Arbiting Question

[Tim Spanton]

In round eight at Calvià (Mallorca) there was a kerfuffle two boards away from me when one player accused his opponent of touching a piece and then moving another. The opponent said he had been thinking of making "that move," but had not touched the piece. An arbiter came over and said that since he had not seen the incident, there was nothing he could do. A player on an adjacent board spoke to the arbiter in Spanish, and I think said he had seen the touching. The arbiter said in English words to the effect of: "I cannot make decisions based on what spectators say." The game carried on without the allegedly touched piece being moved.
Any comments?

[Alex McFarlane]

Absolutely correct decision.
There is no proof that a single witness is unbiased, especially when on an adjacent board where the result could be important to them.
I would need several witnesses or someone I knew I could trust before imposing the 'touch' move rule in these circumstances.

However, I would also inform other members of the control team and that player would be subject to extra scrutiny throughout. A second such claim against the same player could result in a different decision. But even this is not certain as the opponent might have been aware of the first and decided to 'chance his arm'.

Touch move decisions can be really frustrating for the arbiter when they believe the accusation but cannot do anything about it.
If there is filming anywhere in the area then a bluff can work. "Did you touch the piece?" "No". "I will check the camera and if you are lying you will be excluded from the tournament, so are you sure?" has been known to get a confession.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

What do you do when it is a case of someone allegedly touching a piece (i.e. not picking it up) but moving their hand away again and claiming that they reached out towards the piece but didn't touch it, but the counter-claim is that they did? Even film won't prove the case there. Now if the pieces had sensors to record who touched them when...

(Similar, but a bit later in the 'moving a piece' process, is where the allegation is that a piece has been released on a square - i.e. the contact between hand and piece has been broken. The claim here is usually that a blunder was spotted at the last minute and the hand never left the piece, and so the piece can be moved to an alternative, not-losing, square.)

How decisive are people when moving their pieces? Is it invariably 'make a decision; followed by a firm move and pressing of the clock, or if you are indecisive for some reason (unsure of the move), do you engage in annoyingly slow and uncertain movements, with hovering hands and emotive body language?

[Paul McKeown]

With inexperienced junior players, of course, the precise wording of 4.3 is important:

4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard:

The keyword being "deliberately". Spurious claims that amount to little more than "He looked at that piece, I demand that he move it," can be quickly dismissed. Some children will inevitably claim that their opponent brushed a piece whilst moving another (which amongst young children is common as their dexterity is still developing), or their opponent touched the piece with a pen, or even their fringe or nose or forehead if they got too close to the board and pieces.

Also with players with motor disorders or bad eyesight, unsporting opponents may occasionally try to take advantage of their condition, as the player concerned may well inadvertently touch miscellaneous pieces whilst trying to move another. Again, any good arbiter will gladly refer to the word "deliberately" to avoid the commission of an injustice.

I know that FIDE has moved over recent years to tighten the ruling, but I would find it a grevious mistake were FIDE at some future point to remove that single word, "deliberately."

As for touch move incidents between mature, able bodied players, they are happily rather uncommon. When they do occur, as Chris Kreuzer says, it usually concerns whether or not the hand quit a piece or not, often a matter of a split second, and unless the arbiter her or himself actually witnessed the incident, there is usually little than can be done.

[E Michael White]

Paul.

The link you have shown takes you to an outdated version of the Chess Laws.

[Roger de Coverly]

The link you have shown takes you to an outdated version of the Chess Laws.

According to https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018

Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard,with the intention of moving or capturing:

The meaning is the same.

[Joey Stewart]

I generally give people leeway on touch moves, we don't want chess to end up like the insanity of VAR handballs and offsides in football, but the moment the piece is deliberately grasped and lifted off the board is where I would draw the line and say the move has now been committed to being played.

[Alex McFarlane]

The link you have shown takes you to an outdated version of the Chess Laws.

According to https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018

Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard,with the intention of moving or capturing:

The meaning is the same.

Perhaps in a practical sense, and to sensible people, the meaning is the same but there is a subtle difference.
A player knocked his rook off the board and picked it up without saying J'adoube. When he returned it to its original square an arbiter deemed that he had deliberately touched it on the board and must therefore move it.
Nonsense of course but the Law was amended because of that very literal interpretation.

[Joey Stewart]

On the subject of touch moves here is a novelty one i just thought of - how long can you actually hold a piece in your hand for after picking it up? For example, say I picked up my queen to move it but then held it in my hand for a good few minutes to disorient my opponent and cause them to lose track of where it actually was on the board.

[Alex McFarlane]

how long can you actually hold a piece in your hand for after picking it up?

Until your flag falls.

An arbiter may decide before then that you are distracting your opponent but most would probably think the loss of time was enough punishment unless you are talking about multiple minutes.

[NickFaulks]

An arbiter may decide before then that you are distracting your opponent

In my case, they quite possibly would be. I want to see my opponent's entire move, so if my opponents queen, say, lands on g6, I don't want my first thought to be "where did that come from?". Do I have a case?

I also think that even during my opponent's thinking time, I have the right to a clear view of the position, including all the pieces and not obscured by my opponent waving their arm around over the board. Do I have that right?

[Alex McFarlane]

Hi Nick,

Those would be covered by distraction.

What constitutes distraction is subjective, especially in the case described where it may be difficult to distinguish between a genuine reappraisal of the move and an attempt to distract the opponent.

Obviously it is better if the player replaces the piece on its original square. But on more than one occasion I've had a player ask his opponent what that original square was. On one occasion a hesitant player put it back on its original square thinking he had moved it so pressed the clock. That is covered explicitly in the Laws.

[Ian Thompson]

On the subject of touch moves here is a novelty one i just thought of - how long can you actually hold a piece in your hand for after picking it up? For example, say I picked up my queen to move it but then held it in my hand for a good few minutes to disorient my opponent and cause them to lose track of where it actually was on the board.

I had someone do that sort of thing against me in a London League match a few years ago. I'd captured a piece of his and his only sensible reply was to recapture, but he had a choice over how to recapture. He removed my piece from the board and held it in his hand. He then took 2 or 3 minutes before moving one of his pieces to complete the capture.

An arbiter may decide before then that you are distracting your opponent but most would probably think the loss of time was enough punishment unless you are talking about multiple minutes.

I don't see how the player doing this is necessarily losing time. He may be thinking about where to move the piece and losing no time at all. I'd say it was a clear distraction for the opponent if it lasted more than a few seconds.

[Alex McFarlane]

The losing time referred to Joey's initial scenario.

My reply of saying until he runs out of time, I assumed, was obviously tongue in cheek.

[Chris Goodall]

Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard,with the intention of moving or capturing:

I have known a particularly frazzled opponent, sitting back down at the board after attending to some club duties, grasp one of my rooks with the intention of moving it, but not of capturing it. He had forgotten which colour pieces were his.

I let him off with that, but under tournament conditions would the intention to move the piece create an obligation to capture the piece (which was possible in the position)?