Touch move claims

[Christopher Kreuzer]

A set of questions about the touch move rule for the (armchair) arbiters out there.

In an evening league game (no arbiters present) Player A is in check and makes an illegal move with his queen that leaves him still in check. Player B (the other player) undoes Player A's move, points out the check, and restarts the clocks. Player A then moves his king when a move with the queen (to block the check) is possible (it loses a pawn but not more than that). Only one such queen move is possible.

My question is whether Player B can delay enforcing the touch move rule while using his time to work out which position is best for him, the one after the king move or the queen move? Can he think for a long time and then say "touch move, please move your queen"?

And a related question. Can Player A, during player B's think, realise what has happened and say "oops, I should have moved my queen", and then proceed to take the king move back and make the queen move instead?

And in both cases, what happens to the time used by player B during his think? If the clock should be reset to the time it was before player B started to think about which position to play on in, what is to stop player B thinking for nearly all his remaining time and then deciding to enforce the touch move rule and 'reclaim' the lost time? [This could genuinely happen if it was really unclear which position was best to play on in.]

What would happen if a similar situation arose in a congress (or other venue with arbiters) with an arbiter watching?

[IM Jack Rudd]

4.3

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

one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured
one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent’s piece with his piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured. If it is unclear whether the player’s own piece or his opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent’s.

An arbiter watching must enforce this law if he sees it.

In a game without an arbiter, on the other hand...

4.8

A player forfeits his right to claim against his opponent’s violation of Articles 4.1 – 4.7 once the player touches a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it.

So if B wants to accept the violation of touch-move, he may do so at any time by making a move.

[Brian Towers]

And a related question. Can Player A, during player B's think, realise what has happened and say "oops, I should have moved my queen", and then proceed to take the king move back and make the queen move instead?

No, during player B's turn player A is not allowed to touch the pieces on the board, talk to his opponent or otherwise disturb him.

And in both cases, what happens to the time used by player B during his think? If the clock should be reset to the time it was before player B started to think about which position to play on in, what is to stop player B thinking for nearly all his remaining time and then deciding to enforce the touch move rule and 'reclaim' the lost time? [This could genuinely happen if it was really unclear which position was best to play on in.]

The time is gone and will never come back. With an arbiter present, but presumably not watching this game, the most player B can do is complain to the arbiter about player A's infraction when it is up to the arbiter what action is appropriate. If he sat and thought for a minute or less then he would normally expect an extra 2 minutes but if he sat and though for 10 or 15 minutes the arbiter is likely to think he is taking the urine.

[Mike Gunn]

To answer Chris's original question, my view is that it is the duty of both players to uphold the laws of chess. If you see that your opponent has made an illegal move and you decide to ignore that for your own benefit then that is unsporting/ borderline cheating. It would be difficult (but not impossible) for an arbiter to penalise a player who does this (because the cheating player could claim ignorance, of course).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Mike has a point, though I wonder what would happen if the not-impossible situation arose where the move played was a losing move and the (forced) touch-move was a winning move? I wonder if Mike's team-mates would agree with his principled stance to reject the losing move and force his opponent to play the winning touch-move if that happened in a match?

In the situation with an arbiter present, I presume that once player B has accepted the violation of touch-move, that a watching arbiter cannot step in and change things at that point? (This is presuming the arbiter was watching and aware but failed to step in before player B played his reply.)

Brian is right that "during player B's turn player A is not allowed to touch the pieces on the board, talk to his opponent or otherwise disturb him". However, in situations with an arbiter present in the playing venue, you could have player A self-reporting himself to an arbiter, who might then step in while player B is still thinking (and maybe genuinely unaware of the possibility that touch-move was not enforced - I saw this failure to realise that touch-move hadn't been enforced happen with my own eyes in a recent match). Clock resetting would be needed then, I think. Hopefully only a few minutes would have elapsed.

[Mike Gunn]

Perhaps the second player should claim the game on the grounds that two illegal moves have been made?

Funnily enough, this whole situation occurred in one of my games at a Kensington rapidplay many (>15) years ago. I checked my opponent, he failed to notice and moved his queen. When I insisted he interpose his queen to stop the check he became abusive and accused me of being "petty". At this point I called the arbiter over (which really I should have done as soon as my opponent had made the illegal move) and he confirmed that the player must interpose his queen. After losing his queen my opponent (with 15 minutes left on his clock) flounced off to the other end of the hall (leaving his clock running) and only returned when he had a few minutes left to try and blitz me.

Although one can construct positions where forcing your opponent to retract an illegal does not lead to an advantage to you, I would think that it does in about 90% of cases? In any case, it is what the laws require!

[Angus French]

I agree with Mike.

There is also a rule about not bringing the game into disrepute.

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

In the given scenario, I don't see why a player shouldn't stop the clocks either to consult the arbiter or, if an arbiter isn't present, to enable the situation to be resolved by the players. I don't believe the rule forbidding a player to distract or annoy his or her opponent should prevent this.

[Ian Thompson]

4.3

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

one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured
one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent’s piece with his piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured. If it is unclear whether the player’s own piece or his opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent’s.

An arbiter watching must enforce this law if he sees it.

With the proviso, on touch move violations, that English arbiters are advised only to intervene if requested to do so by the player offended against. The rationale for this advice is that while the arbiter may have seen one piece touched and then a different one moved, it's impossible to be certain there wasn't a preceding "j'adoube" which he didn't hear.

[Michael Farthing]

An even better rationale is the once-held cricket principle that an arbiter/referee is only needed if a question is referred to him or he is asked to arbite in a dispute. The clue is in the titles!

[Colin Purdon]

Although one can construct positions where forcing your opponent to retract an illegal does not lead to an advantage to you, I would think that it does in about 90% of cases? In any case, it is what the laws require!

But is a touch-move violation an illegal move? Apparently not according to the Fide laws of chess, which say: "A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9"

Touch-move is covered in Article 4, so (otherwise?) legal moves made in contravention of Article 4 are presumably legal, and there is no requirement to force them to be retracted.

[Mike Gunn]

In my opinion the touch-move discretion (when the arbiter doesn't act because there has possibly been an inaudible "j'adoube") does not apply here. If an arbiter sees a player move a piece to another square and release it, then change his mind and move another piece then that is definitely an illegal move and the arbiter should intervene.

In the situation (as descibed by Chris above) the player has made two illegal moves: (i) not moving out of check; (ii) not moving the piece that he originally touched with a clear intention of moving it (because he did move it!).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Mike is quite right. I hadn't realised there were two illegal moves! Question: does the player need to be warned after the first illegal move before making the second one in order for the (new?) provision of claiming a game after two illegal moves to be used?

http://www.chess.com/news/changes-in-la ... -know-8522

"7.5b
After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."

In the situation in question (evening league chess), player B has told me he decided not to claim the extra two minutes. I'm now wondering if in my games I should say to my opponents (if they make an illegal move) that they need to be aware that a second illegal move will lose the game, and if I should make a note of that on the scoresheet? Evening league chess, probably not. 4NCL chess (as it is more 'formal' and arbiters are present), maybe? (I should add that I would generally be reluctant to make such a claim unless someone was bashing out illegal moves in an attempt to win on time or something similar.)

Does anyone here know of cases where the 'two illegal moves lose' provision has actually resulted in a loss of a game since the rule changes?

[IM Jack Rudd]

A violation of the touch-move rule is not an illegal move. It is certainly against the laws of chess, and as such, subject to a penalty, but that is not the same thing. If nothing else, you can look at what the rules say for if the two violations are uncovered later on (but still during the game): if an earlier illegal move is discovered, you must bring play back to where the illegal move was made and carry on from there; if an earlier touch-move violation is discovered, you carry on from where the game has now reached: the opponent has lost his right to claim.

[Brian Towers]

With the proviso, on touch move violations, that English arbiters are advised only to intervene if requested to do so by the player offended against.

I assume this is old advice since it goes against the current Arbiters' Manual (http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories ... l_2014.pdf) which says -

If an arbiter observes a violation of Article 4 he must always intervene immediately. 
He should not wait for a claim to be submitted by a player. 

 

The rationale for this advice is that while the arbiter may have seen one piece touched and then a different one moved, it's impossible to be certain there wasn't a preceding "j'adoube" which he didn't hear.

But note that it is perfectly legal to adjust a piece and then move another piece if it is clear that the intention was not to make a move with the piece. One of the players in our club often nudges a piece with the back of his little finger more firmly into the center of the square. Sometime there is a "j'adoube", sometimes not but since the intention is clear nobody ever asks him to move that piece.

An even better rationale is the once-held cricket principle that an arbiter/referee is only needed if a question is referred to him or he is asked to arbite in a dispute. The clue is in the titles!

Leaving aside the fact that cricket umpires have always indicated the end of an over, no balls, wides, 4s, 6s, etc. the analogy doesn't cross over into the latest rules. What you describe certainly seemed to be the case previously with it being perfectly acceptable, apparently, for the arbiters to disappear back into their hutch for tea, biscuits and a gossip, after the start of the round. However the latest rules and perhaps the accompanying Arbiters' Manual make it clear that those days are gone, or should be.

[Roger de Coverly]

What you describe certainly seemed to be the case previously with it being perfectly acceptable, apparently, for the arbiters to disappear back into their hutch for tea, biscuits and a gossip, after the start of the round. However the latest rules and perhaps the accompanying Arbiters' Manual make it clear that those days are gone, or should be.

By any objective standard, the use of increments and computerised pairings should leave arbiters with less to do. Unless you are thinking of Junior tournaments, patrolling the room looking for illegal moves or touch move violations would be considered unnecessary, in the UK at least.