There was once a regional chess tournament was organized in my town. Some GMs from Australia, Indonesia and the Phillipines came to compete. Not to mention a fair number of IMs as well. The players played in a big hall in a local hotel, and one could see many games in progress for about a week. In between the players, the organizers left wide walkways to allow chess lovers to observe the games. They were stict on not making noises etc... just watch.
It happened that I was watching one particular game where an IM touched a pawn without announcing 'adjust', and then decided to move another piece. Unfortunately a TD was not there, and so didn't see what happened. The opponent raised his hand in protest, and the TD came to find out what had happened. To my amazement, the IM denied touching the pawn. There were few of us who saw that he actually did. But the TD turned to us and asked us for the truth. But somehow none of us dared to confirm it. Before long, it became a big thing. The clocks be stopped, and the TD took some minutes to decide on the matter. In the end, he gave the benefit of the doubt and allowed the IM to proceed with the game. It turned out that the IM won that game in the end.
It goes to show that tournament rules is one thing, but enforcement is quite another, huh?
Originally posted by jfkjmhNah.... no threats. But I think that is generally a common attitude of most people. We didn't want to be the one to be responsible. Then you'll be subject to interogation etc. It's more or less like seeing a crime taking place, most people just say "just mind my own business". Don't get involved, that's the best policy. It's only when it happened to you, and you know very well that someone saw what happened, the you'd be annoyed that no one step up to your defence. What to do... the world is like that!
I guess you were scared. Did the IM threathen you?
Originally posted by FabianFnasIn other words, you are taking the view of the TD. You are giving this IM the benefits of the doubt. You assume that it MUST be a mistake for not saying 'I adjust', because he didn't mean to cheat. But sometimes, probably less frequently for IMs and GMs, such omision of saying 'I adjust' is no mistake. Sometimes, we make a move we genuinely think is good, or best, and then immediately after making that move, you see that it's a blunder. In fact, that has happened to me in quite a few of my games on here. The only difference is that I couldn't take back those moves once I have submitted them!
His misstake was forgetting to say J'adaube, he was not trying to cheat. Then it's a minor thing. I wouldn't say anything either.
It's a far more major thing if he does it time after time. Then I would also protest and give voice to my opinion.
Even GMs have cheated. One time Bronstein even let a GM take a move back. Bronstein was too nice. Even Kasparov cheated one time. Fischer touched a pawn and played it even though his opponent was not at the board. At least Fischer was a gentileman at the board. That touch move rule hurts at times. Do you have to play a touched piece if you sort of bump it when reaching for another piece?
Originally posted by ckoh1965If it was delibarate, 'Oh, now I lose my queen, I take back and hope no one will notice...', then it was naturally a cheat.
In other words, you are taking the view of the TD. You are giving this IM the benefits of the doubt. You assume that it MUST be a mistake for not saying 'I adjust', because he didn't mean to cheat. But sometimes, probably less frequently for IMs and GMs, such omision of saying 'I adjust' is no mistake. Sometimes, we make a move we genuinely think is good, o ...[text shortened]... The only difference is that I couldn't take back those moves once I have submitted them!
If it was a 'Oh, I forgot to say J'adoube...'. then it was a excusable mishap.
I wasn't there, I didn't saw it. I would judge at the place.
I would probably do the same thing as you did - hope that someone else would tell the judge.
Originally posted by gambit3I've only played in some club tournaments before and it never happened like that. But even so, I don't think that if a player obviously accidentally 'bump' a piece while reaching for another should be forced to move that very piece. I think it is against the spirit of the game.
Even GMs have cheated. One time Bronstein even let a GM take a move back. Bronstein was too nice. Even Kasparov cheated one time. Fischer touched a pawn and played it even though his opponent was not at the board. At least Fischer was a gentileman at the board. That touch move rule hurts at times. Do you have to play a touched piece if you sort of bump it when reaching for another piece?
Originally posted by ckoh1965I have been in the TD's position and am suprised at the lame logic used to help someone avoid following the rules of chess.
Nah.... no threats. But I think that is generally a common attitude of most people. We didn't want to be the one to be responsible. Then you'll be subject to interogation etc. It's more or less like seeing a crime taking place, most people just say "just mind my own business". Don't get involved, that's the best policy. It's only when it happened to you, an ...[text shortened]... d be annoyed that no one step up to your defence. What to do... the world is like that!
By refusing to admit to what you saw happen, you are directly assistimg someone break the rules.
Your actions were not neutral.
You just wanted to avoid involvement and responsibility.
The world did not force you to lie, you chose to do that yourself.
Originally posted by ckoh1965Correct. It's actually in the USCF rulebook, and propbably in FIDE's as well, that an accidental bumping in which the player obviously did not intend to touch the piece, does not require the player to move the accidentally touched piece.
I've only played in some club tournaments before and it never happened like that. But even so, I don't think that if a player obviously accidentally 'bump' a piece while reaching for another should be forced to move that very piece. I think it is against the spirit of the game.
rules of 'touching 'are clear and by no means difficult to understand! if a chesspiece is accidentally touched and no evidence exists to prove otherwise,then this must be accepted as a genuine 'accident' as it is usually difficult to produce evidence that this was not an accident the player is ,and must be given the benefit of the doubt![innocence until guilt is proved],applies on chess boards as it does elsewhere! this system has its abusers as does the democratic system of life,but it is based on the 'need to protect and defend the innocent' which must be the priority on chessboards as anywhere else.penalties exist for proven abusers and should be applied with equal force.