Are there any specifics under which a fistful of rook that may be legally moved would not compel the fist that holds the rook to move the rook?
I don’t quite agree. FIDE simply uses a different word. Where USCF says “completed”, FIDE also says “completed”. Where USCF says “determined”, FIDE says “made”.
If you’ll do a rule-by-rule comparison, I think you’ll find FIDE makes the same distinctions USCF does.
Bill Smythe
While making his move, your opponent knocked the rook on the floor and hit his clock. You picked up the rook and put it back on the board (it has a legal move).
In an analogous situation Geurt Gijssen, who has officiated in a couple of world championship matches, ruled that under FIDE rules the touch move rule was NOT violated. This was a question put to him on the ChessCafe website. The situation was this: White has rooks at d1 and c1. Black has just captured White’s Knight on d6. There are no other pieces or pawns on either the c or d files. White picks up a rook and captures the Black Bishop on d6, only in his haste he did this with the rook on c1. Black claimed a touch move violation. Gijssen said that in his opinion the touch move claim was invalid because there was no intent to move the c1 rook. The intent was clearly to move the d1 rook. Food for thought.
Which is why I prefaced my remarks with the phrase “under USCF rules”.
This is an area where an NTD/IA may rule differently on the same situation depending on the rule-set.
That seems silly. What’s the point behind this? I understand with 90+ minutes remaining a 2 minute penalty at first sounds useless. But, 89 minutes later that same player may be very glad he got that 2 minute bonus earlier. Besides by doing this does that mean players can make illegal move after illegal move without impunity until the reach the 1 hour mark?
I have a feeling this is mainly geared towards the lower levels where illegal moves are aplenty and the games are way faster than the time control. Then it saves the TDs from needlessly adjusting clocks right and left. That, of course, assumes there is a clock on the game in the first place.
This is a way of completing a move without technically determining it, though I have heard people on the Rules committee say something on the order of “completing an illegal move determines it”.
One of the reasons an illegal move has a penalty is that it distracts the opponent while the opponent’s clock is running. If the illegal move is corrected before it is completed then none of the opponent’s time ran off and thus that reason for a penalty disappears.
Saying that an illegal move should be penalized even if the clock hasn’t been hit would mean that a player moving a bishop from c1 to g5 and having it slip out of the hand, landing upright on h4, could be penalized even if it was immediately corrected to g5 and only after the correction was the clock hit (Gjert’s focus on intent makes that a FIDE non-issue).
Your guess about the lower boards sounds good, but I’m not on the scholastic committee or council and I don’t know the reason with any certainty. I’ve heard of scholastic games with both players making multiple illegal moves, and adding two minutes for each in a G/25;d5 may result in doubling the time for the game (I’ve sometimes been forced to dedicate a TD for a single game just to prevent dozens of illegal moves). I’ve talked with the coaches of chronic illegal-movers and they are often pulled from the event until they learn the movement rules better.
I will also say that even in adult games, adults that would be receiving the bonus are often inclined to decline it when there is more than an hour left on the adult’s clock.
(bolding mine)
I don’t believe the bolded text above can correctly be ascribed to me. (It is quite possible that it is not being so ascribed, but as it was written in direct reply to a post of mine, it seems appropriate to point out that the text does not accurately reflect my position.)
As for Mr. Gijssen’s interpretation, as related by Mr. Parker, I will only say that I have yet to personally see a situation where a player with “a fistful of Rook” (to borrow Mr. Price’s turn of phrase) has been able to successfully argue that said fistful was not a proper harbinger of intent.
Mr. Gijssen’s interpretation, whether it is correct or not under FIDE rules, is frightening to me in that it requires the TD to determine intent. The essence of his position is that obviously he intended to capture the piece with the rook that could legally do so and he just grabbed the wrong piece (which happened to be of the same type). In OP’s situation, it was a different type of piece and not a capture.
Both of these distinctions strengthen the argument that the player intended to use a piece other than the one grabbed, however microscopically. But the TD still has to make a decision of intent which USCF avoids having the TD make.
I suggest we get the NFL rulemakers to define for us what a “football move”, I mean a “chess move” is. Which parenthetically reminds me of how absurd it is to hear golf announcers use the term “golf shot” instead of just shot. Whatever type would it be in the context they use it in?
I would say that a player who “grabs a fistful” of rook on c1, when he also has a rook on d1, and uses it to capture a bishop on d6 is not displaying intent. The intent clearly was to grab the d1 rook unless you think it was the player’s intention to commit an illegal move.
This seems to highlight a difference between the FIDE Laws of Chess, which Geurt Gijssen was interpreting, and the USCF Rules. FIDE Law 4.3 requires that it be the player’s intention to move the piece he touches. USCF rule 10B requires only that the piece be touched deliberately, and that it be in a manner that can reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move.
With FIDE intent, a player can be analyzing between two different moves by two different pieces (near each other). If he grabs a piece to make a move and only then sees a problem with it, it looks like he can then use the piece to make the move the other piece could make and claim that he really intended to make the other move (obviously it would have to be quick as it would otherwise call into question the stated intent - though the TD would have to be the one to decide that intent and if there were no unbiased witnessed to that particular move he might get away with a much longer pause).
This may have been a reaction to one (apocryphal?) story of Fischer absent-mindedly playing with his h-pawn and then going to make a move and suddenly seeing that the h-pawn was erroneously taken from the board and not from the captured pieces near the board.
This was primarily a response to post 300745 that seemed to imply that an illegal move could be penalized even if the clock had not been hit.
As it turned out, you did have a later post that stated the appropriate penalty was “none”.
Actually, it’s a little more complicated than this even under USCF rules. Let’s say that you are called over to a board where the two players tell you that the one who was on move just captured a knight at d6 using a rook that had been on c1 (which was clearly illegal). The player who was on move tells you that he had intended to capture the knight using his other rook, which was on d1, but picked up the wrong rook.
What you need to inquire about is how the capture was performed. There are three possibilities:
-
The player picked up the rook on c1, removed the knight on d6, and placed the rook on d6.
-
The player removed the knight from d6, and then picked up the rook from c1 and placed it on d6.
-
You cannot determine which of the above possibilities occurred, either because the players do not remember how it was done or because they disagree, and there are no objective witnesses.
In the first case, under Rule 10B, the player who was on move must return the knight to d6 and move the rook that was on c1 somewhere else.
In the second case, under Rule 10B, the player who was on move must return the rook on d6 to c1 and move another of his pieces to d6 (probably the rook from d1, though this would not be required if he had another piece attacking the d6 square).
In the third case, under the TD tip at the top of Rule 10, he should let the player who was on move determine which of the above options to use.
Bob
If the player really intended, when he picked up the rook on c1, to capture the knight on d6, then your argument is correct. The trouble is that a TD has no way of determining whether this was his intent.
Another possibility, which the TD needs to consider, is that the player picked up the rook on c1, intending to make a completely different move, but then realized that Rxd6 would be a better move. So he decided to try to worm out of the touch-move rule by capturing the knight with the rook in his hand, knowing that this was illegal, so that he could then claim he had not “deliberately” picked up the c1 rook.
The TD tip for Rule 10B is really a clarification of what is meant by “deliberately” in the rule: If, when the player touched the piece, he did so in a way that would make it appear, to an objective observer, that he intended to move that piece, then the TD must uphold the touch-move claim.
Bob
The game in question was not submitted for rating. The game in question was using the Laws.
To say that the TD has no way of determining intent is not correct. Your opponent has just captured your piece on d6. You are now a piece down with no compensation. You have rooks on d1 and c1. You pick up a rook and recapture on d6, thus restoring the material balance. Since only the d1 rook is capable of this action, clearly your intent was to use this rook to effect the recapture. That you may have inadvertently used the c1 rook instead of the d1 rook does not change this fact. This is a summary of the explanation provided by IA Geurt Gijssen.
Under the FIDE Laws of Chess, where the touch-move rule, 4.3, requires intent I deny the touch move claim, as IA Geurt Gijssen explained. However, under USCF rules the situation is different. Clearly the player grabbed the c1 rook deliberately. It was not brushed with a shirt sleeve; it was not knocked over accidentally. It was taken hold of in the normal manner. Further, after grabbing the rook it was moved down the board to be placed on a square. In all ways it looks like the beginning of a move. Therefore, all requirements of USCF Rule 10B are met, and under USCF rules I uphold a touch move claim.
Scott is right, of course. The underlying philosophical difference is USCF rulemakers don’t want the TD to need any chess skills to make their ruling.
There are some significant differences between the situation related by Mr. Muradian and the situation upon which Mr. Gijssen ruled. For example, in the former, no move was actually made.
That said, I believe most IAs with whom I have worked would likely view a player’s purposeful grabbing of a piece as the clearest and best sign of intent available. I further believe that a player in either situation who is compelled to move the piece he grabbed is likely SOL on appeal.
Mr. Parker is a mentor, and if I recall correctly, was actually present at the tournament in which I was first introduced to the phrase “fistful of rook.” The phrase was said to me by Atlanta player Donald Jackson, who had a gift for gab that rivaled Emory Tate’s. In time pressure and a difficult position, I grabbed a rook and immediately realized that moving said rook gave up mate in two too late. Without missing a beat, Don correctly pointed out, “You got a fistful of rook!” in order to preserve the touch move claim if I were inclined to be a weasel. As I often did against Don, I grimaced, stopped the clock, and resigned.
Scott remains a valued mentor even though I disagree with him in this instance. Under either the FLC or USCF rules, it is reasonable to make inferences against a player who has done something like move a rook from c1 to d6. Capturing the piece on d6 is evidence of intent. A fistful of the rook from c1 is more persuasive evidence of contrary intent. To permit moving Rd1-d6 rewards a player who has just moved Rc1-d6 (?!?).