Touch move - intent (Edited. I had colors reversed)

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Here’s an interesting situation that came up recently. Players did not request a TD ruling, but we got discussing the incident at a party.

Players are using a chess set with a black king whose cross has broken off. White is a master, and Black is an expert. They’re playing totally book moves of a Semi-Slav. At the point where Black plays 13…Qb6 , he accidentally picks up the king with broken cross and moves it to b6. Before he lets go he notices that he picked up the king instead of the queen. He puts the king back on e1, and the opponent says “You have to move the king.” He doesn’t argue with the opponent, and makes a king move. It was clear his intent was to play Qb6. It was a book line where Qb6 is played at that point. Both players knew that was the move that is played there.

We were debating over whether the white player could claim that it was an accidental touch.

10B “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.”

Picking up a king can certainly be interpreted as the beginning of a move so it seems 10B covers that. But one of the people debating this said, “but it’s obvious that moving the king was not the intent since Ke1-b3 is not even legal, and it’s clear he was intending to play the book move Qb3.”

Could the director apply 10E?

10E “Accidental touch of a piece: A director who believes a player touched a piece by accident should not require the player to move that piece. For example , a player’s hand reaching across the board may inadvertently brush the top of a near by king or queen, or a player may hit a piece with an elbow.”

Based on the example it doesn’t seem like the director has the latitude to deny black’s touch move claim.

Though if I had been asked by the players to rule on it, I would have suggested that it would be gracious on White’s part if he withdrew the claim and allowed Black to play Qb3, since that was the intent. But I’m not sure I could compel White to do the gentlemanly thing to withdraw the claim.

2

Whose set is it?

3

Agree. I would have told the claimant that he was within his rights to insist on a move of the King, but that it would show good sportsmanship not to do so.

4

I think it was supplied by Black. He has a bunch of sets that he uses for chess classes, and I think he may have brought one of those sets. I think he looked for a king with a cross in our club set bin.

5

Agree completely. It’s not as if he intended to move the King to b3; he picked up the wrong piece. The rules do not seem to consider that an “accidental touch,” though.

“It is one thing to have a right to do some thing, but quite another to be right in doing it.”

:bulb:

6

I am of the opinion that white would be required to move the king. First of all, they’ve played “several moves” so it isn’t exactly breaking news that the cross broke off. Second, if it’s white’s set, and he finds a crossless king to be confusing, then replace it with a good one, or ask to use his opponent’s set. Third, if white could get away with not having to move his king, it could be to his advantage to always play with a crossless king.

The TD should not tell black that it’s not good sportsmanship, not gentlemanly, or not gracious during the game. If I were to do so, it would be after the game is over. To do so during the game gives me the feeling that the TD is lecturing a player that is playing within the rules. It also puts psychological pressure on one of the players to give his opponent a break. The TD should not suggest that a player with a valid claim withdraw it. To me, this crosses over the line from TD to ethical advisor. Under which rule(s) would any of this be acceptable? If black felt that calling touch move was wrong here, he wouldn’t have called it.

A valid argument could be made that if black did not make the claim, that he would not have been fair to himself, as black is doing nothing illegal to help himself. (Polly never told us who won, or if this touch move led to that result) This is also supported by white’s having acknowledged that he touched the king and then moving it legally without summoning a director for a ruling.

As a chess instructor, when I find a broken king in one of my sets, I replace it. At my first lesson with beginners, I describe the king as the piece with the cross on top. I certainly don’t want to confuse my students on their first day. I wouldn’t be surprised if the player Polly mentioned, has already replaced his king.

7

Well, I’m going to have to disagree. White clearly meant to move his queen to b3 not his king. So, he did not pick up his king with the intent to move it. I would rule it an accidental touch of a piece.
Mike Regan

8

I completely agree. 10E applies. All that matters for 10E is that director believes that the player touched the piece by accident. The particular example in the book does not apply in this case, but examples don’t have to cover cases completely. I believe that ruling accidental touch would satisfy both the spirit and the letter of the rule.

9

With that ruling you open the door for the chess lawyers to make claims that the pieces they touched are not the pieces they intended to move (“Oops, I did not intend to move that knight. I intended to move my queen that was under attack.”). The observable action of taking hold of (not just brushing up against) a piece is the external interpretation of “intent.” Relying on what someone “meant” in their mind as “intent” is opening Pandora’s box.

10

Tim,
I remember an example situation that I read somewhere. White has two bishops next to each other on c2 and b2. He picks up the bishop on b2 and places it on f5. I thought the correct ruling in that situation is that he was allowed to move his c2 bishop to f5.
This seems like an analogous situation. White made an illegal move with his king that was legal for his queen. The two piece are adjacent and similar in shape. He clearly picked up the wrong piece. If he had moved his king to e2 or d2, then there could be no argument that he meant to move his queen.
Mike

11

The problem is: suppose that he picked up the king with the intent to move it, saw that it was the wrong move, realized that he should actually move the adjacent queen, and then made a move which would be legal for that adjacent queen but would be illegal for the king in his hand.

There is no way to physically distinguish this sequence from the sequence that you suppose. However, the intent there was to move the king and touch move should be enforced.

I can relate my own experience. Many years ago, in the course of analysis I realized that a particular move would lead to a sacrifice and mate. After looking at other moves I came back to that move as a finesse and picked up the piece. When I realized what I had done, I resigned before completing my move. What if instead of resigning I had just made an illegal move which was legal for one of the adjacent pieces?

12

I have several sets from Iraq that don’t have a cross on top of the king. When did this idea of a cross on the chess king start and why is it so important?

13

Harold S. wrote:

Tim Just wrote:

I agree with Tim, which is why I stated my third reason quoted above. After having directed for 33+ years, I’ve heard some pretty unique excuses for touch move claims against them. If I had used “meant” as my standard for making a ruling, then in some cases, I would no longer have a clear case of touch move. To use the standard of “meant”, I have to trust the unprovable word of the touching player. I’m not looking to make my job harder. I’m not looking to open myself up to arguments of rules interpretation. I’m satisfied you to use the rule as presently worded.

I’ve already had players make the “meant” excuse, although not in cases where it was a believable as Polly’s case. If I take the word of the touching player in some cases and not in others, I open myself up to claims of “but you didn’t make Mr. X move his king when it touched it”.

Polly mentioned that in her situation that Qb3 is a book move. Any active player above 1000 has probably had a case where he played a non-book move and shortly thereafter regretted it, maybe even before his opponent’s next move.

I recall a recent Soltis article (March 2009 Chess Life) in which a computer suggested an early king (8 Ke2) move which is not listed in any book. How can any TD be certain that in Polly’s case, the player was thinking the same thing when picking up the king and then quickly thought better of it and then made up the book move story?

14

Interesting. In those sets, how are the king and queen distinguished from each other?

Rule 40C (p. 225, 5th edition of the rule book) states “The king and queen should have clearly different tops”. There is no mention of a cross there, but in rule 40B, this text appears: “The cross (or other king’s finial) should occupy no more than 20 percent of the total height of the king.”

15

In this case, White not only touched his King like he was planning to move it, but in fact moved it. Granted he didn’t take his hand of the king on b3, so he didn’t complete his illegal move, but there can be no question that he intended to move the piece that he touched. This is an easy one.

Alex Relyea

16

Some have suggested it would be unsportsmanlike for black to make a claim. What about white being unsportsmanlike in asking to take back his move?

The rule seems clear to me, accidental doesn’t mean a mental slip. In my mind, though it’s a similar word, it’s not a question of sportsmanship anyway, but of honor. White should be required to move the king.

Grant Neilley

17

The finial above above the crown looks like a scotch bonnet with a ball on top. The queen has only a crown.

18

OK, I am tending to side with those (maybe I’m combining bits of different posts here) who have said:
a. the player should have to move his King;
b. the set (or at least its King) should not have been used
… and I think (b) is the more important point.

Posters have made logical arguments to support (a) - primarily, a different conclusion puts an onus on the opponent (to accept the ‘intent’) that he didn’t deserve to bear. He didn’t make any mistakes (at least in what was conveyed).

Interestingly - and here, I have a bit of egg on my face - I very recently had a somewhat analogous situation, which might also lend itself to support (a). I had been unable to castle until later than I’d have liked (subject for another thread!), but then thought I saw a good chance. My Q-side knight had been pinned by a Bishop, and the other Bishop was also entrenched in my camp. (Not pretty, I admit.)

I played 0-0-0, but then my opponent immediately (and correctly - here is the ‘egg’ part) pointed out that I had attempted a castle over a ‘checked’ square (e1)… clearly illegal. No argument, just the smell of egg. So I put the pieces back where they were, and awkwardly said, “I guess I have to move my King”. He equally awkwardly mumbled something like, “Whatever.” At this point - and now I am sympathetic with both my opponent, and the one in the original post - I realized I’ve put an unfair burden on him.

The TD was nearby, and my opponent flagged him and asked about it - and the TD replied, “You have to move your King.” I was hoping for a different response, but honestly thought it was a longshot. I didn’t argue, nor did I have any negative feelings toward my opponent. I just made a different move with my King, which wasn’t fatal but obviously wasn’t what I wanted to do. Among other difficulties that resulted, I of course couldn’t castle after that.

Clearly my attempted move was both illegal, and unintended [in the sense that I had not intended to move my K, other than to castle] - in that regard similar to the base case here. But his mistake could have been more forgivable - except, maybe, in the interpretation that his main mistake was going into the game with a bogus piece.

BTW, I somehow wrangled some counterthreats against my opponent in that game, and faced with the options, he was forced to carry out a move repetition and, in turn, force a draw. Given my earlier situation I was happy with that outcome.

19

I’m responding to Harold’s comments and editing the colors.

I was not even aware this incident occurred until after the tournament, but between rounds I noticed the broken king and found an extra king that was not broken. In the mean time the player had gone down to his card to get another set. Opponent did not have a set.

In this particular case I hardly think blacks would find advantageous to play with a crossless king.

I understand where you’re coming from, and it does put the TD into an awkward position. It’s not wrong for white to make the claim, it is within the rules. I just think it was abusing the rules when it was clear what Black’s intent was. Knowing the players as I do I know that had the situation been reversed, the player would not have made the claim. The White player is known for ungentlemanly type behavior, and winning at all costs.

White won the game. He’s 2200+ and Black is 2000. I think the impact of the move was costing Black a tempo and losing his right to castle. I’m sure it impacted how the game went from that point onwards.

Black knew White was totally within his rights to make the claim which is why he didn’t summon a director. He was just annoyed that his opponent wasn’t even gracious or apologetic about it. White just brusquely said “You have to move the king.”

He went back to his car between rounds and got another set. It was just unfortunate for him that the first set he grabbed happened to have had a broken crown.

20

I totally agree that trying to apply 10E here would open a whole can of worms here. I brought it up because some of the players at the party who also were playing in the tournament was wondering if the TD had the right to apply the intent rule. I didn’t feel that this was a case where 10E would apply, but thought I would throw it out here for debate.

I think the one thing the players all agreed on was it wasn’t very nice on White’s part to make Black move the king. This happened in our weekly club tournament between two players that are regulars at the club. I seriously doubt black was planning to move his king at that point, especially since he attempted to put it on b6.