The adult player in question, literally shoved the piece with the tips of his four fingers which were all straight and together with no spaces between the fingers. His thumb never touched the piece.
The TD asked my friend, the adult, what happened and my friend told the TD what had happened in the game and showed him how he adjusted the piece/pawn. The TD shrugged to my friend and said, “Well we are playing touch move rule,…” In my opinion, as a TD, and in the opinion of a few other friends of mine that are TDs, the TD should have ruled in favor of my friend because it was obvious that he was just repositioning the pawn to the center of the square.
Also, this exact action occurred in about 3 - 4 of the first 6 or 7 moves, with the kid saying and doing nothing about the touching. The kid only stopped the clock and got the TD when my friend’s Queen was now in trouble by the touch move rule. It was also mentioned by 2 people later in the tournament to my friend that this kid has done this before and is sort of known to do that.
Also, this was my friend’s 4th rated, tournament game, ever. While I had told him of the touch move rule, I didn’t go into grreat lengths of all the possibilities of how this could happen. He most cerrtainly knows now the rules and how to handle a situation like this if anything comes up in the future. This was a lesson hard learned for my friend. And yes, technically he should have said, “J’adoube.” or, “I adjust.”.
What should happen is the child needs to learn not to play chess this way. He certainly needs to learn to play the game not game the play.
Rule 10A outlines the proper procedure for adjusting a piece without moving. Rule 10B goes on to say that “a player on move who deliberately touches one or more pieces, in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move, must move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured.” Rule 10F goes so far as to say that it is improper for a player to adjust a piece without saying j’adoube or I adjust, though it also says that such a player “probably should not be required to move the piece” if it is clear that he or she “is not acting in a manner usual to the beginning of a move,” though it warns the player against the possibility of “being forced to make an unwanted move” if he or she fails to declare the intent to adjust.
The bottom line is that when a player fails to declare the intent to adjust, the burden of proof is on that player to show that the intent to adjust was otherwise demonstrated. Thus, while a TD’s bias should normally be to deny a claim when the facts are in dispute, if it can be established that the player on move did not declare an intent to adjust, then, as I read the rules, the TD’s bias should shift in the other direction.
It is not my intent, by the way, to express an opinion on whether the TD’s call was correct in the case Ron described, since I have no way of knowing what evidence was presented to the TD.
The issue, in this case, isn’t “who is more likely to be harmed” - someone is going to suffer harm no matter which way it is called.
16 years ago, I was coaching a chess team in a very hotly contested tournament. We had been in a neck-and-neck battle with two other teams (one from the Pittsburgh area and one from the Washington, DC area), and it all came down to the final round, where we were matched against the Washington team (which was ahead going into the round). We won 2 games, lost 1, and it all came down to the 4th game: If we won or drew it, we’d take first place. If we lost it, the Washington team would pull ahead of the Pittsburgh team and we’d slip behind, ending up in third place.
Our player had built up a significant piece advantage, so things were looking good. And then, to my dismay, he started to capture a piece with his queen, failing to notice that the piece was protected by a pawn! He removed the opponent’s piece, put his queen down on the square and released it, and then, as he was moving his hand to the right to set the opponent’s piece down at the side of the board, he suddenly stopped. I knew at that moment that he had seen his mistake. And, frankly, I had to check the rulebook afterward to see whether he could at that point have changed his move. (The USCF rulebook, by the way, read differently in those days than it does now. But it said that once he had removed the opponent’s piece from the board, had placed his own piece on the square, and had released it, the move was determined, regardless of whether he had set his opponent’s piece down at the side of the board.)
Did our player (and our team) suffer harm by the fact that he was forced to go through with his move? Of course. But it would be foolish to argue that his opponent (and his opponent’s team) wouldn’t have suffered harm if our player had been permitted to change his move! It was clear that this single move (in which our player saw his error a split second too late) was going to decide the game, the match, and, ultimately, the entire tournament!
It’s silly to imagine in cases like this that there’s a way to call it that won’t do any harm. The best you can do, as TD, is to try to make sure that you call it as fairly as possible!
But the players were agreed that White didn’t declare an intent to adjust (which, according to rule 10F, is improper), and that he had deliberately touched the pawn. And that put the burden on White to demonstrate that his intent to adjust was clearly demonstrated in some other way. Of course, for all I know it may have been, and the players may have been in agreement on that! And, if that was the case, it was miscalled. But since neither of us knows exactly what the TD asked or was told, I don’t think it is reasonable for us to try to second-guess his decision.
Wouldn’t the fact that he pushed the piece with four fingers and didn’t use his thumb constitute support for his position that it wasn’t an attempt to take it?
I’m surprised this never came up during your friend’s club games. Not this exact instance, but the importance of being very clear about touch move. Even in casual games, I’ve seen people get pretty, um, touchy about such issues.
If the players are in agreement that that’s what happened, certainly! And that’s why it’s important to get them to talk as much as possible about exactly what happened before you explain the details of what the rulebook actually says.
Well, by the reading of the rule quoted, my friend should have been exonerated. Since he was so inexperienced in tournament chess, he simply accepted the rule as presented, “…you touched my pawn, you must take it if you can…”.
Remember this was a young boy that had his parent set up the chess board, pieces and playing area for the boy before the game. He was rated in the 1400 range. My friend just went into “treat this kid like a kid” mode and, as he has done in our chess club, just repositioned the off centered piece to the center of the square for the child without any concern. He had done this at least 3 to 4 times already in the game before this one adjust and calling of the rule by the child, leading to the loss of my friend’s Queen.
My friend agreed that he had touched the piece, because he had to reposition it to the center of the square from the edge. If he would have been aware of the completeness of the rule, I am sure he would have disagreed with the boy and debated with the TD. And if they would have looked at the rule, my friend would have been fine.
I am going to contact the TD when I remember to call him and when he is available. He is a friend of mine as well, the TD. I’m curious to hear his side of the story as well.
A kid rated 1400 is not one who needs mommy or daddy to set his board for him. Any kid playing in an “adult” tournament, needs to act like an adult. This means properly placing pieces on the center of the square. Unfortunately too many kids like to do the wrist flick thing when they place their pieces, so they’re almost always off center.
When I play kids who constantly drop their pieces off center, I will ask them to try to center their pieces before letting go. The kids who really annoy me, are the ones who leave their piece off center and then j’adoube it on my time.
That raises an interesting point:
Does the rulebook explicitly prohibit a player from adjusting pieces while their opponent is on the move? Rule 10A says “A player who is on the move and first expresses the intention to adjust (e.g., by saying j’adoube or I adjust) may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.” But Alex has pointed out that rule 10A doesn’t say that these are the only circumstances under which a piece may be adjusted. A player could obviously interfere with his opponent’s play by adjusting pieces on his opponent’s time (particularly if his opponent is under time pressure).
Someone needs to make a claim via Rule 20G. Annoying behavior prohibited.
In one event I had player A, when it was his turn to move, say the proper j’adoube and then adjust every piece so it was “off center.” Player B returned the favor by repeating those words and centering each piece on his move. They both complained to me via 20G. I ruled that no one could adjust pieces without first getting my permission.
As a final note to the story of my friend/student and the little 1400 rated boy, I spoke with the TD this past weekend.
The TD is another friend of mine. When I realized he was the TD, I decided to call him.
He vaguely remembered the situation because he has a pat way to handle such touch move claims. It goes something like:
First he checks to see if there were any witnesses. Barring none, he proceeds.
TD: (to the accused piece toucher) Did you touch the piece?
Accused Piece Toucher: Yes.
TD: Did you say “I adjust.” or “J’adoube?”
Accused Piece Toucher: No
TD: Well then you need to move (or capture where appropriate) that piece you touched.
He then went on to say that he expected the player in that situation to appeal his initial decision.
I have to honestly say that I would have handled it the same way if this had happened in a tournament that I was directing.
My friend the TD did say that if he would have known about this kid doing as he was, he would have watched the game and stopped the kid from placing the pieces off center as he did.
We have all learned from this situation and this thread. I know that my friend the TD, another TD from Chicago that I have recently corresponded with and I, at a minimum will all be more aware and sensitive to such situations in the future.
First off we have learned to get into communication with both players to find the truth of the situation. We also are more aware of the true and complete intent of the touch move rule.
I sort of feel sorry for the kid at his next tournament if the TD is one that has learned from this situation. Of course he willl ultimately be better off for being educated in playing tournament chess and that is all that matters in the long run.
That line of questioning is good when you have experienced players because the experienced player will know about intent and challenge the TD. An inexperienced player probably doesn’t understand about intent and accidental touches and is more likely to accept his fate. I’ve seen too many kids take advantage of their less experienced opponents and nail them on a touch move call that was in reality and accidental touch.
Which is why many TDs that work scholastics will ask the player to show them how the opponent touched the piece. I’ve lost track of how many times the touch was with an elbow or the side of the arm while reaching for another piece.
I’ve actually seen directors ask an adult player how they touched the piece, or how they were holding the piece when they put it down on a square. Often by the 3rd or 4th demonstration it becomes clear what happened.