Please forgive me for this question, but I want to understand the logic. This has happened when I was a TD twice, I know the rules, and they are clear as glass.
Player A moves his pawn to 8th rank grabs a Rook; he changes his mind and grabs a Queen; He places and releases move complete. Player B complains.
He claims grabbing the Rook was INTENT.
Now I know 10H and 9D apply. but doesn’t grabbing the Rook indicate intent??
Perhaps, but it isn’t binding.
Can touch move apply to a piece that isn’t on the board?
I had a similar situation in one of my own games, a G/10 encounter. I was poised to promote a pawn. Without touching it, I picked up a queen from the captured piece pile and started to put it on the queening square. I realized that was an error and put the queen back down and selected a different move. My opponent immediately stopped the clock and called the TD. I can’t recall now whether I had actually touched the promotion square or not, but I do remember that there was no disagreement on the facts. The TD ruled that since I had not touched a piece on the board touch move did not apply, so my move was allowed to stand. I’m not at all sure that was the correct decision.
This is the correct decision. Of course I am assuming the queen did not touch the square. At that point it is not just a random piece of wood, but a chess piece.
Alex Relyea
The logic is that intent has nothing to do with chess rules, only concrete evidence / actions such as the piece released on the promotion square.
The undisputed intentional nature of picking up the rook is matched by its utter irrelevance under either the FLC or US Chess rules.
It’s the same as when players pick up captured pieces, play with them, etc. Touch move does not apply. It’s not something on the board.
Rule 10H makes it pretty clear in this instance:
FIDE is a little more restrictive in that the piece is confirmed once it touches the promotion square rather than when released. But before that any piece is available regardless of what is handled.
No. Rule 9D. Pawn Promotion. In the case of the legal promotion of a pawn, the move is determined with no possibility of change when the pawn has been removed from the chessboard and the player’s hand has released the new appropriate piece on the promotion square, and completed when the player has pressed the clock. (Italics mine.)
As long as you don’t release the piece on the board you are free to change your mind and choose another piece.
Sounds reasonable. The TD did say that he could conceivably have penalized me in some way based on “annoying behavior”, especially since my opponent was down to about 10 seconds with no delay. However, all three of us knew I wasn’t doing anything intentionally.
Not wishing to win a game because of such an event, I offered a draw, which was accepted.
The TD should have looked at rule 10H, Piece touched off the board. “There is no penalty for touching a piece that is off the board. A player who advances a pawn to the last rank and then touches a piece off the board is not obligated to promote the pawn to the piece touched until that piece has been released on the promotion square.” “No penalty” means no penalty.
And he imposed none. So he got it right. In my case, however, I did not actually touch the pawn. Just the off-board queen.
“So he got it right.” Not quite. “The TD did say that he could conceivably have penalized me in some way based on “annoying behavior” …”. In my opinion he shouldn’t have said that.
Agreed. You did nothing improper.
Perhaps I didn’t represent his comment adequately. It was more like “you clearly did not violate touch move. If you did anything that gained an unfair advantage, it was to annoy your opponent by faking him out with the queen promotion that would have lost the game for you, then not actually fall for his trap. But since you obviously were not trying to gain an unfair advantage, there is no penalty”. Not that he made any comment about the position on the board, mind you. To put it another way, “the only thing I could conceivably bust you for is trying to annoy your opponent, but that’s not warranted either”.
The rule ought to be (and the FIDE rule apparently is) that, if you cause a piece off the board to touch a square on the board, you must promote to that piece on that square if legal.
Bill Smythe
Most of the time when USCF and FIDE differ I think the FIDE rule is simpler and better. The FIDE rule is fine here, but I don’t mind the USCF rule. It is a little more lenient. I really don’t have a problem with someone changing their mind while they are still holding the piece. Once they let it go, though, all bets are off.
Not quite. Rule 4.4(d): “If a player having the move… promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has touched the square of promotion.”
http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories/downloads/2016/Arbiters-Manual-2016.pdf
So, not a square on the board, but the square of promotion.
I would like to see Mr. Scheible promote to a queen on f7. I stand by Mr. Smythe’s interpretation.
Alex Relyea
You miss the point, Alex. If I pick up a queen and touch f5 with it, the choice of promotion piece isn’t yet determined.
Yes, but according to Mr. Smythe that is because promoting on f5 is not a legal move.
Alex Relyea