A TD observes a player deliberately move and release a piece, and then take the move back and make a different move. The other player also observes what happened but chooses not to make a claim. Instead, the other player allows the violator to make the different move. What (if anything) should the TD do?
(I just finished directing my first tournament (unrated)).
Is this game played under US Chess rules or FIDE rules? How much time is left on the clock? Touch move can’t be enforced without a claim by the opponent. What we have here is at least two illegal moves. The player made a move, made a second move (returning the piece to its original square), and then made a third move. Under some circumstances TDs can correct illegal moves without a claim.
Alex Relyea
Thank you very much for your reply.
The tournament was played by novice chess players, without clocks, at a substance abuse treatment facility for juveniles.
It was under US Chess rules. At least, that was my goal!
Was the tournament a scholastic event? Was the tournament an unrated event with a lot of new players? If so, a TD might step in to correct the players as they may not know the rules of chess for competitions. Did you announce that the “touch move” rule would be enforced? For normal, rated competitions you don’t have to do that. But for beginners it is good to emphasize that point among a few other rules like keeping score, proper ways to castle, no talking during games, etc. Announcements before the first round reinforce what they are supposed to do, how they are supposed to behave.
Good luck with directing tournaments!
Thank you very much for your reply.
I did cover the rules and they do know about touch-move. I found out later that there were several instances in this particular game in which these boys, who are friends, allowed each other to retract a move.
If these two friends were informed about the touch move rule and chose to ignore it, that’s fine; that’s their choice. I would, however, talk to them after the game and warn each of them that their next opponents might not be so generous. It’s really better for them not to get into the habit of taking moves back. Good luck with your directing!
Thanks for your reply!
I did speak with them separately after the game. However, I did not point out that other opponents might not be so generous. I will remind them of that when I see them next week!
I think all of you may be taking this far too seriously. It was an informal tournament, not rated, played at a drug rehab facility.
What was the main point of the tournament? Was it to potentially introduce players to a future in organized rated chess? Or was it to find activities for the participants that may help them overcome their drug dependencies?
Bill Smythe
In US Chess, intervention requires a claim. There was no claim.
Under the FLC, the arbiter is expected to intervene and enforce the consequences of his observation.
The value of your work is not diminished by slight imperfections in directing an unrated event (which aren’t present here). Thank you, and keep it up.
Edit: What Bill said.
SmytheDakota, thanks for your reply. Definitely the most important purpose of the tournament is therapeutic. However, one thing we emphasize is finding useful activities our residents can do when back home, so as to help occupy their time and minds in a healthy manner when they leave our facility. I always encourage chess players who are leaving to look into chess clubs at their regular school, and I want these players to have good chess habits in place so as to help them be successful if they were to continue with chess after leaving our program.
brennanprice, thank you very much for your kind words. We had a two-way tie for first place and the winners just treasure the small trophies they were awarded.
Is not claiming touch move ethical? Your opponent touches a piece and then changes his mind and makes a much weaker move with a different piece [in your opinion]. Is it unethical to not make a claim that the rule was violated so the weaker move is played?
You are simply giving an extensive benefit of the doubt to 10F (appearance of adjustment) and not making a timely 10J claim.
A common argument would be that violating touch move is unethical and thus reaping the rewards of having your violation accepted is appropriate justice. The same could happen in a non-claim for an illegal move:
1 e4 f5 2 e5 g6 3 Bc4 Bg7 4 Qf3 f5xe4 e.p. 5 Qf7# (legal move bringing about mate and ending the game without recourse for black to subsequently claim the en passant on move four was illegal and the position should be restored).
Hi Jeff:
I understand the 2 points of view and the point you show is a valid response. I was just trying to get a feeling how players feel about either enforcing the rules of chess [or having the TD enforce by making a complaint] even to the opponent’s benefit or not. I think it is an interesting question. Just discussing philosophy and sportsmanship as relates to chess.
Regards, Ernie
I would strongly encourage that the youngsters be encouraged to enforce touch move, for the simple reason that if not, there is a strong likelihood of volcanic arguments erupting at some point.
I have heard arguments that went like this " This is not fair - you will not let me take my horrible
queen blunder move back, and yet I gave you your horrible bishop blunder move back a few moves ago. Consider, that if I had enforced touch move on your bishop, it would not have been there to take my queen." So let me ask you guys and gals - If you are called to the table to resolve this argument in a scholastic tournament, both sides agreeing that both players have been allowing ‘takebacks’ how would you rule?? Would it not be unreasonable, given the circumstances, for the TD to simply rule the game a draw??
Rob Jones
The scenario you give is a good example of why it is better for players to enforce the touch-move rule. Your idea of ruling a draw here is not a bad one; given that it’s an unrated tournament you have a lot of latitude in how you rule. I don’t think that’s what I would do, though. My feeling is that what has transpired in the past - both sides retracting moves - is irrelevant. As they say in the investment business, “past performance does not guarantee future results.” If player A chooses not to let player B take back his “horrible Queen blunder” even though earlier player B allowed player A to take back his “horrible Bishop blunder”, that’s entirely player A’s right. I would enforce the touch-move rule claimed by player A. Player B will learn a valuable lesson, and it won’t cost him any rating points.