Accidentally displacing a piece

[John Cox]

I never actually read the rules of chess, of course.

Yet you write so authoritatively!

Of course. Players shouldn't need to read the rules of chess to know what they say. If they're properly drafted, they'll provide the right answer. One only needs to read them once arbiters have come up with the wrong answer, in order to see why they have gone wrong.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Ironically, back in the days when people wrote their moves down before moving, that would be clear evidence of what move you intended to play, and that any touching of other pieces was a mistake.

[John Cox]

According to Sean, though, that wouldn't help; if you knock a piece over and deliberately replace it then you're done for and intent doesn't come into it.

Unless perhaps writing another move down were taken as 'indicating' your 'intention' to adjust another piece. A bit far-fetched, but could perhaps be done with proper creativity on the part of the arbiter.

What would Lord Denning do?!

[Ray Sayers]

How do you want to win?

If this matters to you at all costs, then you will insist on a move being made.

I'm too old and just want to play to bother with all that, if I am sure there is no malice intended. For example, occasionally, someone may castle by picking their rook up first. I could insist they move it, but that would just screw up the game and besides, I knew wht the guy meant to do. A passing Arbiter may intervene, but I won't seek them out. The most I am likely to do is have a quiet word after, so they don't fall into it again.

If someone picks up a piece then realises it loses, then they are bang to rights. Don't move unless you are ready to!

[Sean Hewitt]

Criticise the rules by all means, criticise arbiters when they get it wrong. But don't criticise them when they get it right.

It's always been my impression that arbiters write the rules, so criticism of the rules and the application thereof should be taken together.

Balderdash! The person who writes the rules may be an arbiter (I don't know) but that does not mean that all arbiters write the rules. I don't write the rules, and never have. I do apply them in tournaments I'm officiating at though.

According to Sean, though, that wouldn't help; if you knock a piece over and deliberately replace it then you're done for and intent doesn't come into it.

It's not according to me. It doesn't matter what I say. It's what the laws say that counts.

[Paul McKeown]

If Gufeld is on your side in a legal or ethical debate, then the overwhelming probability is that you're wrong.

LOL and QED.

In such events, I always find it slightly depressing that arbiters don't give 12.1 due weight:

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

However, the Laws don't forbid arbiters from bringing the game into disrepute, only the players.

[John Cox]

Criticise the rules by all means, criticise arbiters when they get it wrong. But don't criticise them when they get it right.

It's always been my impression that arbiters write the rules.

It’s always been my impression that that Dutch bloke who doesn’t understand the repetition rule writes the rules, with assistance from that English fellow who thinks that when a grandmaster plays Qg8+ and let’s go of the piece, which then teeters over towards h8 where it can be captured by a bishop on g7, it’s appropriate to interfere in a time scramble between two top-level grandmasters both trying to adjust the queen back to g8 and insist that Qh8+ be played.

Which accounts for a lot, really.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't write the rules, and never have. I do apply them in tournaments I'm officiating at though.

It's all part of the same system though, therefore those who apply rules should be certain of the intent of those who write them. So is it believed that the intent of the writers of the touch move rule envisage arbiters patrolling tournament halls looking for players adjusting pieces in unapproved manners? That's one of the stranger parts of the story, that there was an arbiter present in a position to observe the incident.

[Alex McFarlane]

All players should have a working knowledge of the Laws of Chess - this involves reading them at least once!!!

If this is done then arbiters will get involved less often. (That should help alleviate the problems of those with an aversion!)

I didn't think that anyone was claiming that a piece which has been knocked over accidently or even nudged to another square should be penalised for simply picking it up and replacing it (even without saying j'adoube, though that is advised). The problem in this case is that neither of these things appears to have happened. As such it could easily appear that the king was simply picked up and therefore should be moved (no matter how unlikely the move - we have all seen strange moves played in winning positions).

The Laws are quite clear. The Preface may give the arbiter some leaway. Many on this forum have wanted more prescriptive Laws to stop the arbiter having this discretion. It is refreshing to see an apparent change of opinion!!

[John Cox]

>I didn't think that anyone was claiming that a piece which has been knocked over accidently or even nudged to another square should be penalised for simply picking it up and replacing it (even without saying j'adoube

I think that *is* what's Sean's claiming, isn't it?

>The problem in this case is that neither of these things appears to have happened

My impression is that that's exactly what happened; the king was accidentally nudged to another square, then replaced deliberately, then ..Bf4+ played.

> As such it could easily appear that the king was simply picked up and therefore should be moved

As long as it was picked up 'deliberately', that is. Sean seems to think that a player who picks up the king to stir his coffee, presumably mistaking it for his teaspoon, is compelled to move the king. It raises the interesting notion that a player may accidentally pick a piece up deliberately....

[John Cox]

The Laws are quite clear.

You reckon?!

[Giulio Simeone]

It’s disturbing that Sean doesn’t think there’s any bad sportsmanship involved, but they indoctrinate arbiters somehow to this view. A decent arbiter, in my view, would say that it hadn't been deliberate but a natural reflex action and that play should continue, but I expect they'd get unfrocked or something.

If so, then it goes without saying that the strict legal position would be stupid and a reproach to those who draft our game’s rules, but then it’s never any surprise to find that any of FIDE’s doings are incompetent. (although actually the incapability of those who make the rules does never cease to amaze me; I could do better drunk)

Unfortunately, I have to completely agree. I also have the sensation that the majority of chess arbiters are excessively firm in sticking to the rules, even when they seem to go against any common sense. Also, they are likely to defend each other in all circumstances. In Italy also I extensively publicized what happened, and I received a lot of sympathy from the players (especially by those who knew my opponent) but a very different kind of feedback by the arbiters. On the English Chess Forum, it seems to me it happened exactly the same. Except possibly for some arbiter who writes here and I don't know, no English or Italian arbiter dared to clearly say that his colleague has made a mistake.

It may be that, by strictly interpreting the current FIDE rules, Mr. Biancotti has acted in the right way. I'm not sure at all about this, because this paragraph

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.

doesn't say that a displaced piece has to be moved, it seems to me. Neither does it say that the player has to say "J'adoube".

However, if the current rules say that in the position we are talking about I should move the king, surely they have to be changed. As John Foley smartly pointed out, the rules should be rewritten by taking into account the Bayes theory: if a 1983 (now 2004) rated player touches the king in a position where a king move would result in the loss of his most advanced pawn, there is 99,9% probability that he has done that unvoluntarily, and 0,1% probability that he has got crazy, and has done that deliberately. Not to speak of my physical disability.

Chess rules have to be smart, just like the game itself.

[John Swain]

What would Lord Denning do?!

Turn in his grave, perhaps? He died aged 100 in 1999.

[David Robertson]

Sean seems to think that a player who picks up the king to stir his coffee, presumably mistaking it for his teaspoon, is compelled to move the king. It raises the interesting notion that a player may accidentally pick a piece up deliberately....

Applause

Men v. boys. Enough! It's making my sides ache

[Giulio Simeone]

In such events, I always find it slightly depressing that arbiters don't give 12.1 due weight:

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

However, the Laws don't forbid arbiters from bringing the game into disrepute, only the players.

Ha-ha Paul, that's indeed another paragraph of the Laws of Chess that has to be amended!!