Questions on conduct during a game

[Stewart Reuben]

You definitely would explain your intentions to your opponent. I suppose then it might indeed be quite a good idea to write K.

Recently sombody pressed his clock, without first moving a piece. I suggested perhaps he intended Rd1-d7, realised that would lose. Put the rook back on d1. Forgot it was already there. then pressed the clock.
Was that an illegal move? No, it was an illegal action, not currently mentioned in the Laws.

[Michael Mkpadi]

You definitely would explain your intentions to your opponent. I suppose then it might indeed be quite a good idea to write K.

Recently sombody pressed his clock, without first moving a piece. I suggested perhaps he intended Rd1-d7, realised that would lose. Put the rook back on d1. Forgot it was already there. then pressed the clock.
Was that an illegal move? No, it was an illegal action, not currently mentioned in the Laws.

I'm sorry Stewart, all due respect (and i won't just then proceed to disrespect you) but moving a rook from d1 to d1 and pressing the clock is an illegal move (and action).

If you touch a piece without saying " I adjust" first and you then let go of the piece having not lifted it off its square as there is "no move time on the move" in chess unlike basketball you can in all good faith just sit there for another hour or longer deliberating on where to move that piece you touched, you don't have to right anything on your scoresheet and shouldn't as Wesley So will tell you especially if Tony Rich is officiating.

[Michael Mkpadi]

....No sooner have you decided on your move and picked up the appropriate piece, you instantly notice a large flaw with your intention (this never seems to happen just before you pick up the piece, only just after), so you put the piece back where it came from, intending to make an alternative move with the same piece. Only you realise that this isn't as straightforward a task as you'd hoped and is going to require some thought. Rather than sit with one hand hopelessly and awkwardly glued to the piece, you take your hand off it (possibly muttering an apology for your ineptitude).

Clearly you must move said piece. Your opponent is beginning to anticipate some attempt at malpractice. At this point I would write the start of the move on my scoresheet, conveying my intention to move said piece (e.g. 74...K in Nakamura's case). I guess this is not writing down the move (as I haven't written a move) but may fail the note-taking test?

I dunno maybe I am naive but when I read the FIDE rules it is very clear it says you must touch a piece to adjust it or to move it. To adjust you say "I adjust" in whatever the tournament language is (I used to think it had to be in French or it was illegal, innocence lol). The other is to move the piece and you must move it from square A to square B where A and B are not the same square.

If you touch a piece without saying " I adjust" first and you then let go of the piece having not lifted it off its square as there is "no move time on the move" in chess unlike basketball you can in all good faith just sit there for another hour or longer deliberating on where to move that piece you touched, you don't have to right anything on your scoresheet and shouldn't as Wesley So will tell you especially if Tony Rich is officiating. If your opponent feels you are deliberately hustling them by this behaviour and voices concerns to the arbiter then that becomes a matter of interpretation of the FIDE rules about distracting behaviour. There you go as clear as mud.

[Michael Farthing]

Don't the laws actually say 'touch a piece with the intention of moving it''?

While saying 'j'adoube' makes the intention of not moving a piece absolutely clear it is not compulsory if your intention of adjusting is absolutely clear: as say when your elbow has knocked off a piece from the board while you are picking up a cup of coffee and you simply put it back with a comment like, 'Sorry about that'. Or even if a piece is straddling two squares and you just nudge it back to its proper place. In practice these things happen quite frequently and between well-disposed players are barely noticed.

[Michael Mkpadi]

Don't the laws actually say 'touch a piece with the intention of moving it''?

While saying 'j'adoube' makes the intention of not moving a piece absolutely clear it is not compulsory if your intention of adjusting is absolutely clear: as say when your elbow has knocked off a piece from the board while you are picking up a cup of coffee and you simply put it back with a comment like, 'Sorry about that'. Or even if a piece is straddling two squares and you just nudge it back to its proper place. In practice these things happen quite frequently and between well-disposed players are barely noticed.

The problem with intent is nobody agrees on what the real intent is in a professional sporting environment anymore, the professional footballer's "professional foul" where they go down lack a sack of potatoes under the lightest challenge or none at all and ham it up to high heavens, even FIFA recognises that an abuse of the rules.

If I adjust a piece whilst holding my chin some could interpret that as me unconscious adjusting the pieces whilst thinking, others would get up from the board and call the arbiter. I know players who don't even know they are touching the pieces they just tweak a piece very often an opponent's piece and carrying on thinking. lol

[Stewart Reuben]

Michael Mkpadi I was just giving an example of how sombody might have pressed the clock without making a move.

Let us suppose he touches no piece, his opponent moved, his clock is running. There is no crowding. He presses the clock. It is clearly wrong. But, in my opinion it is an illegale action, not an illegal move.

>f I adjust a piece whilst holding my chin some could interpret that as me unconscious adjusting the pieces whilst thinking, others would get up from the board and call the arbiter. I know players who don't even know they are touching the pieces they just tweak a piece very often an opponent's piece and carrying on thinking. lol<

You seem to play in different chess circles from me.

[Michael Mkpadi]

Michael Mkpadi I was just giving an example of how sombody might have pressed the clock without making a move.

Let us suppose he touches no piece, his opponent moved, his clock is running. There is no crowding. He presses the clock. It is clearly wrong. But, in my opinion it is an illegale action, not an illegal move.

Yes Stewart you said that before I still believe picking a piece up from a square and then putting back on the same square and pressing the clock is a move by FIDE's rules but an illegal move as pieces cannot wait on the same square, I also believe it's an illegal action too. But that is my is my opinion and I guess we are entitled to one right or wrong. I am not keen on sophistry nor particular concerned whatever interpretation you want to take so I am happy for my contribution to be ignored.

>f I adjust a piece whilst holding my chin some could interpret that as me unconscious adjusting the pieces whilst thinking, others would get up from the board and call the arbiter. I know players who don't even know they are touching the pieces they just tweak a piece very often an opponent's piece and carrying on thinking. lol<

You seem to play in different chess circles from me.

Yes clearly I should come and visit and see how the other half play.

[Brian Towers]

Yes Stewart you said that before I still believe picking a piece up from a square and then putting back on the same square and pressing the clock is a move by FIDE's rules

No, you're wrong.

The FIDE laws describe the moves by saying which squares the different pieces can move to. You can only move to a new location. You cannot move to the same place. Moving up and down doesn't count as moving in chess.

If your interpretation were correct then a player who picked a piece up, put it back down again, thought for a bit longer before moving the same piece to another square would be guilty of making two moves on his turn. Clearly this is nonsense.

[Tim Harding]

You definitely would explain your intentions to your opponent. I suppose then it might indeed be quite a good idea to write K.

I have had a couple of cases where an opponent touched a piece (say a bishop) without saying J'adoube and let go of the piece (whether he made a trial move to another square is irrelevant). I wrote "B" on my scoresheet as a reminder, and sort of evidence, that he must move that piece. I don't think this is taking notes; it's a valid thing to do, especially if the opponent doesn't make his move soon.

Then if he tries to make a move with another piece, I can call the arbiter and show him the "B".

Last year in the Irish Championship, in a roughly equal position, an opponent then moved a different piece. I challenged this but the arbiter hadn't witnessed it and the player (who was only 12) denied doing it. So the game continued with his chosen move and I soon offered a draw to end the unpleasant situation. Fortunately the opponent accepted.

***
Now for something completely different. You are White and win, you write 1-0 on the scoresheet and sign it, hand to your opponent for counter-signature. (This is in an event where scoresheets are handed in.)
Your opponent hands you his scoresheet on which he has written 0-1 and signed. I cross it out and replace with 1-0 before signing.
I say to the arbiter "I did win the game" and that's the end of the matter.
My opponent (who was Russian and we had no common language) may have been trying to cheat me, but I cannot be sure.
The moral: always check the result, do not be tricked into signing for the wrong result.

I suppose if the opponent had then claimed that I was indeed the one who resigned the arbiter might have decided to play through the game and ultimately the matter could have gone to the appeal committee, as the opponent could have written on his scoresheet some plausible blunder by me at the end.

This is not an isolated instance. American IM Esserman told me that he had an unpleasant opponent in Reykjavik (a Finn) who not only played on with K v king and two pawns and even with K v Q but then tried the same trick as the Russian did to me.

This seems to happen a lot. Last weekend in a small tournament in Cork (where scoresheets were not handed in) a junior opponent handed me his scoresheet where he had signed for the reverse result. But again I just replaced it with the right one, and I was told later he was autistic...

[Stewart Reuben]

The last sentence of 8,7 is there for that reason.
1999 British Championship Gallagher v Jackson they both signed it as a draw. Joe had won. Oliver was mortified at his error. It was changed to 1-0.

[Tim Harding]

The last sentence of 8,7 is there for that reason.
1999 British Championship Gallagher v Jackson they both signed it as a draw. Joe had won. Oliver was mortified at his error. It was changed to 1-0.

"Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise."

Nice one that, but please answer my question, what happens if the players don't agree on what the correct result was and sign their scoresheets accordingly?

[MartinCarpenter]

Meant to countersign them I think? At that stage it would be distinctly tempting to award them 0-0

[Stewart Reuben]

Tim >Nice one that, but please answer my question, what happens if the players don't agree on what the correct result was and sign their scoresheets accordingly?<

I am pleased yhou approve of my wording.

You loook at the game score and go through it. Then you form your judgement. If there is no score at all, usually a rapdiplay or blitz, then you might well award a draw.
Martin, you do not award 0-0. This suggests you believe both are cheating.

[MartinCarpenter]

Well, not cheating, but it definitely rates as wilfully incompetent

The sort of thing that would get the board cancelled in Bridge, or maybe average minus to both pairs. Rather less drastic than the possible options in chess though!

[Stewart Reuben]

You may prefer golf. If you fill in your card incorrectly, you lose the whole round. I believe this is so even if you give yourself an inferior score.