I recently made a touch-move claim against an opponent and I’m now wondering if my interpretation of the rules is correct or if the TD was correct. I have no intention of further complaint or appeal (I continued playing the game, IMHO I intentionally waived any further rights). This is purely to be sure I understand the rule (or have my understanding corrected).
In the game my opponent touched a rook, clearly with the intention of moving it – he doesn’t deny this. He also touched the pawn (mine) on the adjacent square. He also admitted that he touched the pawn, but claimed that it was incidental in the process of moving his rook and that he had no intention of taking the pawn. Taking the pawn with the rook would be an OBVIOUSLY bad move in the position on the board. My claim was that his touching of his rook and my pawn was “in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move”. I don’t believe that his claim of it being unintentional is enough excuse him from executing the move.
I believe that the TD’s decision that his touching of the pawn was “accidental” was influenced by the fact that the pawn capture was an obviously bad move. OTOH, for full disclosure, my opponent had already written a different rook move down on his scoresheet – but then he had been writing down and erasing several candidate moves and the one on his scoresheet at the time of my claim was about the sixth different candidate move he had written down (AND the move he actually wanted to play was a still different move!).
I realize that without witnesses it’s virtually impossible to enforce touch-move. However, my opponent admitted the touch in this case. So, should the TD be following the tip in rule 10B? The TD ruled, in accordance with 10 E that he thought the touch was “by accident”, but he seemed to have reached that conclusion because the capture would have been such an obviously bad move – which I don’t think should have been a factor in the decision.
How did he touch it? I generally move my piece onto the square of the piece I am taking, and either “shove” the piece off center, and then remove it, or take the pice with my remaining free fingers as I place my piece on the square. Some people remove the opponent’s piece from the square, and then put their piece in its place. Did his touch look like he was going to do any of these three motions?
Isn’t it against the rules to write a move down and erase it to write another move before actually making a move?
I thought that it was only allowed to write a move once. Then if the player wants to make a different move he must make it before writing any other move. He would then be able to change the move notation after the move was made.
By the way, I agree with the TD in this instance, but that is a very narrow judgment on my part with the limited data.
If this fellow would not be allowed to write numerous moves before making one, it would have been more credulous that the touch was incidental and should not be enforced.
However, when he made the various move notations with erasures, it opened the door that he might have actually intended to grab the pawn with the rook.
Brushing a pawn with the back of your fingers while grabbing a rook would not trigger touch move. Shoving it off the square with the back of your hand while pushing your rook onto the square would trigger touch move.
I get the feeling from the post that the former was closer to what happened than the latter.
That would be a tough call for any TD, assuming he did not actually witness the touch. If your opponent claimed that his “touch” was actually a brush, I could see the TD believing it if RxP were such an obviously bad move. It sounds like a case of your having just short of a preponderance of the evidence.
It was probably a good idea, though, for you to make the claim. Even if you don’t quite have enough evidence, making the claim will put both your opponent and the TD on notice, for future reference, that something fishy may have happened here.
The fact that your opponent had been writing and crossing out candidate moves may strengthen your case just a bit, but apparently the TD felt you still didn’t quite satisfy the burden of proof. Oh well, it was an honorable try. Maybe you could have complained, earlier, about the writing and crossing out.
He was moving with his right hand. My (black) pawn was on g6, his (white) rook was on f6. He touched his rook with his forefinger and thumb. He touched my pawn with his “ring” finger (would it still be called that on the right hand?) and I believe also with his middle finger. I can’t say for certain.
It looked like the same motion I’ve seen players make to pick up a piece and capture an adjacent piece in the same motion.
After touching the pieces, he pulled his hand back from them, clearly changing his mind.
I don’t claim, by the way, that he actually WAS going to capture the pawn. My claim is based on the wording of the rules – that his touching of my pawn was in a manner that could be reasonably interpreted as beginning of a move. It’s only that fact that the pawn capture was so obviously bad that would make a person doubt that, in my opinion.
He did claim that the pawn was “near” his rook (without claiming that it was actually over the edge of it’s square).
I didn’t actually expect to win the claim. Without a witness in a touch-move claim, you normally wouldn’t. However, NORMALLY a player will (once a claim has been made) “do the right thing”. After he admitted to touching my pawn, I thought I should have prevailed.
It wasn’t as if he were grasping the rook and there wasn’t enough space between rook and pawn for his fingers to fit. He wasn’t trying to touch his rook with the fingers that touched my pawn. However, he certainly didn’t go so far as to move my pawn off its square – he didn’t do more than rock the pawn and perhaps move it a quarter of an inch (but he didn’t more than that to his rook, either – ANY rook move would have been a bad move and dropped material and he obviously noticed that while touching his rook).
Based on how you presented the incident, it appears that there was merely an accidental touching of the pawn. There was no intent to capture or touch the pawn. Which you knew perfectly well but decided to challenge anyway.
The written “evidence” or scratching out of moves on the scoresheet is not relevant. Many players write their move first and then make it. Sometimes they change their mind several times, even up to and including when they are actually making a move. What is important is if by his action the player showed the intent to make a capture when he touched the pawn.
There are “rules rookies” and “rules lawyers” in every tournament. The “rookie” is new to the game and the set of tournament rules that guide play. He/she isn’t used to or clear on the touch-move rule and many other rules that are different from his casual play. When he asks a question, it comes from lack of experience or imperfect understanding. The “lawyer” likes to see how he can tweak the rules or see how much he can get away with during a game. He uses the rules as if he has another chess piece to use against the opponent. Sometimes this is used to rattle the other person, to get him off his game. I have seen teenagers claim a rules violation to unnerve younger players. The TD should keep an eye on the “lawyers”. They detract from the tournament experience for all of the other players and are a general pain.
Nowhere does the rule say that he has to have intended to capture the pawn. It’s never possible to know what your opponent INTENDED to do!
His touching of the pawn could reasonably have been interpreted as the start of the move – that’s all the rule requires – and I did interpret it that way. He immediately drew back his hand, as he saw that any rook move would lose material, so no, he didn’t actually displace the pawn (or the rook, for that matter). Actually displacing a piece from it’s original location isn’t necessary. Reading the TD tip to 10B, it sure doesn’t sound to me like he had to have “intended” to capture the pawn for the touch-move rule to apply.
This is the first touch-move I remember where my opponent didn’t simply move or capture the touched piece. I’m not above making a claim if I feel an opponent has violated the rules, but I don’t go out of my way to make unfounded claims.
I don’t think that the fact that the pawn capture would be an obviously bad move should have any weight in the discussion. After all, I’ve seen people make obviously bad moves on a number of occasions. I’ve made them myself. If a player can hang a queen (which I’ve seen even decent players do), then anything is possible. For that matter, I don’t remember too many cases where touch-move claims have been made to get the opponent to make a GOOD move!
After he jerked his hand back from the rook and pawn, I said “touch move”. I was frankly shocked when he said “fine” but then captured a different piece – he captured a bishop on e6, which only cost him the exchange. When I then said that he’d touched my pawn on g6, he initially denied it. Later, he admitted it but claimed that it was accidental and that he only intended to touch the rook. I wouldn’t have made a claim if it had looked like he’d only touched the pawn in passing as he moved his hand to his rook.
So no, I don’t think there’s any doubt that he broke the rules. What I don’t know is if the TD should have RULED that he broke a rule based on the information we provided.
If all a player has to do is claim, “I didn’t intent to capture the piece” then what meaning is there in the rule? To me, it seems clear that he saw that a rook move would drop material and jerked his hand away from the pieces. ANY move of his rook would have been a bad move, dropping material – the pawn capture was worse than others , but he touched the pawn. The move he then wanted to play was the “least bad” – only dropping the exchange.
I would deny the claim. White’s assertion that touching the piece was incidental to moving the rook is similar to an assertion that he didn’t touch the piece at all, in that a witness is often necessary when players disagree on the facts. Had the player picked up the pawn yet still asserted that it was not deliberate I would uphold the claim. Had I (or another witness) observed the aborted move as described above and believed that there was intent to capture the pawn then I would uphold the claim.
No, I didn’t win. I’m far from certain that I would have won even if he’d made the move I thought he was obligated to make.
I was really surprised that he didn’t simply move the piece he had touched to capture the piece he had touched. I’d like to think that’s what I would have done…
The way I see it, the burden of proof is on me to show that he actually touched the piece, but the burden of proof should be on him to show that it wasn’t a deliberate act. If his elbow had brushed against a queen while reaching for his rook, then I’ll admit he had no intention of touching the queen. But he touched my pawn with his fingers…
Not true. Both 10B (touch-move in general) and 10C (touch-move during a capture) use the word “deliberately”.
No doubt that’s why the phrase “in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of the move” is inserted in 10B to further explain the word “deliberately”.
Since your opponent touched his rook with his right forefinger and thumb, and since your pawn was on the square immediately to the right (his right) of the rook, it is extremely likely that a couple of his fingers accidentally brushed against your pawn in the process of deliberately touching his rook. Therefore, I agree with the TD’s ruling.
Throw in the fact that, in a touch-move situation, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and the TD really had no other choice.
No doubt I’m not explaining what it looked like very well. But then, I probably didn’t explain it any better to the TD. Combined with the fact that there were no witnesses, you’re probably right.
If as a TD I get a touch move claim and the players don’t agree whether it was intentional or not, I’ll often have the allegedly offending player (and sometimes the claimant) “re-enact” the touch for me. If both players agree I’m seeing an accurate account (and reasonably often they do), I usually feel pretty confident making a ruling one way or the other.
That seems like a reasonable approach, if the players are willing to be honest.
In my game, first the player took his hand off the piece and was going to make a different move.
Then, when I said “touch move”, he proceeded to take a different piece.
Then, when I claimed he touched my pawn, he denied having touched it.
Then, when I went to the TD he changed his story and said the touch was unintentional. He claimed that my pawn was too close to his rook and he touched it by accident. When demonstrating to the TD, he put my pawn half over the edge of the square.
Then, when I insisted that my pawn was not over the edge of the square, he said that he still hadn’t intended to touch it.
I might have been willing to accept that he hadn’t intentionally touched my pawn, if that’s what he said to me from the beginning.
Such a re-enactment may be particularly interesting if the players disagree and the TD happened to see exactly what happened. The penalties under 20K might get a bit severe, but watch out for 21K2. There have been cases where a player was warned earlier in an event and was, shall we say, less than honest in a re-enactment, resulting in an immediate loss of game.
