Move takeback -- part 2

[timjust]

See my comments below.

Tim

@tanstaafl

I’ve heard privately from some others that I’m wrong on this issue. I’m even told (second hand) that Tim Just thinks I’m wrong. With such strong support on the other side I think I need to reexamine my previous statements.

Since I did not read all the posts I can only state that the arguement seemed to be about what rule was broken and what the punishment should be. I got the impression you want to throw the bum out of the tournament. That seems a bit harsh. It would be an interesting case on appeal.

I’d like to hear authoritatively from Tim Just directly or from members of the rules committee, because the rule looks clear to me but others seem to equally strongly disagree with me.

The case under discussion is this (I’m only going to mention the details of the case where my opinion and the others seem most at odds with one another):
A player (during his turn) picks up a piece and releases it on a vacant square. The move would be a legal move. Before hitting the clock, the player returns the piece to its original square. Then he moves another piece and completes the move by hitting the clock.

1. In my opinion, this is contrary to rule 9A. Rule 9A says that in this situation the move has been determined “with no possibility of change” once the first piece was released. I interpret this literally. It means that even if the opponent doesn’t object, the move has been determined and is fixed and immutable.
2. Further, I think that if the person that made the move (or at least determined it) tries to take it back that this is “cheating” – intentionally breaking the rules to take unfair advantage of your opponent. (I would not assert this last part in the case of a beginning player that doesn’t understand “no takebacks”).

How do you know it is cheating? It might be. Or, it might be an experienced player that is used to casual speed chess. In most areas of this country casual speed chess allows “clock” move instead of “touch move.” It is in the best interest of everyone that the the TD find out what the fellow has to say for himself first.

3. I think rule 9A makes it very clear that this “determination” of the move happens before the clock is pressed and doesn’t require the clock to be pressed at all for the move to be determined “with no possibility of change”.
4. I also think the rules clearly describe “touch move” in rule 10B and that the situation I described above is clearly different than what 10B covers. Or perhaps I should say, that rule 10B ALSO covers this case but is irrelevant because 9A is even more strict. The player did a lot more than merely “touch” the piece – he moved it to a new square and released it there.

Six of this half a dozen of the other. If you want to say 9A applies here–OK! If you want to say 10B applies (my choice)–OK! How does the rule choice effect the penality?

The other opinion is that this IS a touch-move issue. That what the player did is OK unless his opponent makes a claim, and that only a minor penalty should be assessed (if any).

Please let me know if I have not worded the other opinion fairly. It seems to me that the other opinion is clearly contrary to the rules but with the number of people that disagree (including, second-hand, Tim Just), I’m not so sure.

Yep, 11H and 21D2 do allow a TD to intervene in a game to correct illegal moves. It is also clear from 21D3 that warnings are more in order than expulsions. 11J. “Deliberate illegal moves.” does allow the TD to impose penalties. I just disagree with your penality in this case, I think it is too harsh in an unclear situation. I would suggest you also check out 11H1 Director as witness only. Unless the TD can police every game then intervention becomes problimatical.

Be aware this is not FIDE chess where arbiters are given more power to intervene. USCF chess has a far lower ratio of TDs to players so we encouraged TDs to not intervene. The players are encouraged to make claims instead, if they choose to do so. In our tournaments we want the game decided by the two players as often as possible. I would suggest that is why 14H (insufficient losing chances) has caused so much grief over the years; i.e., it goes against the grain of not having the TD intervene.

There is a huge difference between getting assistance from a computer/person to make a move (now, that is cheating!) and the situation described here. How do you “know” the player is cheating?

Would you throw out a player that moved his light squared Bishop onto a dark square on the other side of the board? How about the player that moves his Knight in a long “L” shape? What about a Rook that starts out on one/rank and ends up on the other side of the board on another one? Which kind of illegal moves are cheating and which kind are mistakes?