How would you rule this....

Running Chess Tournaments
41

In my original post how do we know the player with the white pieces picked up his room, suddenly realized he grabbed the wrong piece and continued to place it on d4 to give the appearance of that his ‘intention’ was to grab the bishop instead?

Now let’s take it further in this scenario that it’s using the FLC wherein the illegal move would end the game so he pauses the clock instead of starting his opponents clock because he can try to scam the concept of the interpretation of ‘intent’ and he did not complete the illegal move as his opponents clock was not started.

42

There’s always one. . . . :slight_smile:

43

We don’t. That’s the problem with Mr. Gijssen’s view on this point (as related in this thread).

I’ll leave the second question to someone else.

44

You can ratchet the suspicion level even higher if you want. If both Ba1xd4 and Ra2-d2 (pinning the knight and thus deferring the recapture for a move) are both viable moves, and if the player is low on time, then playing Ra2xd4 and pausing the clock to get a ruling can give the player some “free” time to use to analyze the position during the brouhaha.

45

This thread started off with overwhelming unanimity, which put me off a bit. I didn’t necessarily disagree with the ruling everyone proposed, but it bothered me that everybody was so-o-o-o comfortable with it. Could there never be a case for the opposite ruling, at least if the TD was watching and the intent was obvious?

Then along came Geurt Gijssen, arguably the finest, most knowledgeable, and most articulate FIDE arbiter on the planet, and shocked everybody with the opposite opinion. I guess now I felt a little better about my uncertainty.

Then I started wondering, how would I react as a player, if my opponent committed a fingerfehler similar to those described here?

If my opponent grabbed his rook on c1 and immediately and unhesitatingly played Rc1xd6, I would likely believe his intent was obviously Rd1xd6, and would prefer that he be allowed to play his intended move. I would not appreciate it at all if the arbiter stepped in and forced my opponent, against the will of both of us, to ruin an otherwise interesting and exciting game by playing a losing move with the Rc1.

Of course, if my opponent did a double-take after grabbing the Rc1 and before touching my Bd6, I might then be suspicious that he had actually intended to move the c-rook in the first place and was now trying to pull off one of the dubious escape stunts described upthread. In this case I might prefer that the arbiter force my opponent to move the c-rook.

Tough call for an arbiter.

But a rule that makes it tough for the arbiter also gives that same arbiter more wiggle room to judge each situation individually, on its own merits.

Also, I don’t think there’s really much difference between the FIDE and USCF rule here. The USCF version tries to dance around the question of “intent” by using phrases like “in such a way as to begin a move”, but it’s really the same thing. It seems to me that, even with the USCF version, there may be some wiggle room for the TD here.

Bill Smythe

46

Touch move is listed as needing a claimant. Illegal move has an explicit rule saying the TD should not call attention to illegal moves in sudden death time pressure. There is no such clause in Touch move.

If you want to all Rc1xd6 to be changed to Rd1xd6 then all you have to do under USCF rules is not call it.
Other than situations mentioned above (adjustments with or without saying adjust - picking up a piece that has fallen over or been knocked off the board would fall under 10F / Appearance of Adjustment) there isn’t really wiggle room. I’m not sure where the USCF-rules wiggle room is after picking up the c1 rook and then taking the d6 knight (barring the wiggle room of the opponent not claiming a touch move violation).

47

You seem to be playing with words here, trying to draw a distinction between whether the player deliberately grabbed the c1 rook or intentionally grabbed it. But if you look up the definitions of the two words, you’ll find that the dictionary makes no such distinction.

As soon as the player removed the knight from the d6 square, it was clear that he intended to capture it with the d1 rook (since that is the only piece that could legally capture the knight). And if he removed the knight before touching the c1 rook, then USCF Rule 10B not only allows him to capture with the d1 rook, instead - it requires him to do so. The problem arises if he touched the c1 rook first, because in that case, the issue under the touch-move rule is what his intent was when he touched the rook - not when he touched the knight. And that raises the possibility that his intent could have changed after he touched the rook, but before he touched the knight.

The difference is that the USCF rule (in the TD tip) defines a clear, objective criteria for determining whether the touching of the piece was deliberate: At the moment when he touched the piece, did it appear that he intended to move it?

Geurt Gijssen’s argument, if I understand it, was that the player intent was clearly to move the d1 rather than the c1 rook because:

  1. the rooks were side by side, so it was an easy mistake to make,
  2. only the d1 rook could capture the knight at d6,
    and
  3. it would be stupid for him not to capture the knight.

But players sometimes do stupid things (which is why games are lost). It could be argued that touching the c1 rook when you meant to touch the d1 rook is stupid, making it clear that the player has done something stupid. And when a TD or arbiter starts trying to make judgments about what is too stupid to have been deliberate, he has, in my opinion, stepped onto a very slippery slope!

Bob

48

Under USCF rules, this shouldn’t be a problem, since the TD only has the right to uphold or deny a touch-move claim. He doesn’t have the right to initiate such a claim. So if you really thought your opponent’s intent was clear, you could simply choose not make a claim under Rule 10B.

Bob

49

That’s true, but many of the USCF events I play in are also FIDE-rated, so it’s entirely possible the TD-alias-arbiter might intervene here on his own. What am I supposed to do then?

My point is, there are slippery slopes on both sides of this argument.

Bill Smythe

50

If an event/section is FIDE rated, then the Laws are controlling, and arbiters are required to intervene if they observe infractions. There should be no choice involved in that case.

51

And this is the sunny side of Geurt Gijssen’s posture. He is saying that the arbiter would not be required to force the player to move the c-rook in this case, because of lack of intent.

Yes, I do realize there is a dark side to this posture, as well.

Bill Smythe

52

Minor correction, for those of you citing the case involving Rc1xd6 vs Rd1xd6. If you look at the example originally cited, you’ll see that the black piece on d6 was a bishop, not a knight. (The black bishop had just captured a white knight.)

I made this same mistake too, until I noticed and corrected it.

This minor point has no effect on the debate, of course.

Bill Smythe