In a recent tournament game, I captured one of my own pawns (D’oh!) with a knight. I only realized this when my opponent pointed out that “you took the wrong pawn” (there actually was no pawn of either color that I could legally capture). So I simply made a different move with the knight.
Several days later, it occurred to me that the first piece I touched was the pawn (because that’s how I typically capture – I remove the captured piece from its square, and then place my own piece there), and by a strict interpretation of the touch move rule, I should have been required to make a move with that pawn. This would have lost the knight, since it was en prise. I probably would have resigned immediately. I ended up losing the game anyway, so this is of no ultimate consequence, but it’s an interesting “rule interpretation” question. I thought of my move as a knight move, so I felt obligated to move the knight. Should I have been required to move the pawn?
It’s the same as if you intended to grab the Knight, but by mistake grabbed the piece next to it. It’s not which piece you intended to move, it’s which piece you actually touched. Your opponent, however, is not required to make the claim, which, in this case, he did not.
I also want to add that only your opponent can make a claim, no one else in the room can including the TD. And if a claim is not made then you don’t need to worry about it (unless you are a very honest person and want to enforce the rule on yourself!)
Would it be a safe assumption that in a U.S. Chess forum, unless otherwise indicated, questions about rules would refer to games played under those U.S. Chess rules?
My mileage doesn’t vary. It is valuable for Americans who play elsewhere in the world or in the increasing number of FIDE rated events in the United states to know, among other things, that an arbiter will enforce witnessed touch move infractions, and that an overturned rook is a rook is a rook is always a rook.
It may be safe to assume the game that spawned the question was played under US Chess rules. But it is useful to give the answers under both US Chess and FIDE rules so people learn the differences.
For what it’s worth, I’m both a TD and a “very honest person”, and I would have called it on myself if it had occurred to me. At the time, I simply thought of it as a Knight move, and more or less automatically made a different Knight move. My opponent didn’t object. It only occurred to me several days later that I had touched the pawn first. After having discovered this, I’m actually somewhat relieved that I lost the game anyway.
While I appreciate the integrity, this does bring up an interesting question. Let’s say that you touched a piece, put it back, thought for a little while, then moved a different piece and let go of that piece on a legal square. The opponent doesn’t say anything. You then realize you had touch move and precede to call it upon yourself due to “integrity” or otherwise and move the piece back. Can the opponent now claim that he never “called/claimed” touch move and that the finished move still stands, despite that touch move did happen?
What would a TD rule?
In FIDE, I think the touch still applies and the original piece must still be moved, yes? To be clear for the FIDE part, the arbiter did NOT witness it and therefore did not call it himself.
In USCF, I’m not sure, but even though you were called to the board for a “non-touch” move claim, so to speak, you still enforce all rules, so my guess is that touch move still applies. Another possible viewpoint is that I’m reasonably sure that the rules don’t require the opponent to make the touch move claim (although it’s probably expecting as much), therefore it is still a valid touch move claim - even if an odd one.
I guess that’s one strange way of getting out of a blunder move. Thankfully the likelihood of such a scenario is extremely small.
In USCF tournaments, I wouldn’t uphold the claim in this case. The rules do not require one to claim touch move. The rules are silent on whether or not the player can make the claim upon himself. I would justify my ruling by saying that once the opponent’s clock has been started, and without a claim by the opponent, it could be considered distraction to attempt to withdraw the move. I might offer a counter-claim to the opponent for that distraction.
The scenario listed did not include a clock press. It is “determined” but not completed and the “determined” is called into question while it is still the person’s move.
Without agreement or a witness there probably wouldn’t be enough proof of the earlier touch to justify requiring that earlier piece to be moved.
I missed this part; thanks, Jeff. I suppose the reason an opponent wouldn’t say anything in this case, is he/she is waiting for the clock to be stopped.
So, yes, my understanding is that the player SHOULD replace the move with the piece first touched. 10B states that a touched piece must be moved.
The given scenario gives the player a chance to play his “least bad” move. The other player remained silent because the second move made might be worse than the first move tried and retracted. The first player, realizing the his second try was poor should not get the benefit of going back to the first unless the other player makes a touch move claim. Calling touch move on oneself would be a clever way of avoiding a blunder in this particular case under USCF rules. This sounds like an old coffee house trick. I would have to see if there are any other circumstances involved, but I would be inclined to have the player’s second move try stand if no touch move claim was made by the opponent.
I am thinking of this situation … … it is next-to-the-last round … Player A is in the running for $$$$ and is watching results – and calculating possible pairings in his head. Whether or not he actually touched a piece may be irrelevant in this scenario – Player A realizes a DRAW (or even a LOSS) would give a better last-round pairing and thinks “Hmm … I touched a piece and didn’t move it, but if I HAD moved it I would be looking a Draw instead of a Win (trying to not be obvious of ‘throwing a match’)!” However, Player B makes not claim – says he didn’t see it. Or, Player A fabricates a story of touching (his own) a piece …
Would this ALMOST be the same as two players after results are posted “having a discussion” and then telling the TD they BOTH posted the wrong score (and erroneously signed the scoresheets) – so that one player wins more $$$$ and then can give the other player a “nice cut?!?”
This may be a case where the letter of the rules contradicts the spirit of the rules. The letter says you touched the pawn first, so you must move the pawn. The spirit says you intended to move the knight, so you should move the knight.
Hmm, reminds me of the old “If a tree falls in the woods” question. If a player touches a piece but his opponent isn’t around to make a touch-move claim, then did the touch really happen? I guess it depends on your personal philosophy…
I suppose the reason an opponent wouldn’t say anything in this case, is he/she is waiting for the clock to be stopped.