Unrateds and Under Prizes

[DENTONCHESS]

@jwiewel

@seki

I might also like to see words like “reasonable” and “should” taken out of the rules.

Be careful what you wish for.

10B. Touch-move rule.
Except for 10A [saying adjust], a player on move who deliberately touches one or more pieces, in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move, must move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured.

I had a case last weekend where a player did not say “adjust” and was pulling a piece of hair off the board, just barely brushing the side of a pawn while doing so. The opponent called touch move and I ruled that the touch could NOT be reasonably interpreted as the beginning of a move.

I’ve had other cases where a player picked up a piece that the opponent knocked over and the opponent wanted to call touch move.

I’ve stepped in at the last minute and been the chief of a tournament so large that I should not have been the chief, but after the scheduled chief TDs auto-accident the option was to run the tournament with an undercertified chief or to cancel it. If the phrase was “must not” then it would have been mandatory to cancel that scholastic state championship tournament. “Should not” requires the organizer to plan for appropriate staffing. “Must not” penalizes players by cancelling tournaments when rare and unanticipated events occur.

I would vote against a motion to remove words like “reasonably” and “should”.

Many years ago, two very talented players were matched. White moves his king from e1 to c1, then realizes that
checkmate is looming on the next move for black. White then states, “silly me, kings cannot move two squares”
and then attempts to move the king to a better square f1. Black naturally objected and insisted on the complete
castling move, which I upheld. Quickly the game ended.

It is interesting in how many really good players have the assumption because of their experience playing, sometimes decades, that they can step right in as TDs without reading the rule book. Quite often they are
surprised.

Rob Jones

[Smythe_Dakota]

@DENTONCHESS

… White moves his king from e1 to c1, then realizes that checkmate is looming on the next move for black. White then states, “silly me, kings cannot move two squares” and then attempts to move the king to a better square f1. Black naturally objected and insisted on the complete castling move, which I upheld. Quickly the game ended. …

(Formatting corrected to remove extraneous line breaks.)

The correct ruling depends on whether the player has removed his hand from the king on c1, doesn’t it?

If, after moving Ke1-c1, he still has his hand on the king, he can still legally move the king to another square. But once he takes his hand off the king on c1 (which is what I assume happened), then I congratulate you on a correct ruling that dispensed justice swiftly and firmly, and gave each party exactly what he deserved.

Bill Smythe

[DENTONCHESS]

@Smythe Dakota

@DENTONCHESS

… White moves his king from e1 to c1, then realizes that checkmate is looming on the next move for black. White then states, “silly me, kings cannot move two squares” and then attempts to move the king to a better square f1. Black naturally objected and insisted on the complete castling move, which I upheld. Quickly the game ended. …

(Formatting corrected to remove extraneous line breaks.)

The correct ruling depends on whether the player has removed his hand from the king on c1, doesn’t it?

If, after moving Ke1-c1, he still has his hand on the king, he can still legally move the king to another square. But once he takes his hand off the king on c1 (which is what I assume happened), then I congratulate you on a correct ruling that dispensed justice swiftly and firmly, and gave each party exactly what he deserved.

Bill Smythe

you are quite correct, Bill. White did remove his hand from the king on c1. Actually, I have ruled on this more than a few times.

Rob Jones