Arbitration question

[Stewart Reuben]

Alex >You must move the first piece touched which can be moved. QxP is the move!!!<

I have never been enamoured with that rule. Of course we have not been told whether White first picked up the opponent's g pawn or his own f pawn. in my opinion, if the latter, the intention was clear. If it was first the g pawn, clearly that mut be captured with the queen.
e.g. White Bc3 Kc2 Rf1. Black Rc6 Kg6,Pf6 Ph5. 1 Bxf6+ first moving the bishop. The intention was clear. Forcing Rxf6+ loses.
Again, the intention was clear. White has been punished for 'tripping over his own shoelace'. That was not the intention of the Laws 30 years ago. Of course, it makes the arbiter's work easier. It can often be difficult to know which piece was touched first.

[JustinHorton]

Of course we have not been told whether White first picked up the opponent's g pawn or his own f pawn

But you have been told that the pawn is hers, not his.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

The other thing that has to happen is that white must make a legal capture of the g-pawn. She is unlikely to be too thrilled about realizing this.

I was wondering about that. Can you argue that once White picks up the f pawn, which has no legal move, all bets are off and you can do whatever you like?

No. If white has played fxg4, she has touched both the f-pawn and the g-pawn, so the laws mandate she must make a legal move involving one of those pieces if possible.

Well, she surely wouldn't love to make the capture, and it's unfair and illogical to force her make the capture.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I was wondering about that. Can you argue that once White picks up the f pawn, which has no legal move, all bets are off and you can do whatever you like?

No. If white has played fxg4, she has touched both the f-pawn and the g-pawn, so the laws mandate she must make a legal move involving one of those pieces if possible.

Well, she surely wouldn't love to make the capture, and it's unfair and illogical to force her make the capture.

It may well be, but that's the touch-move rule for you.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

No. If white has played fxg4, she has touched both the f-pawn and the g-pawn, so the laws mandate she must make a legal move involving one of those pieces if possible.

Well, she surely wouldn't love to make the capture, and it's unfair and illogical to force her make the capture.

It may well be, but that's the touch-move rule for you.

Well, touch move is about the intention of capturing, she likely didn't want to capture it at the expense of her queen

[Ian Thompson]

Well, she surely wouldn't love to make the capture, and it's unfair and illogical to force her make the capture.

It may well be, but that's the touch-move rule for you.

Well, touch move is about the intention of capturing, she likely didn't want to capture it at the expense of her queen

Rules that require the arbiter to guess what the player's thoughts were are never going to be good rules. Neither are rules that require the arbiter to analyse the position on the board to determine what good and bad moves are.

If you had a rule that said touch-move wasn't enforced following an illegal move you would then have the possibility of a player touching a piece with the intention of making a legal move, realising it was a blunder, and then deliberately making an illegal move instead to avoid having to move that piece.

[David Shepherd]

I have never been enamoured with that rule. Of course we have not been told whether White first picked up the opponent's g pawn or his own f pawn. in my opinion, if the latter, the intention was clear. If it was first the g pawn, clearly that mut be captured with the queen.
e.g. White Bc3 Kc2 Rf1. Black Rc6 Kg6,Pf6 Ph5. 1 Bxf6+ first moving the bishop. The intention was clear. Forcing Rxf6+ loses.
Again, the intention was clear. White has been punished for 'tripping over his own shoelace'. That was not the intention of the Laws 30 years ago. Of course, it makes the arbiter's work easier. It can often be difficult to know which piece was touched first.

The rules could have been written so that they only applied to your own piece, so if you touch your piece you have to move that piece if you legally can. There would then be no question about which piece was touched first (other than in castling if the that rule was unchanged - again that could be simplified so that if you touch both king and rook you have to castle that side if legal, if not you must move either piece if there is a legal move).

[Stewart Reuben]

Since nterest has been expressed about touching pieces, herewith the actual current Law. It is unequivocal
4.2. Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares, provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”).
4.2.2 Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.
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:
4.3.1 one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
4.3.2 one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured
4.3.3 one or more pieces of each colour, he must capture the first touched opponent’s piece

[Roger de Coverly]

Since nterest has been expressed about touching pieces, herewith the actual current Law. It is unequivocal

The practical effect, as noted by Jack, is that an illegal move can directly lose by virtue of the requirement to substitute a move involving the touched piece.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

But the arbiter also needs to be fair

[E Michael White]

soheil_hooshdaran

You mention that this game was a Women's National Championship played under Blitz format. How many arbiters were running the section and how many players took part ? What was decided and how did the game proceed ?

The replies on this forum assume that Black's immediately preceding move was legal. Was this the case ?

If Black's preceding move was illegal did black press the clock before White played fxg4 ?

[Roger Lancaster]

Since nterest has been expressed about touching pieces, herewith the actual current Law. It is unequivocal
4.2. Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares, provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”).
4.2.2 Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.
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:
4.3.1 one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
4.3.2 one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured
4.3.3 one or more pieces of each colour, he must capture the first touched opponent’s piece

Now that Stewart draws my attention to it, one point newly occurs to me. Suppose one picks up one of one's own pieces but then realises that it would be a mistake to move it. One possible remedy, if there's a relatively innocuous capture elsewhere on the chessboard, is then to touch the opponent's piece. One is then released from the obligation to move the piece originally touched, since the (later) touch of the opponent's piece overrides this obligation. Gamesmanship, maybe, but seemingly quite legal.

[Roger Lancaster]

In fact, with a slight variation of the above theme, one could have 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 d4 d6 and now White, in a dumb moment, plays 4 Nxe5. He immediately realises his error, replaces both pieces and - relying on the fact that 4.3.3 places him under an obligation to capture the e5 pawn but not with any particular piece - simply plays 4 de instead. It's hard to believe that 4.3.3 was drafted so as to allow this but it appears it does.

[Alex McFarlane]

4.3.3 one or more pieces of each colour, he must capture the first touched opponent’s piece with his first touched 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.

This is the full wording of 4.3.3 and removes the possibility of the gamesmanship suggested.

[Roger Lancaster]

4.3.3 one or more pieces of each colour, he must capture the first touched opponent’s piece with his first touched 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.

This is the full wording of 4.3.3 and removes the possibility of the gamesmanship suggested.

Yes, quite right, I should have checked the full wording of 4.3.3 before posting. Delighted to be proved wrong - that could have been a tiresome loophole.