At the tournament I am running today, the following touch-move incident came up. A player touched one of his knights “in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move”. However, he said he meant to move his queen instead and since he didn’t mean to move his knight the touch wasn’t “deliberate” and “intentional” and thus he shouldn’t have to move the knight. What is the correct ruling?
Ha ha ha.
After you give the appropriate ruling above, be sure you let him know how to appeal. Anyone who tries to pull something like this is likely to want to use all his resources.
Alex Relyea
What is the appropriate ruling?
If players could get away with what this player tried to pull there would be no touch move rule. Intent in the way he tried to use it is not the rule. If you accidentally knock a piece over, there was no intent to move and touch move us not triggered. Grabbing the wrong piece is not the same thing. No competent TD would accept the players argument, and I’d be shocked if you did. Yet you clearly have a reason for starting this thread. Are you trying to get a number of responses to show the player how unacceptable his reasoning is?
I just want to make sure I ruled correctly
I would have laughed in his face. Then told him how to appeal.
I would do the same if told the opponent distracted the player by getting up to use the rest room.
Was the player satisfied with the ruling?
Alex Relyea
I’m surprised that this question is even being asked, since the situation is explicitly covered in the TD TIP for Rule 10B.
Bob
I showed him the TD TIP but he said TD Tips aren’t rules.
That’s true, but the TD TIPs do represent how TDs have historically interpreted the rules. There is some ground for wiggling if you are trying to apply a TD TIP to a situation that doesn’t perfectly match the one described in the TD TIP, but that is not the case here. If you rule as the TD TIP recommends, the most the player can do is appeal, and I can’t imagine that the people reviewing the appeal would fail to uphold a ruling made in accordance with a TD TIP.
Bob
The reason the tip is there is to reinforce the explicit language in the rules and not let people try to parse the various definitions of “deliberately” in the way that is most advantageous to them. It sounds like he did deliberately touch a piece (of his own volition), just not the one he originally planned to touch. The touch was done in a way that could be reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move.
He must move the piece touched.
No one can ever know with certainty what the player was actually intending to do when he touched the piece. Did he intend to move it, or was he planning to pick it up and scratch his head with it? That’s why it is not necessary to establish intent in order to enforce the touch move rule. If the player touched the piece in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move, then the player must move the piece if it is his own piece, and has a legal move, or must capture the piece if it is the opponent’s piece, and can be legally captured.
He’s got a fistful of knight. There’s your answer.
You’re not required to convince him what the rule is. Just make the ruling.
Micah, please tell us what your ruling was. We’re all dying to know. Inquiring minds want to know.
Obviously, the consensus (unanimous) in this thread is that he touched the piece in such a way as to begin a move, so he must move that piece.
Bill Smythe
Assuming he appealed please remember that appeals go to the chief TD (which I am guessing was you) and after that an appeal would go to an appeals committee or a special arbiter. An appeals committee should consist of TDs of at least the level of the TD being appealed, and a special arbiter should be called if such a committee cannot be formed (that rule about appeals committees was added a decade and a half ago when an appeals committee had a CTD and LTD outvoting a SrTD to overrule an NTD floor chief and the ANTD chief that upheld the NTD floor chief).
Children especially try to use this defense frequently (“I didn’t mean to move the knight”). Sorry, the mustard is not cut by this “reasoning.”
I have had that situation in many scholastic tournaments. I just tell them that is does not matter what you wanted to do; only what you did matters.