Determined move

Running Chess Tournaments
1

This forum has recently been inundated with proposed ADMs dealing with touch-move, completed move, time controls, default delay, etc etc etc.

The area of determined move, however, has received only scant attention.

I don’t really care for the idea of individual delegates proposing ADMs dealing with rules changes – they should go through the rules committee instead. Therefore, I shall attempt to steer this new discussion toward the concepts, and away from any specific wording.

The phrase “determined move” conjures up two possible meanings:

Meaning 1. A move is determined at the moment when it becomes acceptable to press the clock. For the rest of this post let’s use the word executed to refer to a move which has been determined in this sense of the word.

Meaning 2. A move is determined when (due to touched pieces, etc) there is only one remaining allowable move. Let’s use decided to describe a move which has been determined in this alternate sense.

Most people would probably agree that “executed” should mean something along the following lines:

1a. A regular move has been executed when the piece has been released on its new square (i.e. the player is no longer touching the piece after moving it).

1b. A capture has been executed when the capturing piece has been released on its new square and the captured piece has been removed from the board (in either order).

1c. A promotion has been executed when the pawn has been removed from the board and the queen (or other replacement piece) has been released on its new square (in either order).

1d. A capture-promotion has been executed when the pawn and the captured piece have both been removed from the board and the queen (or other replacement piece) has been released on its new square (in any order).

1e. Castling has been executed when both the king and the rook have been released on their new squares.

By contrast, the idea of a move being “decided” is a more problem-like concept, perhaps even reminiscent of the recent 14D threads in the All Things forum. :slight_smile: The following definitions might be reasonable:

2a. A regular move is decided when the piece has been released on its new square. (In this case “decided” is the same as “executed”.)

2b. A capture is decided when the player has touched both the capturing piece and the piece to be captured. (At this point, due to touch-move, all other moves are illegal.)

2c. If a piece has only one legal move, the move is decided as soon as that piece is touched.

2d. If an opponent’s piece can be captured in only one way, the move is decided as soon as that piece is touched.

2e. If a player has only one legal move, period, then the move is decided as soon as the opponent has completed his previous move! (You can’t really argue with this logic, as long as you’ve accepted 2a through 2d already.)

2f. We really don’t need to talk about promotion or castling just yet.

So what’s the problem here? Well, somewhere between the 4th and 5th editions, confusion developed between the two meanings of determined move. The “executed” concept had been in effect with the 4th edition rulebook. Then, in about 1996, somebody got the bright idea, in effect, to replace the “executed” concept with the “decided” concept, but only in the case of a capture. This amounted to adopting 1a through 1e, and then replacing 1b with 2b.

So, ever since 1996, we have been stuck with an absurd rule. A capture is determined once both pieces have been touched. Presumably, then, a player can simply touch both pieces, then press his clock without actually moving or removing either of them.

This rule needs to be changed – quickly, before some player starts following it.

Bill Smythe

2

If the capture resulted in a checkmate, then the game would be over after touching the piece and touching the opponent piece to be captured, with both pieces still on their squares.

It is worth noting that the FIDE rules have no explicit concept of “determining” a move. Somehow, it does not seem to make any difference in most cases.

3

I don’t agree with that, because I don’t think the rules committee and in particular the chairman of the rules committee should have a veto over rules changes. I do think the rules committee should review all ADMs that affect the rules and make recommendations about them at the annual meeting: recommend approval as is, recommend approval with amendments, recommend rejection, or recommend referral to the rules committee for further study. Maybe there could be a formal process where this review could take place before the ADMs are actually submitted, or after they’re submitted and before being published in the agenda for the delegates meeting. That way the author of the ADM might agree to make changes recommended by the rules committee, or might withdraw the ADM if it’s clear that it doesn’t have the support of the rules committee.

I haven’t submitted my proposed ADMs yet but I’ve emailed them to rules committee chairman Dave Kuhns.

Excellent point, Bill. You’re right: the rule in the 5th edition is absurd and we should go back to the 4th edition rule, possibly with an explanatory note.

The 4th edition rule is:

In the 5th edition the rule is:

Not only does the 5th edition rule not say anything about actually moving the capturing piece to the new square and removing the captured piece from the board before pressing the clock, but since the move is determined as soon as the player has deliberately touched both pieces it could be argued that if the capture produces checkmate or stalemate the game ends immediately (9E) once the player has touched the pieces, and there’s no need to actually perform the capture on the board.

Since I’m not shy about proposing rules changes :smiley: here is a suggested rule which is essentially the same as the 4th edition rule but with an explanatory note:

(Edited to correct the reference to rule 5H instead of 5C and to add a reference to rule 9G.)

4

The determination of captures in the 5th edition is probably being confused with touch/move. If you touch your own piece and an opponent piece, then it is required to capture the opponent piece with the touched piece of your own.

5

It’s the same mistake I made in my original proposed ADM to change 9D. My proposal was that a pawn promotion move would be determined if the player moved a pawn to the last rank and announced what piece the pawn was being promoted to. What I should have said was that if the player announced what piece the pawn was being promoted to, the move would not yet be determined but the player could no longer promote to a different piece. In Bill Smythe’s terms, I said that the move would be executed if the player announced the promotion piece after moving a pawn to the last rank whereas I should have said that the move would be decided.

6

If memory serves (and it may not) this is one of those rules that changed via the delegates between editions. I can find no notes that say the editors of the 5th edition had any reason to revise this rule. (but then I did not read all of the thousands of notes I made).

7

I think you’re right, Tim, because I have the new wording written in my 4th edition rulebook in pencil. Apparently it was on a rules changes list before the 5th edition was published.

8

A cautionary tale regarding the Delegates approving rules changes. It is probably better for the Delegates to approve resolutions regarding the “spirit” of desired changes, and to leave the drafting of the change to a designated Rules Editor.

9

Here’s another possible wording for a revised rule 9B:

I think this reads more naturally than my first proposal. Here the words “determined with no possibility of change” mean “decided” rather than “executed”. I don’t think this could be misinterpreted as meaning that if a player touched both pieces without physically performing the capture and the capture resulted in checkmate or stalemate that the game would immediately end. Rule 9E says:

In other words, even if normally a capture is determined when the player has touched both the capturing piece and the piece being captured, if the capture results in checkmate or stalemate the capture is determined when the player’s hand has released the capturing piece on its new square (“upon release” as described in 9B).

10

That’s the way I remember it, too. The change appeared in a rating supplement around 1996.

When I was on the 5th edition rulebook revision committee, I may have tried to get it changed back, but got shot down by one or two vociferous rules committee members who wanted to keep the 1996 revision.

Bill Smythe

11

You may be suggesting (deliberately or inadvertently) that, although the “executed” concept of determined move should apply to moves other than checkmate or stalemate, the “decided” concept may be more appropiate for checkmate and stalemate.

This might be a reasonable point of view, but then, by the same reasoning, shouldn’t this distinction also apply to certain other situations? For example, suppose one of a player’s pieces has only one legal move. If the player touches this piece, and the only legal move by this piece produces checkmate, shouldn’t this count as checkmate as soon as the piece is touched? This seems analogous to the capture situation you mention.

The use of the word “determined” is simply a convenience on USCF’s part. It helps define the point at which it (1) is OK to press the clock, (2) is proper to offer a draw, and (3) avoids a time forfeit in the case of checkmate. But now it appears that one definition (“executed”) may be appropriate for situations (1) and (2), whereas the other (“decided”) may work better for situation (3).

Bill Smythe

12

But my first proposal is more consistent in using the word “determined” to mean “executed” rather than “decided”.

This rule would benefit from a three step process: the move is decided with no possibility of change when the player has deliberately touched both his own piece and the opponent’s piece, is executed when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player’s hand has released the capturing piece, and is completed when the player has pressed the clock. The game would end after a move resulting in checkmate or stalemate had been executed.

13

I don’t think Brian was saying that checkmate or stalemate should end the game if a capture has been “decided” but not “executed” but that this was an unfortunate consequence of the poorly written 5th edition version of rule 9B.

14

Actually the change was made in 1994. From the 1994 Annual Rating List:

                                      [b]Bits and Pieces[/b]                                      (Edited by Larry King)

                                       [b]Rule Changes[/b]

The delegates approved the following rule changes (also see “TD Corner” in this issue) at the 1994 U.S. Open. The changes are effective January 1, 1995.

                     [b]RULES CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE[/b]                                         [b]USCF RULES COMMITTEE[/b]                                              [b]AUGUST 13, 1994[/b]

9BReplace “the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player’s hand has released the captured piece” with “the player has deliberately touched both his or her own piece and the opponent’s piece (see rule 10C).”

15

Thank you for the correction on the year. I knew it was somewhere along in there.

To get it completely right, yes, both concepts (decided and executed) might have to be included. I wonder, though, whether the extra complexity is worth the purity it would achieve. It might be best in practice just to use the “executed” concept throughout, and keep the word “determined” to mean executed.

Reverting to the pre-1994 definition of determined (for captures) should solve most of the problems and keep things simple.

Bill Smythe

16

I’ve just thought of something. Rule 9B starts with the words “In the case of a legal capture (7C)…”. So what’s a legal capture? We look at rule 7C:

If the player merely touches the two pieces there hasn’t been a legal capture so rule 9B doesn’t apply. At any rate, that’s how I will rule if some smart aleck tries to perform a capture that way.

I put 9B in the same category as rules 8F2 to 8F4: the rules are badly worded, subject to misinterpretation and should be amended, but in the meantime players shouldn’t be allowed to take advantage of the bad wording. Common sense should prevail.

17

That would indeed be simplest, changing the 4th edition term “punches the clock” to the 5th edition’s “presses the clock”. I’ll support that if it becomes an ADM.

18

Actually, “determined move” doesn’t mean either one of these. A move is said to be “determined” at the moment when a player whose choices were not restricted to one by the touch move rule becomes restricted to a single choice. By contrast, a move is said to be “completed” when the player’s opponent is free to move.

A classic example is castling (in a situation where castling is legal). At the moment when the player deliberately touches his king (without indicating that he intends to adjust rather than move it), he is obligated to move the king somewhere. At the moment when he releases the king on the square that is two squares toward an unmoved rook, the move is determined as castling on that side. But the move is not completed until he has placed the said rook on the crossed square and hit his clock button.

Under USCF rules, if the player instead releases the rook on the square adjacent to the king, the move is neither determined nor completed. If then he releases the king on the other side of the rook, at that moment the move is determined as castling on that side, but the move is not completed until he hits his clock button. But if he simply hits his clock button without moving the king, the move, at that moment, becomes both determined and completed.

While I was not privy to the discussions that led to the change in rule 9B from the 4th to the 5th editions, I think the reason is rather clear:

If someone read the old rule, as it was worded, they could have easily misinterpreted it to mean that a player who had touched his own piece and an opponent’s piece which it could legally capture was not committed to capturing the said piece until he had removed the piece from the board and released his piece on its destination square. And while it is true that this was clearly prohibited by the touch move rule, the question was undoubtedly: Why have a move completion rule for captures that invites misinterpretation when the same rule could readily be modified to eliminate this possible misunderstanding? Your proposal seems to be that the current clear wording should be changed back to the older confusing wording because you think the older wording is more esthetically pleasing!

I agree.

Bob

19

The “determination” concept is important for checkmate and stalemate in the USCF rules. Checkmate and stalemate occur immediately upon determination and end the game. In those cases, determination and completion are the same.

So if you are fine with the game being over by checkmate or stalemate when a player has merely touched his piece and the opponent piece, then this wording is fine.

But that means a TD can be called to a board with a player’s flag having fallen and mate-in-one on the board (but not checkmate). One player is claiming time forfeit. The player on move is claiming a win by checkmate because he touched his piece and the opponent piece before the flag fall, and that capture is the checkmating move. Opponent says: no, he didn’t touch both pieces before the flag fall. Your options: (A) Player with fallen flag wins by checkmate; (B) Player with fallen flag loses by time forfeit; (C) It’s a draw because neither player can prove that he won; (D) both players win; (E) both players lose, because players shouldn’t create stupid scenarios.

20

That’s what Bill Smythe is calling “decided”.

But that interpretation is directly contradicted by rule 10C.

Although the 1994 rule change eliminated one possible, but unlikely, misunderstanding, it introduced another one: it made it sound like touching both pieces not only “decides” the move but also “executes” it. In other words, 9B could be misinterpreted to mean that a player can capture a piece simply by touching both the capturing piece and the piece to be captured and then pressing the clock, although this contradicts rule 7C.

It’s not a question of esthetics but of meaning. The current rule 9B is wrong because it doesn’t say anything about removing the captured piece from the board and moving the capturing piece to its new square. In the 4th edition rulebook as originally written the word “determined” was consistently used in the sense of what Bill Smythe calls “executed”: once the move had been determined the player had done everything necessary to make the move on the board and was free to complete the move by pressing the clock. The 1994 change to rule 9B used “determined” in a different sense, as what Bill Smythe calls “decided”, meaning that the player no longer has the option of making a different move.

The simplest fix would be to go back to the original 4th edition rule. I’ve offered two alternatives which add wording to rule 9B to clarify all the steps involved: once the player has deliberately touched both pieces he is forced to capture the opponent’s piece that he touched with his own piece that he touched, but the capture hasn’t actually been performed until he’s removed the opponent’s piece from the board, moved his own piece to its new square, and released his hand from the piece. Once he’s done all that he can complete the move by pressing the clock, except if the capture results in checkmate or stalemate in which case the game is already over under rule 9E.