10E talks about the director’s belief. It doesn’t say anything about what the players believe. If as a TD I encounter this situation and it is my belief that the player moving had no intention to move that piece, I am required to allow the player to make any move they choose.
That doesn’t mean that my belief will be easy to obtain. If the facts are in dispute I will be more likely to apply touch move. But at the end of the day, the circumstances will make me belief one thing or the other or make me have doubts.
The rule gives me latitude and I believe it is in consonance with rule 1A. There’s a recognition that there is a wide spectrum of possibilities and that good judgment will be needed and initiative will have to be taken.
In this case, it doesn’t sound like anybody doubted or had reason to doubt the player’s intention.
The illegal move example does not apply. The player’s intention was to make a move with a certain piece, it doesn’t matter the player did not realize it was illegal. That piece must be moved if any legal moves are available.
It’s clearly a touch-move situation. The only way that “intent” comes into the rule is that it distinguishes between incidental contact (say reaching over a piece and inadvertantly brushing against it) and “touching with the intention of moving/capturing”. If the player actually picked up the piece, then the only correct interpretation is that he intended to pick up the piece. This is a much lower level of “intention” than “I meant to pick up the Queen, but picked up the King instead”. I “intend” to make only good moves - does that mean I can retract bad moves since I did not “intend” to make them?
It’s unfortunate that the players agreed to play with a modified set, so that the distinction between King and Queen were blurred. But, the time to worry about that is at the start of the game.
Lecturing a player on sportsmanship is inappropriate at the board, especially when all the player is doing is asking for black-letter law to be enforced. I don’t think it’s unsportsmanlike to insist on touch-move; the rules say that you must make the moves on the board correctly - it’s part of the game. What is unsportsmanlike is for a master (or expert - I can’t keep up with the changing cast of characters) to even suggest that a clear touch-move violation should be ignored. Sportsmanlike players at this level don’t even ask the question - they just correct their error and carry on. Beginners can be excused for ignorance of the rules - but neither player in this game can make any legitimate claim that he does not understand the rule. So - why even ask the question?
In some theories of tournament play, it would be unsportsmanlike for a player to say “oh, go ahead - you don’t have to follow the rules” - on the grounds that this harms every other player in close competition with the offending player. Certainly, once the TD has been brought into the act there is only one correct way forward: the King must be moved.
This is not an accidental touch. An accidental touch is one in which the player had no intention of touching, such as reaching for one piece and accidentally touching a different piece first.
In this case, it can be said that the player intentionally touched the king, even though the apparent intention was to move it as a Queen. This does not, however, mitigate the violation of the touch-move rule.
I’m almost positive this had to be ruled due to scholastic players trying to win at any cost, because I can’t see that an adult woud ever think otherwise, but I don’t know.
This does not make sense. There’s no way I would ever think an expert intended to move a piece in a manner contrary to the basic rules of the game. So it would not be apparent.
The strongest inference I can make from a expert moving a king more than one square away not in a direct line from the king’s original position is that they were intending to move a different adjacent piece. A weaker inference might be that they were trying to swindle their opponent. And that would most likely be even more apparent if it were the case.
Btw, I do see the difference that has been alluded to between intention to touch and intention to move, but the rule is not about the intention to move. Touching came first and that’s what the rule is about.
Whether you think my belief is supported or not is inconsequential. The rule only asks me to figure out what I believe, not what someone else would believe.
10B says the touch-move rule applies when a player on move “…deliberately touches one or more pieces, in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move…”
Removing the word “deliberate” might leave less wiggle room for interpretation.
But in any event, what does 10E accomplish that 10B doesn’t already say?
10E sounds more like a TD tip that should be under 10B and/or 10C (touching an opponent’s piece), rather than a separate stand alone rule (but lose the ambigous word “accidental”)
Agreed. For a TD not to require touch-move here is a slippery slope you don’t want to start going down.
If the TD wants to put just a little pressure on the opponent to withdraw the claim, instead of saying “you must move the piece”, he could say “your opponent has the right to make you move the piece”. To go beyond this by talking about “sportsmanship” is a bit much.
In the example cited, if I were the opponent, I would have let the player move his queen. But sometimes there ought to be a difference between what a person would do as a player and what he as TD should require somebody else to do.
I’ve lost games because of touch-move. I’ve won games because of touch-move. It’s a rule, just like how the K moves. The players FOLLOW the rules, they don’t get to decide to just IGNORE one. Once the TD had “noticed” the touch-move, not only SHOULD he not comment that the other player could let a different piece be moved, he MUST NOT. This would amount to letting the players collude to ignore the rules.
I agree with the last paragraph, and so must disagree with the rest. It’s not up to the TD to lobby for his version of good sportsmanship. Once the TD has been called to the table and the claim made, his only duty is to make the correct ruling. If you have picked up a piece and moved it towards another square (therefore, there’s no question of an “adjusting” defense"), then as a TD the only option is: “move the piece”.
TDs are not there to “pressure” the players to withdraw claims - especially in such a clear cut situation.
If anything, the player who picked up the wrong piece is the one showing “unsportsmanlike behavior”. If I’m the TD, I’m wondering why a master and an expert need me to handle such an obvious touch-move situation. It can only be because the offending player somehow thinks that the rules do not apply to him. Why would he think that? Why is he “pressuring” his opponent (and the TD) to waive the rule?
Notice that if the King was actually placed on another square, and the TD saw it, and the TD is “noticing” illegal moves, then even the opponent has no choice. The TD must correct the illegal move, and the rulebook is (strangely) very specific on the point that the TD must enforce the touch move rule after correcting the illegal move. This was the subject of much discussion recently; I wish it were not so (for reasons not relevant to this particular situation) - but Tim Just eventually convinced me that it’s required by the current rule book.
You’re not lobbying, you’re informing the player. It is not obligatory for the TD to do so, but declining to do so says something about the TD’s concept of proper conduct and sportsmanship.
If you believe that chess is a game in which winning is all that matters, not matter how repugnant the means, that would be correct. Some of us have higher standards. The opponent of the player who touched the King has the right to insist on a King move. He isn’t required to do so. If you follow the letter of the rules but not the spirit of the game, then you’re only half a TD – adequate under supervision, but not be be trusted without it.
Tim,
You have an advantage over Luis and myself. You know what you meant when you wrote the rule. We can only read what is written and try to interpret what we think is fair. It seems like what you are saying is that if you pick up the a piece, it is touch move, the end. That is not what is written.
So if you accidentally touch a piece then it is not touch move but if you accidentally pick up a piece it is. I understand the logic of liking a nice clean rule.
I’m glad Polly posted this. I’ve learned something today.
Mike
I think you’re wrong, here. The rules are the rules. Period.
If my opponent suggested that I didn’t really have to move a piece I had touched (in a serious, rated game), I’d actually be offended. IT’S NEVER GOOD SPORTSMANSHIP TO BREAK THE RULES. It’s clearly not fair to the other players that I’m competing against to “let me off the hook”. There’s a word for intentionally breaking the rules – CHEATING.
