Accidentally displacing a piece

[Phil Neatherway]

A friend of mine, and contributor to this forum, was once playing in a rapidplay. Intending to play Qd8-h4, he picked up his king on e8 by mistake and put it on h4. He felt obliged to move his king and lost quickly. I wrote to Guert Gijssen on Chess Cafe and he said touch and move should apply, therefore he did have to move his king. If I can ever find the link, I'll post it here.

[Paul McKeown]

I remember once, many years ago now, playing Black, I turned to my team mate who had just arrived after a rather traumatic journey. Foolishly, whilst in conversation with my team mate, and without looking at the board, I continued with my first move and picked up my e-pawn, rather than my d-pawn. Defending a French (1. d4 e6 2. e4) rather than my planned 1. d4 d6 rubbish was rather a painful experience!

[John Cox]

Intending to play Qd8-h4, he picked up his king on e8 by mistake and put it on h4. He felt obliged to move his king and lost quickly. I wrote to Guert Gijssen on Chess Cafe and he said touch and move should apply, therefore he did have to move his king.

I don’t doubt it. And yet, in ordinary parlance one would definitely say that your friend ‘accidentally’ picked up the king.

It was a flippant remark, but it seems that our lawgivers really do contemplate the position that accidentally picking up the wrong piece does involve deliberately touching it.

Giulio is right to point to 7.1 as well (obviously I hadn’t bothered to read that far). Some small improvement in the dog’s dinner which constitutes this part of the laws could be effected by adding to 7.1 some proviso to the effect that in restoring the position a player is not to fall foul of rule 4.3.

[Sean Hewitt]

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.

That's hardly surprising. It might be a question of language of course but, based on the facts as you've quoted them here, the arbiter has not made a mistake.

[John Cox]

Humour me, Sean – supposing the facts are that the player went to make a move, clumsily bumped both pieces, then picked up the king and restored it to its square before moving the bishop, would you then think that he should be compelled to move the king? Alex M seems to think no arbiter could think such a thing, but you, on the other hand, seem to think that’s what the rules require.

[Paolo Casaschi]

It was a flippant remark, but it seems that our lawgivers really do contemplate the position that accidentally picking up the wrong piece does involve deliberately touching it.

Maybe they should change the rules and make it mandatory to write down the move before playing it, so it would be very clear, of the two touched pieces which one the player intended to play

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It was a flippant remark, but it seems that our lawgivers really do contemplate the position that accidentally picking up the wrong piece does involve deliberately touching it.

Maybe they should change the rules and make it mandatory to write down the move before playing it, so it would be very clear, of the two touched pieces which one the player intended to play

Hey, I said that!!

[John Cox]

But, Paolo, as Sean and Alex have pointed out, it’s no longer a question of what the player intended. It’s a question of whether he ‘deliberately touched’ the piece.

Whether or not that deliberate touching was an accident, as far as I can make out.

[PeterFarr]

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.

That's hardly surprising. It might be a question of language of course but, based on the facts as you've quoted them here, the arbiter has not made a mistake.

You are not basing your view on the facts as Giulio presented them at all; you are choosing to focus on one point only, i.e. what the arbiter said.

This is the very first thing Giulio said about it:

"I easily realized that the bishop check in f4 would have forced his king to go in f2, after which he can do absolutely nothing against the g5-g4-g3 push. I executed the move ...Bf4+ and, with my great surprise, my opponent claimed that I had touched the king, in a position where he could only resign.

Of course its up to you what you think about it, its impossible to verify either way, but you can't categorically state that the arbiter was correct.

[Giulio Simeone]

Excuse me Sean, I have the sensation that you are beating about the bush (an expression that I translated from my language with the dictionary) and are avoiding some of my statements and questions, as already other users noticed.

I have checked all your posts in this thread and, so far, you haven't said nothing about this paragraph of the FIDE rules

-------

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.

-------

Does this paragraph say that a displaced piece has to be moved? Does it say that the player should say "J'adoube"? That the arbiter "may penalise the player" doesn't mean that he can compel him to move the displaced piece, it seems to me. It is more likely to mean he can add time to the opponent's clock, and this, I guess, only in resounding circumstances, for example when a player knocks down all the pieces on the board.

(However, I wouldn't have minded receiving a time penalty in that situation, also three extra-hours couldn't have helped Albertini to stop my two passed pawns)

What do you think?

[Sean Hewitt]

Excuse me Sean, I have the sensation that you are beating about the bush (an expression that I translated from my language with the dictionary) and are avoiding some of my statements and questions, as already other users noticed.

I have checked all your posts in this thread and, so far, you haven't said nothing about this paragraph of the FIDE rules

-------

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.

-------

Does this paragraph say that a displaced piece has to be moved? Does it say that the player should say "J'adoube"? That the arbiter "may penalise the player" doesn't mean that he can compel him to move the displaced piece, it seems to me. It is more likely to mean he can add time to the opponent's clock, and this, I guess, only in resounding circumstances, for example when a player knocks down all the pieces on the board.

(However, I wouldn't have minded receiving a time penalty in that situation, also three extra-hours couldn't have helped Albertini to stop my two passed pawns)

What do you think?

I don't think I've ever been accused of beating about the bush before! You are correct that I haven't mentioned this law because Article 7.3 does not over-ride the requirements of Article 4.3 unless I've missed that in the laws.

Perhaps it's not entirely clear what happened? When you say that you displaced your king, can you explain more fully what happened? There is a big difference between knocking the king off the board and onto the floor (or, as JC would have it, into a cup of tea) and, at the other extreme, brushing it thereby moving it 1mm off centre.

[Paolo Casaschi]

But, Paolo, as Sean and Alex have pointed out, it’s no longer a question of what the player intended. It’s a question of whether he ‘deliberately touched’ the piece.

Whether or not that deliberate touching was an accident, as far as I can make out.

I see what you mean, so if I play as Black 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4 4. Bd2 Ke7 and realize the obvious mistake before releasing the King on e7, then you could argue that I "deliberately touched" the King even though I did not intend to move the King. Weird.

[John Cox]

So, as I understand, we are discussing two situations.

A: A player accidentally knocks a piece over or off its square and replaces it without saying j'adoube.
B: A player intends to play a move but picks up the wrong piece.

Take situation A first.

Experienced arbiter SH thinks that the law is clear and that the player has to move the piece.
Experienced arbiter AM thinks that the law is clear and no-one could possibly suppose that the player is obliged to move the piece.

No doubt both AM and SH have been trained and hold various official qualifications and whatnot.

These conclusions seem to follow.

1. Whichever of them is right about what the rules mean and/or are intended to mean, both of them are wrong in thinking that the laws are clear.
2. It follows that the laws are ineptly drafted.
3. It also follows that arbiters are trained ineptly, since either this rather common and elementary question was ignored or else (which I doubt) one of them has forgotten their training.

Which all rather strongly strengthens my case that the general delivery of arbiting services to chessplayers (without aiming to criticise any individual) is piss-poor.

As to situation B, highly experienced and qualified arbiter GG thinks that the player here too has to move the accidentally touched piece, in spite of the fact that the rules he is responsible for drafting on the face of it say the exact opposite. And this after (if experienced arbiter AH is right) a recent change which (according to e********d a*****r SH) is 'reasonably clearly' designed to ensure that this player does have to move the piece.

The conclusion which seems to follow is that the FIDE Rules Committee couldn't find their arse with an atlas, but then frankly we knew that already. Drafting legal documents is one of those tasks, like many things in life, which are not inherently impossible but are easier with training and practice and usually better performed by professionals. As long as FIDE continues to leave this task in the hands of amateurs whose native language isn't even the one they're working in and who in any event (to judge from their performance in Elista) have no more idea about proper legal administration than, ohh, let us say, the president of an East European banana republic, then they will continue to obtain rubbish results in this field.

[Richard Bates]

As topical light relief there was a game in the British championship yesterday where the move Kf1 was accidentally played when the white player suffered cramp when in the process of castling. The arbiters were not required to get involved...

[John Swain]

Experienced arbiter SH thinks that the law is clear and that the player has to move the piece.
Experienced arbiter AM thinks that the law is clear and no-one could possibly suppose that the player is obliged to move the piece.

No doubt both AM and SH have been trained and hold various official qualifications and whatnot.

These conclusions seem to follow.

1. Whichever of them is right about what the rules mean and/or are intended to mean, both of them are wrong in thinking that the laws are clear.
2. It follows that the laws are ineptly drafted.
3. It also follows that arbiters are trained ineptly, since either this rather common and elementary question was ignored or else (which I doubt) one of them has forgotten their training.

Which all rather strongly strengthens my case that the general delivery of arbiting services to chessplayers (without aiming to criticise any individual) is piss-poor.

I wouldn't be quite so critical of arbiters or the Laws of Chess. As an arbiter, I have very occasionally seen a ruling made by a fellow arbiter which I would have handled differently. As in many activities, humans judging the actions of other humans is not an exact science. Arbiters do their best but make mistakes or errors of judgment like everyone else.

A football analogy may help here. How many arguments have we seen about handball in the penalty area? Hand to ball or ball to hand decisions can be very difficult to judge at the margin. "I've seen them given" is a familiar pundit's comment over a penalty decision. The referee gets castigated by at least half the crowd.

The lesson seems to be to give the arbiter and opponent as little to interpret as possible. Without the magic phrase "j'adoube", you risk giving away a penalty.