Touch move rule

[David Blower]

Presumably he knew he had touched the queen. I would like to think that in that position most players, having touched the queen, would then move it, ...

If the initial description of the incident is correct, I would say that if anyone has not acted properly it is White. It says "From here my opponent made the move Qe7. I then pointed out he was in check, and that he had a legal move with the Queen, and must move the Queen." If it had been me, I would just have pointed out that Black was in check, so the Queen move was illegal. I'd only have said that he had to move the Queen if he tried to do anything else (other than resigning, which is what I would expect most players to do).

He did though. After making Qe7 I pointed out he was in check. After moving the Queen back to d7, and saying: "oh sorry I didn't know I was in check." He then made the move Kg8. It was only then I said he must move the queen. (BTW did not want to appear to be added bits to the story in stages on the forum, the first post was just a quick post to describe what happened. I could have been a bit clearer though saying the full details of what happened.)

[IM Jack Rudd]

Eh, if he's going to play 1...Kg8, it really doesn't matter whether you enforce touch-move or not; he's losing his queen either way.

[Andy Stoker]

My goodness ... you learn something on many days. I play very little face-to-face chess these days and hadn't realised that things have apparently moved on from when I last played regularly (1970s!) when I think we all announced check (quietly, I hope).

In my last tournament - about 14 months ago - my opponent kept saying "adjust" when he adoubed the pieces. Perhaps that is common usage now.

[Anthony Higgs]

In my last tournament - about 14 months ago - my opponent kept saying "adjust" when he adoubed the pieces. Perhaps that is common usage now.

Indeed. I still use j'adoube but only through years of habit. The juniors I teach are brought up on 'adjust' and took great delight in recently learning that there was another way they could use to annoy their opponents in friendly games!

[E Michael White]

Both adults and juniors should keep to the rule that only the player whose turn it is to move may j'adoube pieces. This has always been the rule but will be made a little clearer in the new FIDE rules effective from 1 July 2014.

[Jon Mahony]

I wasn't going to mention this, but after reading this thread I feel compelled.

I had a bit of a dispute at Blackpool this year on the touching move rule - my opponent picked up his Queen and went to recapture a pawn (though he didn't actually pick up the pawn to capture) he quickly realised this would have resulted in the loss of Queen for Rook and replaced his Queen on it's original square.

I wasn't too bothered by this at first, as I simply thought he was going to accept the loss of the pawn (I could defend it again on the next move) and think of the best square to move the Queen to. I was more than a little shocked when he picked up his Knight (which was the right piece to recapture with) and proceeded to make the correct move.

I said "I'm sorry touching move, you picked up your Queen before the Knight." and he proceeded to give me some guff about him brushing it with his hand on route to picking up the Knight.

I responded, "Well you brushed it a long time as it was in between your fingers for three seconds." but he was totally indignant and full of bluster, asking people at the opposite boards if they saw what happened - when everyone shook their heads he said "Well we have no instant replay, do you want to call an arbiter over?"

After a few moments thought I decided to play on and eventually lost.

Now I know I should have called his bluff and asked an arbiter over but my reason was quite simple: my position was looking decidedly crummy by the time he made the illegal move, and I would have been struggling to hold a draw (the pawn which he would have lost would have been a nice protected passed pawn and made all the difference). I felt that if I got an arbiter involved, it would look like I was frightened of losing the position and attempting to get out of it at any cost - not the sort of reputation you want as secretary of a club and co-runner of a Congress.

I was also just generally concerned about the noise it would have caused, and the resulting distraction to other players, as it was clear I'd have got more of the same superior guff, but louder.

The Knight he intended to move was on the square right in front of his Queen, and so I do believe he did indeed pick up the wrong piece by mistake, but the point is that he did do it.

I was more irritated by the way he frankly attempted to *Bulls**t his way out of it, when we both blatantly knew what he had done. When I had resigned he even attempted to say something along the lines of sorry for the misunderstanding - suffice to say he got a curt "Fair enough mate" for that.

My experience of bad behaviour at the board is fairly limited, aside from one opponent at a club match refusing to acknowledge we had passed the time control, and a few kids bashing their pieces about a bit / offering draws after every move, I haven't ever really come across it. So what should I have done? Called the arbiter over and risked looking an idiot in a my word against his situation? Or just let it go as I basically did. Also what would have happened if I had have done?

I didn't do badly in the congress otherwise, with 2 draws and 2 wins, but truth be told I'd lost interest after that and it ruined the weekend somewhat, sleep did not come easy that night despite some liquid consolation in the Duke of York.

[Roger de Coverly]

I felt that if I got an arbiter involved, it would look like I was frightened of losing the position and attempting to get out of it at any cost - not the sort of reputation you want as secretary of a club and co-runner of a Congress.

I would have thought you should complain. You weren't presumably in a position where resigns was your best option, so it's just a lesson to your opponent not to do that sort of thing. You were expecting a move, so it's not as if his body language indicated that he was adjusting. That would have particularly applied if he had reached towards the pawn before spotting the tactical problem. I gather there was a pause between the first attempted move and the second. Would that not rule out any excuse of brushing? There are parallels to the Zurab case in the European championships, although I think there the taken back move had even been completed.

[Ian Thompson]

So what should I have done? Called the arbiter over and risked looking an idiot in a my word against his situation? Or just let it go as I basically did. Also what would have happened if I had have done?

You should definitively inform the arbiter if you believe your opponent has deliberately cheated. Even if the arbiter can do nothing because there's no proof and the opponent denies it, you should, at least:

1. Reduce the chances of your opponent cheating again in your game
2. Cause the arbiter to keep a closer eye on your game so he might see anything else your opponent does
3. Cause the arbiter to watch your opponent's subsequent games more closely than he otherwise might, so he's less likely to get away with similar behaviour in the future

[David Williams]

I had a bit of a dispute at Blackpool this year

I decided to play on and eventually lost.

I didn't do badly in the congress otherwise, with 2 draws and 2 wins

If I were so inclined, I think it would be easy enough to find your opponent's name.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"You should definitively inform the arbiter if you believe your opponent has deliberately cheated. Even if the arbiter can do nothing because there's no proof and the opponent denies it, you should, at least:

1. Reduce the chances of your opponent cheating again in your game
2. Cause the arbiter to keep a closer eye on your game so he might see anything else your opponent does
3. Cause the arbiter to watch your opponent's subsequent games more closely than he otherwise might, so he's less likely to get away with similar behaviour in the future"

Absolutely right.

[Jon Mahony]

If I were so inclined, I think it would be easy enough to find your opponent's name.

Yes, I didn't think it was fair to go as far as to publicly name the man, he isn't a member of the forum and cannot defend himself unless he sees my post and was to join - we are after all only getting my side of the story and he may believe he is totally in the right.

I was more interested in the technicalities of the situation and what could/would have happened if I had informed an Arbiter.

But yes, in giving my other results I suppose I have inadvertently named my opponent, though a check of the cross table wouldn't have made it difficult regardless.

[Jon Mahony]

I felt that if I got an arbiter involved, it would look like I was frightened of losing the position and attempting to get out of it at any cost - not the sort of reputation you want as secretary of a club and co-runner of a Congress.

I would have thought you should complain. You weren't presumably in a position where resigns was your best option, so it's just a lesson to your opponent not to do that sort of thing. You were expecting a move, so it's not as if his body language indicated that he was adjusting. That would have particularly applied if he had reached towards the pawn before spotting the tactical problem. I gather there was a pause between the first attempted move and the second. Would that not rule out any excuse of brushing? There are parallels to the Zurab case in the European championships, although I think there the taken back move had even been completed.

No the position wasn't all that bad, equal material, but the pawn trade the previous move was forced, and left his Knight in a nice and outpost which would have been difficult to dislodge, he had an open file for his rooks - basically any intermediate player could I was worse. When I feel like it, I'll have to stick it in Fritz, there were probably reasonable drawing chances with best play.

Yes I didn't accept Brushing at all, as he actually had the Queen between his fingers, but didn't pick up the pawn (and so he didn't have to capture the pawn and loose his Queen) when he replaced the Queen on it's original square, there was a 3 second ish pause before picking up the Knight.

I think what actually happened was, as the Queen was on c2 and his Knight was on c3 he did just mistakenly grab the wrong piece, because at one point he said something along the lines of it's clear I'm going to take with the Knight. I think in the heat of the moment, he didn't think his hand slip was enough to justify putting him in an almost lost position from a game he was doing well in, and so he just decided to deny it happened. Sadly that is breaking the rules though.

Oh well lesson learned if it ever happens again I should have called the arbiter to at least inform him of what I believed was happening

[E Michael White]

I think what actually happened was, as the Queen was on c2 and his Knight was on c3 he did just mistakenly grab the wrong piece, because at one point he said something along the lines of it's clear I'm going to take with the Knight. I think in the heat of the moment, he didn't think his hand slip was enough to justify putting him in an almost lost position from a game he was doing well in, and so he just decided to deny it happened. Sadly that is breaking the rules though.

That's interesting. Under the new rules from 1st July 2014 if an arbiter heard him say "it's clear I'm going to take with the Knight" the arbiter would probably have to let him move the knight as the new rules make it clearer that for touch-move to apply it must have been the intention to move/capture the touched piece.

The current rules should also be interpreted that way ie the touch has to be with the intention of moving but unfortunately the rule wording is rather vague saying "deliberately touches". ENG arbiters usually take that to mean any contact with a piece.

Don't know whether that makes you happier or not ! But at least you have drawn attention to the coming rule change and probably averted a few disputes amongst forum readers after 1st July.

[Alex Holowczak]

The current rules should also be interpreted that way ie the touch has to be with the intention of moving but unfortunately the rule wording is rather vague saying "deliberately touches". ENG arbiters usually take that to mean any contact with a piece.

I think I'm responsible for this being changed back to what it used to be.

Apparently, the change was originally made because it was thought that touching something with the intention of moving it was synonymous with touching deliberately, and the wording was similar. I argued that it wasn't the same thing.

There's also the accident in the current Laws where Article 9 still refers to touching with the intention of moving, while Article 4 refers to touching deliberately.

[Colin S Crouch]

A strange incident last night in the Hillingon League, Ealing versus Harrow at Ealing. This was in effect a second team match, as both Ealing and Harrow were playing in the Middlesex League that night.

It was in the quickplay finish, with the Ealing player being very short of time. The Ealing player moved the king into check, and his opponent pointed this out. The Ealing player thought for a while - and then moved another piece! The Harrow player did not make a complaint. There were several onlookers on both sides, but of course unlookers must not interfere. If there had been an arbiter present, no doubt that player would have been obliged to intervine.

Anyway, play continued. Ealing was a couple of pawns up in a position of opposite colours, but the Harrow player, strangely enough, had the more dangerous pawn. structure. The Ealing player claimed a draw, with less than two minutes on the clock, but the Harrow player proclaimed that he could still play for a win, Eventually, things got deadlocked, with no more moves being played, and no clear result given. It is now, I guess, up th the league. I do not want to prejudgr thr conclusions given by the league, but how could the watchers present, in luding captains, have handled the position, to give a clear result on the day?

There was another doubtful incident that evening. An Ealing player defaulted, in a home match, and this was known a short time in advance. The name of the player was not given, but there is a strong suspicion that one of the players who is known to this trick, and many other tricks, decided not to play, as he would be in danger of losing grading points. It is strange, even so, that the club was unable to find a home player to give the away player an opponent.