Originally posted by MahoutIs it not the serious rule that if you touch a piece and make an illegal move you should then move that same piece if you can?
Last night in my legue match my opponent played an illegal move when he overlooked that he was in check. I pointed it out, he apologised and he did another move that blocked the check. With his revised move he moved the same piece he had touched. I let it pass ...life is too short and I don't even know if there were any other options other than to play on. I ...[text shortened]... I wonder if it's valid to say the french for: "whoops I just knocked that over by accident"
Originally posted by LukerikYes, you're correct. As far as I can tell, Mahout's opponent did exactly what he was required to do according to the rules. The only additional issue might have been whether Mahout should have claimed a time penalty. But as far as the moves, I think his opponent acted correctly.
Is it not the serious rule that if you touch a piece and make an illegal move you should then move that same piece if you can?
Edit - That is, once it's been pointed out to you that you've made an illegal move, you are then required to make a legal move, with the same piece that you touched, if possible. If it's not possible to make a legal move with the piece that you initially touched, then you are free to make a legal move with another piece.
Originally posted by Pigface1You have to say "J'adoube" first though - saying it after you've touched a piece is neither here nor there.
Technically that is correct, you have to announce "J`adoube" (french for I adjust) or you ust move the piece that you touched,..
I've also seen a tournament director insist an accidentally touched piece be moved. I'm not sure what the official rules are here (Britain) - I was very interested to read that USCF ruling.
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonI'm sure it's not easy for TDs or arbiters to rule on these "accidentally touched" piece claims, because often the two players are the only witnesses to the incident.
You have to say "J'adoube" first though - saying it after you've touched a piece is neither here nor there.
I've also seen a tournament director insist an accidentally touched piece be moved. I'm not sure what the official rules are here (Britain) - I was very interested to read that USCF ruling.
Also, at least here in the states, the definition of "deliberately touched piece" is often misinterpreted by a player. Say a player has a bishop and queen close together. The player intends to move the bishop, but accidently grabs the queen instead. Some players think because he intended to move the bishop, that the queen is an "accidentally touched piece." However, that's not true, because, even though he intended to move the bishop, he made a deliberate act to move the queen. So in this case, he's bound by the rules to move the queen.
Originally posted by LukerikUSCF rules give a blind or disabled player the right to use an assistant to help him with things like moving pieces, recording the moves, etc. I would assume that FIDE rules have some similar option.
Does anyone know what the approach is if you suffer from say Parkinson's where you may not be able to accurately control which pieces you touch?
What happened exactly?
Did you hold the pawn when you knocked over the rook? (1)
Or did you knock over the rook while your hand was en route to reach the pawn? (2)
I case (1) you don't have to move the rook at all, because you had begun a pawn move.
In case (2) you should continue to grab the pawn, make the move, let go of the pawn in its new position, then, with or without saying the 'adjust' word, put the rook to its place again, and then press the clock.
The keyword is 'accidentally'. If your opponent wanted to make a fuzz about the accidental touching, then you could claim the FIDE rule 12.5 that says: "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever", which give the TD the power to punish your opponent in one or another way.
A good TD should, however, see that the good spirit is maintained, and not go into strict rule interpretation, if he suspects that it is not in the line of good sportmansship.
The TD was a bit harsh there- I agree you should have completed your move, but seeing as you touched the pawn, then he should have known touchmove applied to that first. Your opponent is a moron, you weren't trying to move it with your elbow or whatever, he just wanted to win to boost his ego.
Unlucky clark, I feel for you.
On a similar note, I played an OTB game recently where my opponent was in serious time trouble and I was looking forward to winning on time. At one point he claimed a draw because neither of us could 'make progress' as he put it. True, I had started making pointless king moves but the position was not repeated and any move was detrimental to my position. I could still have given up material... should this have been a draw?
Without an arbiter and with my opponent protesting heavily I decided to agree to the draw as it was the right result for the position, if not for the game where my opponent had squandered a large amount of his time.
Originally posted by agentrenoYou should probably start your own thread. No sense in hijacking this one. But I think you need to give more details. What pieces did you and your opponent have, what was the time control, and did the clock have a delay feature?
On a similar note, I played an OTB game recently where my opponent was in serious time trouble and I was looking forward to winning on time. At one point he claimed a draw because neither of us could 'make progress' as he put it. True, I had started making pointless king moves but the position was not repeated and any move was detrimental to my position. I ...[text shortened]... the position, if not for the game where my opponent had squandered a large amount of his time.
Originally posted by agentrenoI don't think this game should be a draw.
On a similar note, I played an OTB game recently where my opponent was in serious time trouble and I was looking forward to winning on time. At one point he claimed a draw because neither of us could 'make progress' as he put it. True, I had started making pointless king moves but the position was not repeated and any move was detrimental to my position. I ...[text shortened]... the position, if not for the game where my opponent had squandered a large amount of his time.
FIDE rule 9.6 applies.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI reached for the pawn, began to pick it up, and knocked over the rook. I quickly stood up the rook, picked up my pawn and moved it. Then my opponent began shouting for the TD, as he claimed it was "touch move". It is also worth knowing that at my level of scholastic chess, many of the TDs and players know each other, and I a quite sure this was the case.
What happened exactly?
Did you hold the pawn when you knocked over the rook? (1)
Or did you knock over the rook while your hand was en route to reach the pawn? (2)
I case (1) you don't have to move the rook at all, because you had begun a pawn move.
In case (2) you should continue to grab the pawn, make the move, let go of the pawn in its new positi ict rule interpretation, if he suspects that it is not in the line of good sportmansship.
Originally posted by FabianFnasDrawing a conclusion by trying to apply rule 9.6 doesn't make any sense in this situation. First, aqentreno didn't give enough information. Second, rule 9.6 only covers some situations where a game might be drawn. How do you know that rule 10.2 doesn't apply, not knowing the time control, the time remaining, and the board position? There's simply not enough information to give an informed opinion. However, unless aqentreno starts a new thread, I'm not going to continue to assist in the hijacking of this thread. I'm done with this issue.
I don't think this game should be a draw.
FIDE rule 9.6 applies.