I know I said I wasn’t going to post again here, but this is new data. One potential unintended consequence of this proposed change would be one player trying to make a claim or offer a draw while the other player is moving. Another would be that in the “time trouble” scenario I outlined yesterday, player B’s behavior would now be legal. Neither of these consequences is desirable. It needs to remain clear that player B does not have the right to move until his opponent’s move has been completed (not just determined).
In my opinion, the simplest way to deal with this is to leave 6B (and all subsequent rules mentioning “on move”) alone, and clarify rule 6A (the right to move) by emphasizing that a player only has the right to move during the first half of his “on move” period (between the completion of his opponent’s move and the determination of his own move). With this change, the overall rule might read more smoothly if the current 6B and the revised 6A were flipped (so that the definition of “on move” comes first, and the explanation of “right to move” follows).
I will also offer somewhat of an apology to Kevin. I was overlooking the “right to move” aspect of things (which I think he was confusing with “on move”). It is true that determination of the move “bifurcates” the “on move” period such that player A no longer has the right to move, so Kevin is right about that, and I was missing it. However, it’s extremely important (see my first paragraph, above) that player B does not have this right either, until after player A completes his move by pressing the clock. Otherwise you will have “clockmanship” and mass confusion. Player A must have the opportunity to make claims, offer draws, etc. and press his clock before player B can move.
ETA: Also, rule 9G1 might need a slight tweak, because claims of triple occurrence of position (rule 14C) are properly made before determining a move, not after.
probably off-topic (?) but what was the arbiter’s ruling in the recent US Championship when Mr Sevian absent-mindedly picked up Mr Niemann’s king during a “live” game?
I think we passed from the realm of what is technically allowed a long time ago. I did understand that it would have been an even trade, but from what I guess about the abilities of the players, approximately equal material is far from an obvious assumption.
For example, if Black was down a piece it makes a huge difference if the claim is upheld because he can expect to win if it is or lose if not. If material is close then Black has little incentive to take a draw because he wins if his claim is upheld but has a playable position if it isn’t.
A TD needs to be really careful in a situation like this in order to prevent Black from feeling bullied. There was no good reason for Black to have accepted the draw then. The draw offer was still good until after the ruling and any appeals and White’s move. I hope at the very least you pointed that out to Black after the game.
I also disagree with what happened. Black’s suggestion should have been interpreted as an improper, but very real, draw offer. I think in this case White accepted and anything Black did at that point was irrelevant to the game. Please review 14B2 and understand that a player saying something along the lines of “Are you playing for a draw?”, having his opponent nod, smile, shake hands, and leave the tournament hall while the player sits and waits for the opponent’s flag to fall and reports a win is never rewarded when he tells the TD “But I didn’t offer a draw, I was only wondering if he was playing for one.”
The level of gamesmanship that can take place at tournaments still amazes, perplexes and dismays me. It’s one of the reasons I stopped playing and eventually stopped organizing and directing, too.
And now chess cheating accusations and lawsuits are making national headlines.
Cheating and sports are things that have gone together for decades if not centuries. The Houston Astros might be years living down the ‘trash can’ years (I’ll be rooting for the Phillies to the extent that I even bother to watch the World Series, once the Cubs are eliminated all I really care about is that neither St. Louis nor the Yankees win) but there were quite a few reports during Judge’s quest to break Maris’ HR record about sign stealing that routinely occurred at Yankees games back in Maris’ day and probably contributed several HRs to Maris’ total that year.
I was, frankly, surprised at Black’s offer. So I verified with each of them that agreeing to a draw was really what they wanted to do. If both players are simultaneously agreeing to a draw, it is, in a sense, irrelevant which player first proposed the draw.
After hearing all the arguments from various TDs, in would be inclined to rule as follows, if I had to rule (which I was spared from doing by the draw agreement):
Both players made inadvertent mistakes, Black by not completing his Qg5 move by hitting his clock button, both players by not noticing this, and White by touching his g pawn before he had finished fully thinking out the position (which caused him to place his pawn back on g2 instead of determining the move by placing the pawn on g3 or g4). And all of these mistakes should instruct them on how to play better chess in the future.
Under Rule 6B, White was not yet on move, and therefore Rule 10B, by its literal wording, was not yet in effect. So the touch-move claim against White was not justified. But, for the same reason, it was not legal for White to touch his g pawn. What rule should be applied is, perhaps, debatable: Rule 20G, or Rule 1C2, or something else? But if we applied the standard penalty (see Rule 1C2a), this would have the effect of sparing Black from the normal cost of not promptly completing his move (which, if it went on long enough, could have made him lose on time or placed him under time pressure for the remainder of the game) while at the same time sparing White from the (in this case) severe cost of being forced to move g3 or g4. thereby losing his queen.
I believe that the TD, as much as possible, should be an invisible component of the game. And I think the ruling I have proposed would do the best job of applying a penalty of some sort to both sides while letting the players determine the outcome of the game through actual play.
Feel free to berate me for my proposed verdict if you feel compelled to do so!
A few decades ago there was a player in Chicago who frequently made it a point to say things like, “I am NOT offering a draw, but if I did, would you accept?” I’m sure this never sat well with any TDs who happened to hear.
If an opponent ever asked that of me, I would be inclined to say either “None of your GDMF business” or “I don’t know. Why don’t you offer a draw and find out?”
No, that is correct. I’m just saying that Black shouldn’t have had the option of acting as I suggested he should have in the previous post and in fact it is White who should have waited for your ruling.
Can you please tell me what the position was like on the board?
This question hasn’t been answered, but wouldn’t it be fair to suggest that in the instance we are discussing in this thread the correct penalty for white touching his g pawn is the same as what Sevian got or touching his opponent’s king? Sure the cases are different since Sam touched his opponent’s piece (one he could not legally capture even if he had been on move), but in both cases the touching occurred when the opponent was on move and thus they had no right to touch anyone’s piece.
There are some similarities but there are also major differences, seeing as the rulings on the two touches would be very different if they had occurred after the opponent had with the clock and the players were on move.
Also, the US Championship being FIDE rated introduces a significant difference since if the OP’s game was FIDE rated touch move on the g pawn would simply have been enforced due to FIDE not requiring the clock to be hit for a move to be considered completed.
The thread is too long and maybe people are fatigued. I had a similar experience in a USCF scholastic tournament with clocks. I, as Local TD, observed each step of the following:
Player A determined his move, but did not complete it by hitting his clock.
Player B touched, moved and released a piece while his opponent’s clock was still running, then before A reacted, proceeded to retract the released piece and release it on his original square and waited for Player A to hit his clock.
Player A got upset and called me over to enforce touch move on Player B.
I ruled that since Player A never completed his move, Player B had no obligation to move the piece he touched.
Player A then hit his clock. Player B made his next move, unfettered by whatever he had touched before A’s clock press and completed his move by hitting his clock.
Player A repeated the determination but not completion.
Player B repeated the moving while not on move and retraction.
Player A then broke down and cried. I suspect he may have given up chess after this incident.
When I asked a Senior TD friend - who had seen his share of the way sausage is made in scholastic tournaments - about my ruling, he disagreed, and said he would have ruled that Player B was obligated to move the piece he touched/moved/released under touch move (I think I perceive that Mr. Bachler and Mr. Smythe would agree). I’m surprised that Mr. Bird seems to agree with my ruling and further seems to point to divergence in the USCF touch move (NOT obligated to move piece touched before opponent completed his move) and the FIDE one (obligated to move the piece touched before opponent completed his move). Can there really be such an important difference in such a fundamental rule of chess?
This doesn’t help at all. All you’ve done is state a tautology without clarifying anything. Specifically “A player has a right to move until they have determined their move.” Duh.
The simplest situation is to look at this in the historical way I’ve pointed out, and then carry forward the meaning, since otherwise, any situation where a player leaves his clock running could create problems.
Given the historical context that a player would have had touch-move apply once it was determined and completed (before clock use), now that there is clock use, pick the EARLIER rather than the LATER of the events separated events of determination and completion.
That is - touch-move should apply once the opponent determines his move (which is what it was before clocks were introduced.) In this way, clocks have no independent impact on the game - which is as it should be.
While this is still a tautology, it is clarifying because it indicates when the opponent’s touch move obligation starts, not where the player’s rights end.
Theonly sensible rule is that touch move applies because it is in holding with the underlying fundamental purposes of chess.
Those who say touch-move doesn’t apply have become confused by tournament rules, allowing them to change the fundamental meaning.
We see something similar in the real world daily. People don’t understand that there is a hierarchy to rules. Tournament rules should flow from, and be consistent under the fundamental laws of chess. The fundamental rules are meta to the tournament rules. It is inappropriate for the tournament rules to override the fundamental laws of chess, because they are then effectively (an insidiously) changing chess into something else.
IRL something similar is the concept that a Federal Law can codify a Constitutional right. BUZZ thank you for playing - sorry, no it can’t. Federal Laws do not override the Constitution. If they could, then the fundamental rules of what is the United States can be insidiously changed. Rules have hierarchies. If there’s ever a Constitutionally consistent challenge to the Federal law, the Federal law will fall.
Example: Player A makes a move, and leaves to grab some food which is not allowed in the playing hall. Player B proceeds to move the pieces around analyzing the game.
If we are a pure stickler to the rote rules, as analysis offered in this thread, including Bird’s, would suggest - then the only rule issue we have here (so long a B finishes before A gets back and presses the clock) is 20F - not allowing analysis in the playing room. This is a rule that is typically enforced with leniency, even though B’s behavior is clearly extreme. B would have no significant punishment if we are consistent with Bird’s approach.
But if we realize there is a hierarchy and underlying purpose to the rules, we would enforce touch-move for the first move B touched, and touch-move capture rules for any opponent’s piece touched. We would likely also ignore the idea that analysis is prohibited iff it is done on another board and forfeit B to begin with.
Bird’s interpretation is incorrect because it fails to recognize a hierarchy of rules. Clocks and other such tournament rules are secondary (in the hierarchy) to the fundamental rules of chess.
No, not a tautology at all. What it clarifies (and what you still don’t seem to get) is that a player does not have the right to move until he is “on move” (i.e., until the other player has completed his move, not just determined it). Without that requirement, the game degenerates into chaos. “History” is irrelevant. The current game includes the use of a clock, and you can’t just ignore that. There needs to be a defined, controllable sequence of events. Player A determines his move; player A has the opportunity to make claims, offer draws, etc. (and notate his move if he desires); player A completes his move by pressing the clock. Then (and only then) player B gets to perform the same sequence; and so on. If you allow player A’s “on move” period and player B’s “on move” period to overlap (by allowing player B to move before player A has completed his move), you’re asking for trouble. I have already (in previous posts) outlined two undesirable scenarios. How about addressing those instead of just repeating dogmatic claims that ignore reality?
There are reasons why “on move” is defined the way it is, and why the rules are written the way they are. There may be a hierarchy of rules, but the rules can’t contradict each other. At any given time during the game, exactly one player is on move – and that is the player whose clock is running. This is not complicated.
Not to drift off topic here, but perhaps the fundamental principle of The Official Rules of Chess is that chess is a game between two players. Under The Laws of Chess it is pretty clear that the arbiter can intervene pretty early in the process, but under the Official Rules it’s not clear that the TD can intervene until A makes a claim. If B is making enough of a disturbance that it impacts the nearby games, then it’s possible, but if B is shuffling pieces quietly and A doesn’t notice then the TD who is sitting right by the board watching has no right to interfere by the fundamental principle. There are some pretty severe problems with fundamental principles.
