The player thought he had grabbed his bishop and moved it to the d4 square.
Upon looking he had grabbed the rook instead and moved it to the d4 square.
The rook CAN move to other legal squares however any rook move loses the game.
The player with the black pieces stops the clock and summons the arbiter making a touch move claim.
How would you rule in this situation -
(a) it is touch move and thus move the rook, or
(b) there was no intention of moving the rook and it was accidental (such as brushing over another piece when attempting to grab another one).
Under USCF rules I’ve heard of this one being ruled both ways.
I’d say that his actual attempt to move it makes a convincing case that the player on move deliberately touched the piece in a manner that can be reasonably interpreted as the beginning of a move.
From a Local TD’s interpretation of the rules, I would say that the touch move rule applies in this case.
As Jeff pointed out, he touched the piece with the intention of moving it. It was not an incidental contact with the piece while intending to do something other than move that piece.
The player made an error by grabbing the wrong piece. There is an actual chess term for this, fingerfehler. It means a mistake of the finger in moving a piece.
I don’t see what a rook move losing the game has to do with it. He picked it up and determined a move with it. You have to be careful what you pick up and give appearance of intention to move it. I wonder if this was in time pressure. Too bad. Should have played faster earlier and not gotten into such time pressure that you can’t be careful to pick up the intended piece.
Are TD’s responsible to assess intention in US Chess? How can we possibly know what is in a player’s mind? That kind of requirement requires us to include the skill of the players in our rulings and figure out what a master v class B v class E player might mistakenly do or not intend to do over the board.
I had to rule against an NM recently based on a determined move. Well, of course, a 2200 player isn’t going to intentionally drop a rook by placing it on a square where it can be taken unless he’s getting something really good for it like mate, but anything can and did happen. It was extreme time pressure. Two reliable unbiased witnesses said he released the rook. His rating, what he meant to do, or the impending outcome of the game had nothing to do with my ruling. Ruling was appealed and upheld by committee.
This situation is covered pretty well by the TD tip for Rule 10B (regarding touch-move claims):
Often, after some further discussion, the TD will find that some of the opponents really did physically touch the piece in such a way that it appeared as if they intended to move it (not an accident); however, they will explain that they really intended to move another piece; therefore, they believe that since the “touch” was not literally “deliberate” (since they intended to move another piece), the rule was not broken. The TD will have to uphold the claim in this instance.
The statement of the problem is a bit misleading. “The player thought he had grabbed his bishop and moved it to the d4 square” is not an objective statement. The more accurate version would be: “The player claims that he thought he had grabbed his bishop and moved it to the d4 square.” But an alternative explanation that the TD must consider is: “The player picked up his rook, intending to move it, but then realized that any move he made with the rook would result in an immediate checkmate. So he placed the rook on a square to which the rook could not legally move but the bishop could, intending to falsely claim that his touch of the rook had been inadvertent.”
The typographical correction doesn’t change the proper ruling. In either case, White moves the rook, and the clock is adjusted accordingly. The amount and nature of the adjustment varies, depending on the ruleset and/or the amount of time remaining on White’s clock.
For the claim to be only touch move, and not illegal move, white would not have hit the clock yet and thus white’s move is not yet even determined. If white did hit the clock then it is also an illegal move situation with potential time penalties (note that at the scholastic nationals, even with the sudden death time control, rules for the event have said that time adjustments for illegal moves are not made unless at least one player has less than an hour remaining).
Is the move not determined once the piece is released on its destination square? I concur that the move is not completed until White presses his clock. I inferred White had pressed his clock, based on the OP’s statement that Black stopped the clocks. I readily grant that my inference may well be incorrect, but most players would only stop a running clock if it’s their own clock that is running.
The exact penalty depends on information we have not yet been provided (specifically, the controlling ruleset and the game’s time control). In most situations, though, I think all respondents thus far have agreed that White must move the rook.
Note, however, that if the game is being played under FIDE Rapidplay rules, White actually loses when he presses his clock - and if an arbiter in FIDE Rapidplay sees the illegal move completed, he must enforce the loss of game penalty.
G/25 w/5-sec delay; to my knowledge the Rapid games the event were not FIDE rated and it’s unclear if they were using the FIDE Laws of Chess or the US Chess Rules in this instance (unless I missed it).
An illegal move is not determined by releasing the piece. In fact, it can be inferred that it is impossible to determine an illegal move. The basis for this inference is rules 9A through 9D. These rules define determination of the move in case of transfer to a vacant square, capturing, castling, and pawn promotion, respectively. All four of these rules use the word “legal.” For example:
On further thought, it seems reasonable that it is impossible to determine an illegal move. Determination means the move is “cast in stone” and cannot be changed; an illegal move must be changed (yeah, yeah, within two or ten moves under US Chess rules, and probably under the FIDE Laws of Chess in the next revision). Notice also that correcting observed illegal moves is explicitly stated as a reason for director intervention in a game (21D2).
If a move can be completed, then it would seem to logically follow that said move can be determined. I note that Article 7.5.a of the Laws of Chess specifically refers to the completion of an illegal move. (I do not have my electronic copy of the US Chess rules handy.)
I further note that I would not allow a player to retract an illegal move (or the intentional touch of a piece that has no legal move) without appropriate penalty simply because the move hadn’t been “determined”.
From the facts presented thus far, I do not believe it is possible to ascertain whether the illegal move was observed.
I cannot agree with the first sentence. Completion of the move is the factor that decides when the opponent is on the move (6B). Determination of a move means that there is “no possibility of change” (the phrase used consistently in rules 9A through 9D). But there clearly is a possibility of changing the illegal move, at least within either two or ten subsequent moves by both sides (depending on whether there is time pressure). By pressing the clock after making (but, I argue, not determining) an illegal move, the player has incorrectly put his opponent on the move.
I did note with great interest the use of the word “completed” in the FIDE Laws of Chess. I suppose I have developed a particular sensitivity to the use of the words “determination” and “completion” in the context of chess moves owing to the US Chess rules’ use of the words. However, the Laws of Chess do not make the distinction between “determination” and “completion.” (This is one case where I think the US Chess rules are superior, but this also comes at the cost of making the clock an integral part of the rules. Note that the first five articles of the Laws of Chess stand entirely on their own even for a casual (non-tournament) game played without a clock.)
Consider the following hypothetical. You witness the following: White touches a knight, fully intending to move it. He then realizes Black’s rook is pinning the knight against the king. Of course, any knight move would take that knight off the relevant file or rank, so it is impossible for White to move the knight. White takes his hand off the knight, makes a legal move, and presses the clock. Black claims White has violated “touch move.” I must be misreading your previous paragraph. Surely you don’t mean that you will uphold the claim and penalize White in this instance?
I agree. After I wrote that, I realized I expressed myself quite poorly. I did not mean that the instance under discussion had been observed. I was trying to emphasize the need to correcting illegal moves by pointing out that, even with the strictly non-interventionist philosophy of the US Chess rules, the director is allowed to intervene in the game without a player making a claim to compel an illegal move to be corrected.
What’s to stop someone from using this line of reasoning to claim that he did not make an illegal move? After all, if the move cannot be determined, how could it have ever been made? I would strenuously argue that the possibility of such an argument could not have been what the framers of US Chess Rule 9 intended.
I don’t believe you misread the sentence. However, I do believe you imputed meaning that isn’t there…which means my devious plan to confuse you is working.
If a touched piece cannot be legally moved, and this is realized prior to that illegal move being completed, then there is an appropriate penalty - in this case, “none”.
I agree with that particular point.
It’s also probably appropriate at this point to apologize to Mr. Ballou, as well as everyone following along at home. I’ve been trying to leave out some specifics related to this situation (which the OP has not yet revealed) that would explain some wording I’ve chosen.
