touch move?

Originally posted by JonathanB of London
Regardless of whether you see enforcing touch move in this kind of circumstance as 'nit picking' or not ... your friend would certainly have no cause for complaint if anybody did so.

He's breaking the rules and so should not be surprised if somebody plays to the rules and forces him to leave his king on e1.

I call it nit picking because I fail to see the reason of existence of this rule.What does it matter which piece you touch first?How could you possibly benefit from moving the rook first?
I wouldn't want to win a game by enforcing such a rule anyway.Take the example greenpawn gave,I wouldn't allow him to castle but I wouldn't demand he moves his king either.I'd point out castling is illegal and allow him to move whatever else he wants so we can get on with our batlle.Guess I lack the true champion's mentality.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
Arghhh, I was afraid you might ask that question... You're not going to like the answer, though.

If you want a copy of the USCF rules, you're going to have to buy a copy of the rule book. You can look on the USCF web site all you want, but you won't find the rules in electronic form. The reason that I've heard is that the USCF has an exclusive contract w to the link below and search for the TD Corner link.

https://secure.uschess.org/tds/

Yeah, that is what I thought you would say, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some black market version of the rules. I was curious about USCF rules on time controls...went to the web site to peruse the rules and found that you had to buy them!!!! I was incensed! More over, I believe the cost is some $20!!! OK, if they are dumb enough to have singed the rights away, how about insisting that a .pdf be available for a nominal $5?!

RIDICULOUS!!! $20 for the USCF rules when you can find the rules of the game anywhere, save the USCF idiocies that they have codified.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Seen a few things during games in my time.
Never seen a player get a warning for touching a Rook first
though I know the rules exists.

In a league game v a player called Frisher I had played Ke8-d8 and back
to e8 a few moves later. Later I won a piece and my opponent instead
of resigning played on to try and drive up play against my King.

I cas ...[text shortened]... tried to enter THAT
game into a personal database and his machine won't allow Black to 0-0.

I would have done the same thing....high tail it out of there! funny story!

One time in my last round if I had won I would have been second and won some mony but in the game I had tride to castle and touched the rook first and called me on it and I later lost the game.

whoops, wrong thread, internet problems.😳

Originally posted by Dejection
whoops, wrong thread, internet problems.😳

This must be case of 'touch thread.'

Thadusman: I collect these things - can you PM me the details
and the game, or post them here if it's not too embarrassing.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
In a league game v a player called Frisher I had played Ke8-d8 and back
to e8 a few moves later. Later I won a piece and my opponent instead
of resigning played on to try and drive up play against my King.

I castled and my opponent resigned.
I forgot all about my King moves earlier, if my opponent had
noticed he could have insisted I play 'Touch Move ...[text shortened]... n he tried to enter THAT
game into a personal database and his machine won't allow Black to 0-0.

You made an excuse and left? You missed a great opportunity to have a little fun with the situation. When the analysis got to your castling move, you could have said something like, "Gee, I guess that was an illegal move, huh? Why did you let me do that?"

That game was a good start, but now you must follow it up with a game in which you castle twice, similar to what Wolfgang Heidenfeld did in Heidenfeld - Kerins, Dublin 1973. (Mentioned on Tim Krabbe's site, and previously discussed on RHP.)

Originally posted by MrHand
Yeah, that is what I thought you would say, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some black market version of the rules. I was curious about USCF rules on time controls...went to the web site to peruse the rules and found that you had to buy them!!!! I was incensed! More over, I believe the cost is some $20!!! OK, if they are dumb enough to have sin ...[text shortened]... en you can find the rules of the game anywhere, save the USCF idiocies that they have codified.

I agree with you that I think the USCF wasn't smart in setting up this contract with the publisher. But I guess I'm not quite as outraged as you are. Though, it would be nice to have an electronic form of the file so you could make electronic searches on key words, rather than manually hunting in the index of the book.

And I guess having to buy the book doesn't bother me too much. I'm sort of a book guy, and most of the time I prefer having a hardcopy anyway.

BTW, you can get it via mail order for only a little over $17 from Chess House or Wholesale Chess, and if you wait until you were going to order other stuff anyway, you wouldn't have to pay much more in shipping. And when you consider that the entry fee for one tournament is usually more than the price of the book, and you don't have to buy new editions of the book very often, the price of the book doesn't seem too bad.

How can you have TDs arbitrarily deciding not to apply or enforce a rule of chess? If that's the case, they shouldn't be TDs. What do you do if you ask the TD to enforce the written and clear rule but the TD refuses to respect the rule? It makes a mockery of the game.

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
How can you have TDs arbitrarily deciding not to apply or enforce a rule of chess? If that's the case, they shouldn't be TDs. What do you do if you ask the TD to enforce the written and clear rule but the TD refuses to respect the rule? It makes a mockery of the game.

That's what makes life interesting at times, I guess. 🙂

When the change to Rule 15A (make your move first rule) went into effect on January 1, 2007, it was a very unpopular rule change, because it would force scholastic kids to do the opposite of what they had been taught to do. (And it would force coaches of scholastic players to change their teaching methods.) In fact, the guidance from the USCF to TDs was to only warn violators multiple times before ever actually issuing a penalty for a violation. That tells me that the USCF knew from the beginning that the rule change would be unpopular and hard to adjust to.

So I suspect that many TDs feared that if they enforced the new rule change, they might be facing a revolt from the masses. Not a pleasant thought - A TDs job is hard enough as it is.

So I viewed the TDs' refusal to enforce the new rule change as sort of the chess equivalent to the concept of jury nullification in the American legal system - If the jury believes that a law is unjust, they have the right to ignore the law, regardless of what the judge says.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with what some of the TDs did, only that I think I understand why they did what they did.

P.S. And to answer your question, if a TD refuses to enforce a rule, a player has the right to file an appeal as allowed by USCF Rule 21H1.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
You made an excuse and left? You missed a great opportunity to have a little fun with the situation. When the analysis got to your castling move, you could have said something like, "Gee, I guess that was an illegal move, huh? Why did you let me do that?"

That game was a good start, but now you must follow it up with a game in which you castle twice, sim ...[text shortened]... eld - Kerins, Dublin 1973. (Mentioned on Tim Krabbe's site, and previously discussed on RHP.)

It was a league match and there were still games going on.
I thought being a coward was the best policy.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
I agree with you that I think the USCF wasn't smart in setting up this contract with the publisher. But I guess I'm not quite as outraged as you are. Though, it would be nice to have an electronic form of the file so you could make electronic searches on key words, rather than manually hunting in the index of the book.

And I guess having to buy the book ...[text shortened]... e to buy new editions of the book very often, the price of the book doesn't seem too bad.

It's mostly the principle of it for me...I've already spent $50 on annual registration as a USCF member...now I have to spend $20 on their rules??

Originally posted by MrHand
It's mostly the principle of it for me...I've already spent $50 on annual registration as a USCF member...now I have to spend $20 on their rules??

Or you can just not buy the book and learn as you go, via the school of hard knocks. I suspect most people do it that way, anyway. 😵

But yeah, I sympathize with you on the principle issue.

Originally posted by MrHand
now I have to spend $20 on their rules??

Can you not download them from another site?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Can you not download them from another site?

No, he can't, and that's the problem. We're talking about the USCF rules, which go far beyond just the basic rules of chess, or even FIDE rules. The USCF rules also discuss USCF tournament rules, in sometimes agonizing detail. (The USCF rule book runs about 370 pages.) And the USCF rules don't exist on the internet, as far as I know.