs have agreed with this ruling.
However, I believe that it is more fair to require a move with piece B if opponent Y insists on it, for 2 reasons: #1.) It is opponent Y’s perogative if and when to make a touch-move claim. No-one else can insist that such a claim even be considered, and opponent Y does not ever have to make such a claim if they do not wish to. So, player Y should be allowed to make a claim based on player X touching piece B before completing the final move with piece A. What about the ‘first’ touch of piece A? Opponent Y is just choosing not to include that in their claim. #2.) My idea includes a penalty for player X touching piece B. If the move with piece A is allowed to remain, there is no penalty against player X for touching piece B. It would be possible for a player to intentionally touch several pieces before completing a move with the first one that they touched, without the opponent being able to object (except for annoying behavior).
Also, my idea doesn’t create much complication - the logical result of it is the same as saying that if a player touches more than one piece, it is the opponent’s choice of which must be moved. As I said, I believe that the strictest application of the rule will leave player X with their choice of moving piece A, but if that is so, is it worth reconsidering in the future?
I think you are confusing the RULE with the ENFORCEMENT of the the rule. The RULE requires a player to move the first piece touched REGARDLESS of claims by the opponent. IMHO, the player that first touches piece A has an obligation to move that piece even if his opponent doesn’t make a claim.
Rules are frequently only enforced in response to a claim, but my view is that players still have a moral and ethical obligation to follow the rules, even if their opponent doesn’t “force” them.
For that matter, what if the other player hadn’t been at the board (and wouldn’t have known that the first player had touched either piece). In my view, the player that touched a piece is STILL obligated to move the first piece touched.
That could be pretty darn annoying. Especially in scholastic tournaments. As a TD, I grimace at the thought of player X (a first grader) placing his hands on ten pieces, slowly, one at a time, and then having player Y try to decide which one X should move. Especially if they’re not playing with a clock. In fact some coaches might encourage this as a strategy in case scholar’s mate fails. I think it would make chess a whole different game–but then that’s the point of changing a basic rule.
And what the following scenario? Player X has 15 minutes, and player Y has 15 seconds, and player X decides to move his hands all over the pieces like keys on a piano? I think I would prefer the current rule.
Seems to me that player Y can’t pick and choose which piece X touched must be moved. If Y wishes to make a touch-move claim, then according to the rules the first piece X touched must be moved if a legal move is possible, not whichever piece suits Y.
Y could perhaps make a claim of X annoying his opponent by touching multiple pieces, but that’s a different issue.
That last thought opens up a can of worms. Imagine the player arguing that he didn’t have to move the piece he touched (forgetting his queen was under attack) because he had touched his queen already while the opponent was away from the table.
This whole question explains why some players like to touch that attacked queen immediately so they can’t be caught in a touch-move boo-boo.
That could in itself be a major boo-boo. What if there is a zwischenzug (such as a check) available before the queen has to be moved? What if there is a better way, such as an interposition or a capture, to parry the threat? What if an interposition is the only way to parry the threat, because the queen is otherwise trapped?
This is NOT a question of “interpretation of the rules”. It’s a case where you, personally, would prefer a different rule.
good luck with that.
By the way - if Player B complains, there may very well be a penalty for Player A touching the second piece. It’s just not under the “touch move” rule.
Your idea is appealing in some ways, but it would create more complications than you realize.
For example, suppose X touches two pieces, then Y objects. Y isn’t sure which piece he wants X to move, so he thinks about it for a long time – while X’s clock is running! If Y were clever, he could even wait until X’s time expires and then claim a win.