Touch Move Question

[Allen]

@relyea

@Terry Winchester

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?

I don’t think so. YMMV.

Alex Relyea

Because one can have a US Chess rated game played under FIDE rules - and it happens regularly.

[Allen]

@Smythe Dakota

@dennisk

… 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.

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.

Bill Smythe

No, not really. I have had the situation several times where the player picked up the wrong piece. I’ve had it argued that they intended to pick up a different piece because the one they actually grabbed was a bad move/caused a loss/ was not what they wrote down on the score sheet before they picked it up (which is a whole different problem. What the player “intended” is secondary to what the player did. Because it is much more clear what the player actually did.

[scottrparker]

@Allen

@Smythe Dakota

@dennisk

… 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.

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.

Bill Smythe

No, not really. I have had the situation several times where the player picked up the wrong piece. I’ve had it argued that they intended to pick up a different piece because the one they actually grabbed was a bad move/caused a loss/ was not what they wrote down on the score sheet before they picked it up (which is a whole different problem. What the player “intended” is secondary to what the player did. Because it is much more clear what the player actually did.

The US Chess touch move rule (10C) does not require intent. It only requires that the piece be touched deliberately, and that the player has not first expressed the desire to adjust the piece. If you grab a fist full of Rook you’re going to have to move that Rook; your intentions are irrelevant.

[Allen]

Indeed. The rule is very clear.

What occurs on the board is usually less clear as this is frequently a she said/she said situation.

[GeneM]

@DonThe2nd

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!)

I do not know the exact rule, but the Rules of Chess should insist that each player is obligated to call and enforce the touch move rule on himself.
For example, suppose your opponent is on a bathroom break when you touch a piece and realize it is a blunder. You leave the touched piece unmoved. When your opponent returns you move a different piece like nothing unusual happened. That completely feels like cheating, and I would blame any written rule that says otherwise.

---

I remember a game wherein my opponent moved his queen to where I could trap it, but instead of clearly releasing the piece he twisted it around on the square, thinking. During the twisting there were half-second occasions where none of his fingers were touching the queen. I considered blurting out - “You let go!” -, but I did not because he and I are kinda tournament pals, and it happened so fast, and I did not realize his queen was trappable .
After I made my reply move, I realized his queen had been trappable and I had blundered by not trapping it. Darn!
Then he moved his queen again, and for kinda the same reason his queen was still trappable - and this time I trapped it and he resigned.

[relyea]

@GeneM

I do not know the exact rule, but the Rules of Chess should insist that each player is obligated to call and enforce the touch move rule on himself.

I’m not sure what “calling” has to do with it, but the Official Rules of Chess require the player to move the piece he first touches. Of course they provide no enforcement mechanism absent a complaint from the opponent. That means that even if the TD is watching, the player is free to move any piece if the opponent doesn’t object. We could have the preposterous example of a TD being unable to intervene but filing an Ethics complaint because a player wasn’t playing by the rules, even if his opponent preferred the improper move.

Thankfully the Laws of Chess do not tolerate such absurdities.

Alex Relyea

[narceleb]

@relyea

[The] Official Rules of Chess require the player to move the piece he first touches. Of course they provide no enforcement mechanism absent a complaint from the opponent. That means that even if the TD is watching, the player is free to move any piece if the opponent doesn’t object. We could have the preposterous example of a TD being unable to intervene but filing an Ethics complaint because a player wasn’t playing by the rules, even if his opponent preferred the improper move.

Thankfully the Laws of Chess do not tolerate such absurdities.

Alex Relyea

I would prefer that TD’s be allowed to intervene when we observe a touch move violation, as we are when we observe an illegal move.

[Terry_Winchester]

@fantasychess

@DonThe2nd

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!)

What would you do if the opponent happened to be away from the board at the time the piece was touched?

I can’t believe this hasn’t been commented on yet because I, too, have pondered this many times. Wouldn’t this simply be a matter of integrity on the part of the toucher? If the opponent doesn’t see the offense, how can he/she protest?

Then, let’s overthink it, like I ALWAYS do EVERYTHING! What is the reason for the touch rule? I would think most rules/penalties are there for the purpose of restoring equity for some type of harm done. Is it to avoid distracting the opponent with several touches? If so, and the opponent isn’t there, how is he/she distracted, or in any way harmed?

Great question, Chris

[fantasychess]

@narceleb

@relyea

[The] Official Rules of Chess require the player to move the piece he first touches. Of course they provide no enforcement mechanism absent a complaint from the opponent. That means that even if the TD is watching, the player is free to move any piece if the opponent doesn’t object. We could have the preposterous example of a TD being unable to intervene but filing an Ethics complaint because a player wasn’t playing by the rules, even if his opponent preferred the improper move.

Thankfully the Laws of Chess do not tolerate such absurdities.

Alex Relyea

I would prefer that TD’s be allowed to intervene when we observe a touch move violation, as we are when we observe an illegal move.

Doesn’t rule 21D3 “Warning players about or penalizing players for disruptive, unethical, or unsportsmanlike behavior” allow you to deal with any behavior you consider disruptive, unethical or unsportsmanlike without a claim from the opponent?

[brennanprice]

@fantasychess

Doesn’t rule 21D3 “Warning players about or penalizing players for disruptive, unethical, or unsportsmanlike behavior” allow you to deal with any behavior you consider disruptive, unethical or unsportsmanlike without a claim from the opponent?

Some intervention minimalists who have held great influence over the application of US Chess rules over the years would likely say no.

[Terry_Winchester]

@brennanprice

@fantasychess

Doesn’t rule 21D3 “Warning players about or penalizing players for disruptive, unethical, or unsportsmanlike behavior” allow you to deal with any behavior you consider disruptive, unethical or unsportsmanlike without a claim from the opponent?

Some intervention minimalists who have held great influence over the application of US Chess rules over the years would likely say no.

In scholastics, great annoyance, displeasure, and turmoil erupts when parents and coaches realize that we’re (TDs) unable to see, and correct, ALL infractions that occur, and imagine bias against their little ones on our parts.

I don’t know that I could be labeled a minimalist, but in the case of an adult tournament, I would find it very difficult to project myself into a game among players who should know enough to not allow an opponent to get by with something underhanded. I would consider 21D3 available to us when we believe that intentional infractions are occurring, and advantage being taken of new, or otherwise unlearned players. I don’t believe we could use it as a general tool.