e4e5,
No, I would personally have him make some other legal move.
.
Right, and because it’s largely for fun (I don’t direct money events), I tend to be on the tolerant side, because that’s less interfering with the game.
I remember a touch move situation I observed some years ago. The player picked up his king, then realized there was only one square it could move to. He looked up at me and asked if touch move applied. I asked him what he thought was right. He agreed that it did, moved the king, and was immediately checkmated. (I think he would have won the game had he not touched his king.)
That game cost him a gold medal in that event. He wound up with the bronze.
In David’s rather ugly situation (which isn’t all that hypothetical, I’ve witnessed ones almost as bad), Rule 10B applies, and the player must move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured.
Since his pawn cannot move, he must capture the pawn he touched with the queen, since that is a legal move.
Due to the fact that the players notation reflected what his intentions were, I personally would not have applied the 10c rule, in that particular situation. I don’t think that call, right or wrong, would be fair to the game.
oops, minor error in my position as described.
the queen was on c7 (a queen on d7 could not legally capture on c4)
by the way…
this is an actual incident, and (as if it matters) between two very experienced players.
.
Rob, suppose I write down one move and a few minutes later make a completely different but legal one. By your logic the intent of my written note is binding and I should have to make that move.
Just to clarify the situation regarding the original post, yes it was from a real game, G/20 tournament, not for money but definitely for rating purposes.
The player (playing white) picked up his queen on e6 and touched a bishop on b6 with the queen (not the hand) and the bishop was not “displaced” (see rule C10). The player noticed that capturing the bishop immediately lost his queen and so replaced the queen back onto the original square. There was no other safe square between the queen and the bishop (either d6 or c6). The player of the black pieces immediately summoned me to ask me to make a ruling on whether or not the bishop must be captured.
If the player definitely touched the bishop with the hand then it is case closed, but having looked in the rule book, and especially quoting 10C, it does say the piece has to be “displaced” when touched with another piece, and doesn’t say anything about whether the move was “intended” or not. I asked two witnesses who both say that the player of white never touched the bishop with his hand, but definitely touched it with the queen.
Hope this clarifies the intent of the original question!
Thanks,
Chris
I don’t think the piece has to be displaced, just touched. That’s the way I read it, and understand it
I don’t think you are reading 10C correctly. What it says is " … a player on the move who deliberately touches one or more pieces of each color, or who moves the player’s piece and intentionally displaces an opponent’s piece with it, must capture the opponent’s piece with the player’s piece" (followed by several clarifications on illegal moves and multiple pieces). Accidentally touching a piece (without the intention to move or capture) never invokes the touch-move rule (though it may involve “distracting or annoying the opponent”). The only real dispute here seems to be the interpretation of “displace.” The argument that the player did not “touch” the opponent’s piece with his hand, and did not “displace” it with his piece because it didn’t move, is a hyper-legalistic one, and as a TD I would not entertain it for a second. The intent of the rule is perfectly clear – if you touch one of your opponent’s pieces with anything with the evident intention of capturing it, you must capture it if legal.
Well, once again the devil is in the details.
Given the additional details, it seems like there WAS intent to capture the bishop, especially since there was no other safe square for the queen.
Once the peice is touched and the intent is there, it’s over. It doesn’t matter whether it’s touched with a peice or the hand.
John, the problem with rule 10C is deliberately touches and the opponent on move making a claim. The director needs the clarifications from both players, the reason for the displacement of the piece. If the piece was displaced, what level of displacement did the piece had. Even if I was a witness on the board, each displacement of the piece is different from one game to the next or one move to the next. Then every claim of deliberately touches must have there own ruling.
Rob, how can you make a finding of facts of intent? The only way I can find out if the move was the intent of the player, is a statement of the player of the intent. The last time I recall, I am not a mind reader.
Mike,
I agree with the point you’re trying to make. As they say though, each case is different. As a TD you must follow the rules but more important than that is consistency. From the wording it appeared as if he made the move knowing he was going to take en passant. Yes, the move was incorrect & yes it was illegal but did it warrant the end of the game? Did he move the piece with any other intention but to take en passant? Who do you think would be more disturbed by the ruling? Let’s say I ruled as I stated. The game continues and his opponent loses the game. If it was me, I would be upset over losing but it wouldn’t be because of the ruling. I might not like the ruling but may agree it was fair. While on the other hand, if I ruled the way you stated, I would have an unhappy customer who would literally feel cheated and rightly so. It just seems like there was no question about the intent of the move. I don’t feel that a player should lose a game in that particular scenario. I have called many touch moves & I have had touch moves called on me. In this situation though, right or wrong, I would rule the same way every time.
Douglas,
It doesn’t take a mind reader it takes some detective work. First of all the witnesses said the piece was touched. Also, we were told there were no other moves for the queen. Surely you can look at a position & realize what someone was trying to do. Why did he pick up the queen & touch the bishop? Because he saw it was a bad move once he got to the destination. That was the feeling I got from the first post & it continues to appear true.
This is a judgement call; the TD simply has to exercise his discretion. Note, however, that the reason for wording 10C this way is to exclude from the touch-move rule obviously unintentional contact. If your elbow brushes the Rook on h1 while you are leaning over the board, do you have to move it to g1? If your hand hits the top of the King while reaching for the Knight on move 2, must you play 2. Ke2? Of course not.
In most cases, there is no real difficulty in determining intent. In the two cases above, there clearly is none. If the player grabs a piece with his hand, then stares at it for a few seconds and releases it, he clearly intended to move it, and must do so. In borderline cases – when, for instance, there are conflicting claims from the two players – my usual practice is to let the player make the move of his choice but give him a stern warning (“not guilty and don’t do it again”), and watch the game more closely.
In the specific case that started this thread, it seems that the player picked up his piece and touched the opponent’s piece with it. (Important caveat: This is a pure hypothetical, none of us were there.) This wasn’t an inadvertent brush; no plausible reason has been given for the contact to take place unless he intended to make a capture. The only thing that is causing confusion here is the word “displace” being construed as “cause perceptible physical movement.” That is a valid dictionary definition, but the argument is pure sophistry.
John,
I think you’re 100% correct.
This is the quote that started this debate. There are a number of questions I have with this problem before making a final ruling.
- What square was the Queen and Bishop on?
- Were was the Queen going to go, if not to capture the Bishop?
- Could the Queen capture the Bishop in a legal move?
- Was the player in time trouble, and made the move in a fast state?
- Did the player have on the scoresheet to capture the Bishop?
- Some body fuction the player could not control during the move?
There is no finding of facts, its’ just only what Chris gave us. If I have to read between the lines, I can say the player had to sneeze so hard he could not control his hand when moving the Queen. I can say the player was going to capture the Bishop and then change his mind. I can say the player has voices in his head, and David Bronstein said nooo that lose. We all can read between the lines, but it does not answer the question.
fantasychess wrote
Given the additional information Chris provided, my ruling is that the player is obliged to capture the bishop. Continuing with the Shakespearean theme, to me a touch by any other name is still a touch. I dislike the use of the “displacement” requirement because that is open to argument on the semantics of whether displacement means a permanent change in the target piece position or a temporary change while the other piece was touching it, whether displacement of an angstrom or a millimeter or a furlong distinguishes a displacement from a touch. The spirit of the rules is that a move was initiated with intent and contact commits the player to finish what he started. The board position is quite helpful for the finding of fact regarding intent. Here, an interview of the moving player would likely not change my ruling. He could say he didn’t really mean to capture the bishop, but this is belied by the fact that the queen traveled 2.5 squares along the rank toward the bishop. The witnesses also help to refute a claim that the pieces didn’t really contact.
Since everything we’re discussing is hypothetical. Let’s continue.
a. What square was the Queen and Bishop on? Could have been same rank, file or diagonal but obviously the Queen could capture.
b. Where was the Queen going to go, if not to capture the Bishop? You have to see the board but it was mentioned later the Queen had no safe place between itself & the Bishop. With that being said it had no business touching the Bishop.
c. Could the Queen capture the Bishop in a legal move? It must have been otherwise it could not legally take it and would not have been an issue.
d. Was the player in time trouble, and made the move in a fast state? Doesn’t matter
e. Did the player have on the scoresheet to capture the Bishop? That would have been a no brainer
f. Some body function the player could not control during the move? I think that would have been mentioned.
Typically when looking at the board you can get an idea of a person’s intention. If not, ask. If they give you some kind of harebrained reason it’s highly likely it was deliberate. If there are no witnesses & the person doesn’t admit it then you have to give the benefit of the doubt.