"Touch Move"????

It seems to me that a piece must be deliberately touched for the touch-move rule to apply. In other words, there is no penalty for accidentally knocking over a piece. In the touch-move rule, there must be intent. How to determine or prove that is the problem. I would think that when a player knocks over a piece there is no implication of intent there. When it's just one player's word against another, the arbiter should use common sense and decide on the basis of the balance of probabilities. If the player has a reputation for this sort of thing then the ruling might go against him.
To avoid problems be careful. Don't wear baggy sleeves. Never reach for a piece in haste. Be deliberate in everything you do. After all, doesn't playing the game itself teach you these things?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't think this game should be a draw.
FIDE rule 9.6 applies.

Perhaps FIDE rule 10.2.a is more appropriate here...

"If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim."

To put this in context "by normal means" appears to imply a method of victory that does not involve your opponent running out of time

Originally posted by clandarkfire
I 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.

Assuming that your opponent saw you knock over the rook, then based on USCF Rule 10E, your opponent was clearly wrong in making a touch move claim, and the TD's decision was wrong.

There's a TD tip in the USCF rule book at the beginning of Section 10 that provides additional insight:

"TD TIP: Without a neutral witness Rule 10 depends on the reliability of both the claimant and the opponent. If they disagree then the TD should strongly consider denying the claim. In most cases, by denying the claim the TD shuts the door to all false claims. Upholding a false claim usually does more harm to more players than denying an accurate claim."

It sounds like there wasn't an impartial witness to the incident. So unless the TD had a very strong reason to believe that you would lie about knocking over the piece, then he should have followed the advice of the TD Tip and denied the claim by your opponent.

My conclusion? Unless the TD was totally convinced that you were lying, he was either wrongly showing favoritism to your opponent, or he didn't know the rules that he's supposed to know.

I apologise, I thought it might be close enough to the original topic. As it happens, those of you that answered explained it anyway as I was trying to win just on time - I had no method to win, just waiting moves.

As for the original topic, I'm not sure exactly what the rules are but it seems petty to me - but you can take comfort in knowing that your opponent was very lucky to get away with such underhand tactics and you had the better of them.

Originally posted by agentreno
I apologise, I thought it might be close enough to the original topic. As it happens, those of you that answered explained it anyway as I was trying to win just on time - I had no method to win, just waiting moves.

As for the original topic, I'm not sure exactly what the rules are but it seems petty to me - but you can take comfort in knowing that your opponent was very lucky to get away with such underhand tactics and you had the better of them.

Hi again. Your posting here with the different subject isn't a big deal, and nothing really to apologize for. The only reason I suggested starting a new thread is that if someone goes to search for your conversation later on, they probably won't be able to find it because it's hidden under a different topic. (Plus, it sometimes gets a little confusing having two conversations going on simultaneously in the same thread.) But if you're satisfied with the information already given, then great!

I am curious to know one thing about British chess. Does it have its own rule book separate from FIDE rules? If you don't know, that's OK, but I've been curious about that for a while. I asked the question once before in the forum but got no responses.

Edit - Well, I did some digging around on the English Chess Federation web site. It looks like they pretty much just follow FIDE rules. So I'm guessing that's the answer. I did notice an interesting page titled "Guidance on the Quickplay Finish", by David Welch, Chief Arbiter of the ECF.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisation/fide/guidance-quickplay_nov06.htm

Originally posted by clandarkfire
but if I accidentally knock it over?

When you picked up the Rook you hurt your chances to play the move you wanted too play. That touch move rule can hurt. Even Fischer was hurt by it one time.

Originally posted by clandarkfire
I was playing at an otb tournament last weekend, and in one of my games, when I was ahead a rook, and a few games from checkmate, I reached for a pawn, and in doing so acidently knocked over my rook. I picked it up without bothering to say "I adjust", or whatever I would say, and my opponent announced that I had to move it. I called the TD and he agreed ...[text shortened]... it, I move it there, my opponent captured it, and I consequently lost. Is this really correct?

Please look at the FIDE 'Laws of Chess' : -
Article 4: The act of moving the pieces
4.2 Provided that he first expresses his intention (e.g. by saying "" or "I adjust"😉, the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.

So you must say 'j`adoube' BEFORE you touch the man you wish to adjust, not after.

Originally posted by Essex 3
Please look at the FIDE 'Laws of Chess' : -
Article 4: The act of moving the pieces
4.2 Provided that he first expresses his intention (e.g. by saying "" or "I adjust"😉, the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.

So you must say 'j`adoube' BEFORE you touch the man you wish to adjust, not after.

I'd like to make two responses to your post, if you don't mind.

First, clandarkfire's flag is a USA flag, so I'm assuming that he's playing under USCF rules, which I've already discussed in detail in prior posts.

Second, even if he were playing under FIDE rules, I don't think you've addressed the correct FIDE rule. It seems that Article 4.2 applies to a deliberate intent to adjust a piece ON ITS SQUARE, not an accidental knocking over of a piece. I agree that once a piece has been accidentally knocked over, it would probably be safer to say j`adoube before resetting it, but is it strictly required (or even needed) by the rules? After all, the piece was already accidentally touched when it was knocked over, and you certainly can't say j`adoube before accidentally knocking over a piece.

Take a look at: Article 7: Irregularities

"7.3 If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter`s assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces."

It seems to me that Article 7.3 is really addressing the situation of an accidently knocked over piece (or displaced piece, using FIDE's terminology). Notice that Article 7.3 says nothing about having to say j`adoube. Notice also that it does introduce the possibility of a penalty for the sin of displacing the piece.

So in conclusion, I contend that neither USCF nor FIDE rules require that you say j`adoube after accidentally displacing (knocking over) a piece, although I do think that it would be safer to do so.

Originally posted by clandarkfire
I was playing at an otb tournament last weekend, and in one of my games, when I was ahead a rook, and a few games from checkmate, I reached for a pawn, and in doing so acidently knocked over my rook. I picked it up without bothering to say "I adjust", or whatever I would say, and my opponent announced that I had to move it. I called the TD and he agreed ...[text shortened]... it, I move it there, my opponent captured it, and I consequently lost. Is this really correct?

Da roolz iz da roolz. Don't like 'em? Play another game. I'd've taken the same lame win. A win's a win. Learn to follow the rules and you'll be ok. Think that your mistake is the exception to the rules and you're effed.

Originally posted by st00p1dfac3
Da roolz iz da roolz. Don't like 'em? Play another game. I'd've taken the same lame win. A win's a win. Learn to follow the rules and you'll be ok. Think that your mistake is the exception to the rules and you're effed.

So you'd cheat to win a game. You must be proud.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
So you'd cheat to win a game. You must be proud.

No - In case you missed it, I said the rules are the rules. I'd use a strict interperetation of the rules if it was in my favour. How is that cheating? Moron.

Originally posted by st00p1dfac3
No - In case you missed it, I said the rules are the rules. I'd use a strict interperetation of the rules if it was in my favour. How is that cheating? Moron.

Either you didn't bother reading the previous posts, or you have a severe reading comprehension problem. An accidental touching of a piece is not a touch-move violation. Yes, you said that the rules are the rules, but either you don't know the rules, or you're advocating the breaking of the rules. I submit that you're the moron in this discussion.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
Either you didn't bother reading the previous posts, or you have a severe reading comprehension problem. An accidental touching of a piece is not a touch-move violation. Yes, you said that the rules are the rules, but either you don't know the rules, or you're advocating the breaking of the rules. I submit that you're the moron in this discussion.

Edit - I took out everything I said. Touch-move rule = you touch it, you move it. Decisions based on intent are up to the adjuditcator. No likey? Too bad. If it worked in my favour I would request that touch-move be enforced to the letter, not the spirit.

Edit two: Of course, if things were reversed I would insist on the spirit rather than the letter. Winning is the goal, na?

Edit three: How did you all miss the intentional mis-spelling of "rules?"?!? If anything says "I'm messing" spelling rules as "roolz" does. Relax a small bit - you might save yourself a heart attack. Or a severe dose of the constipation. Damn...

Edit four: Look at my rating, and then decide whether you should take my chess advice seriously.

Originally posted by st00p1dfac3
Edit - I took out everything I said. Touch-move rule = you touch it, you move it. Decisions based on intent are up to the adjuditcator. No likey? Too bad. If it worked in my favour I would request that touch-move be enforced to the letter, not the spirit.

Edit two: Of course, if things were reversed I would insist on the spirit rather than the l ...[text shortened]... r: Look at my rating, and then decide whether you should take my chess advice seriously.

"Edit - I took out everything I said. Touch-move rule = you touch it, you move it. Decisions based on intent are up to the adjuditcator. No likey? Too bad. If it worked in my favour I would request that touch-move be enforced to the letter, not the spirit."

Based on that statement, you either still haven't read the previous posts, or you still suffer from that same severe reading comprehension problem. But that's your problem, not mine.

"Edit two: Of course, if things were reversed I would insist on the spirit rather than the letter. Winning is the goal, na?"

Winning by any means shouldn't be the goal. Winning within the rules should be the goal. And it seems fairly clear to me that you aren't too concerned with honesty or personal integrity.

"Edit three: How did you all miss the intentional mis-spelling of "rules?"?!? If anything says "I'm messing" spelling rules as "roolz" does. Relax a small bit - you might save yourself a heart attack. Or a severe dose of the constipation. Damn..."

Regardless of whether you were just "messing", your post to the OP came off as extremely insulting and demeaning. I doubt that anyone else reading your post would think you were just being playful. And I am relaxed. If I have a heart attack, it won't be because of internet chess.

"Edit four: Look at my rating, and then decide whether you should take my chess advice seriously."

It's my opinion that chess ratings don't have much of a correlation with critical thinking skills. A good chess rating simply means that you can play chess well. So I don't consider your chess rating a factor in this discussion.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
"Edit - I took out everything I said. Touch-move rule = you touch it, you move it. Decisions based on intent are up to the adjuditcator. No likey? Too bad. If it worked in my favour I would request that touch-move be enforced to the letter, not the spirit."

Based on that statement, you either still haven't read the previous posts, or you still suffe ell. So I don't consider your chess rating a factor in this discussion.

Ok - I tried the make fun of myself get out of this argument thing, but you're obviously having none of it. So, I'll respond one last time, hopefully.

So, to begin with - the touch move rule is fairly well set in stone: you touch the piece, you move it. If an adjudicator decides to be human about it, that's his/her business, not mine or yours. The truth, and the end of the discussion about the rule is that the rule IS. No amount of discussion about the morals of the rule, or any decisions made concerning the rule changes the fact the the touch move rule says that you touch a piece, thats the piece you move. Disagree? Fine, but you may want to review the rules of chess. I've had people stick to the letter of the rule in friendly games, so I don't consider it cheating to stick to the letter of the rule in any match that counts.

Winning anything by any means shouldn't be the rule. I absolutely agree with you there. However, "shouldn't" and "isn't" are two different things. Shouldn't is an amazingly positive word - it implies a world of understanding, empathy, and true humanity. Unfortunately, life isn't that way. If you disagree, you are lying. Just think back to the last time someone jumped in front of you in a queue at the supermarket/bank/wherever -did they apologise and give you your rightful place? Maybe, but not likely.

As to the messing - if it came off as insulting, demeaning, or anything else other than mildly humourous, I apologise. I didn't mean to insult anyone really. Unfortunately, the online experience doesn't allow me to make the facial expressons and stupid voices I would normally associate with most of the things I say. My sense of humour tends toward the sarcastic, and the dry. I honestly, and sincerely apoogise if I hurt anyone's feelings. The relax part, and the heart attack bit were meant in the same way - it was a joke, and obviously the joke didn't work, so I also apologise to you specifically.

Your attitude towards ratings on this site is comendable, and rare. A lot of people decide that you are not worth reading if you have a low rating here. I did mean it as a sort of apologetic joke aimed at myself though. You were meant to see that I can hold myself against the same sharp edge of my ugly humour that I subject you all to, and feel appeased by my self-deprecation. Obviously I failed there as well.

I still think that the rule is written the way it is for a reason (to stop people touching every piece on the board and moving them to see what happens) but that if the rule can work in your favour then there is no reason not to take that advantage. I also know it can go the other way - if you can work the rules to help you win, you are using tactics and strategy off the board, you are winning within the rules. And there is nothing wrong with that. If you disagree, we can have that discussion elsewhere - I was only doing what everyone else was, throwing my two cents in on the touch-move rule.

Edit: Dang, that was a lot of typing.