Writing down the move first - and changing it

[Kevin Thurlow]

"They say that if you deliberately touch a piece you have to move it unless you first stated that you were adjusting the piece."

David Welch said a few years ago that you should treat "touching" the piece as "touching it with the intent of touching it", which is what the wording above implies.

[Stewart Reuben]

There was a game in the British Chess Championships Congress where one player insisted the knights be forward looking and the other they they be sides on. Sadly this did not go to appeal; the ruling by the arbiter, that each player shold align his own pieces, was accepted. The game was agreed drawn very shortly afterwards.
Personally I like Dirac's recently quite widely quoted comment on fundamental particles. This was that they were like chess pieces. It is their effect that defines them, not their physical manifestation.
Stewart Reuben

[Christopher Kreuzer]

There was a game in the British Chess Championships Congress where one player insisted the knights be forward looking and the other they they be sides on. Sadly this did not go to appeal; the ruling by the arbiter, that each player shold align his own pieces, was accepted. The game was agreed drawn very shortly afterwards.
Personally I like Dirac's recently quite widely quoted comment on fundamental particles. This was that they were like chess pieces. It is their effect that defines them, not their physical manifestation.

Has there ever been a real dispute over the touch move rule? I don't mean cases of cheating where someone tries to take a move back, or accidental stuff like knocking your king over as you make a move ("ha, ha, I resign"; "OK"; "no, I was joking"; "sorry, too late, you've resigned"; "$*%^!!"), but a dispute where things were unclear and it led to a rule change?

[IM Jack Rudd]

There were some very nasty situations in the U-11 section in the 2002 British Championships in Torquay; one player accused two of his opponents of violating the touch-move rule. We don't know whether he was trying it on or not; neither of his claims was upheld.

[David Sedgwick]

Has there ever been a real dispute over the touch move rule? I don't mean cases of cheating where someone tries to take a move back, or accidental stuff like knocking your king over as you make a move ("ha, ha, I resign"; "OK"; "no, I was joking"; "sorry, too late, you've resigned"; "$*%^!!"), but a dispute where things were unclear and it led to a rule change?

From the Chess Arbiters' Association Comments and Advice:

"A more difficult situation is where a player lifts a piece and moves it to a square which it cannot go to and then claims he meant to move an adjacent piece to that square. The arbiter must then weigh up whether the original piece was deliberately touched or not."

This is something of a grey area which has been raised in Geurt Gijssem's Chess Cafe Column on more than one occasion. I can't recall a high profile dispute.

It's not uncommon for a player to claim his opponent touched a piece and the opponent to claim he said "J'adoube". You have to give the latter the benefit of the doubt.

[Alexander Hardwick]

I haven't posted in this thread yet, but I thought I'd just weigh in on the "piece alignment" debate.

I always place my knights facing forwards - to me, it just looks neater that way. If my opponents complain about my piece alignment, my reply is usually something like, "Once you capture them, it won't matter!"

I can only remember encountering (hearing, actually!) one dispute over the touch-move rule. It was a classic case between two young juniors: "You touched the piece, so you have to move it." "But I didn't touch it!" "Yes you did" "No I didn't" etc. etc. Obviously it was one player's word against another, so the game was allowed to continue normally (I think!). I'm sure every junior tournament organiser has encountered this type of dispute before.

I'm sure it's been mentioned before on this forum, but junior tournament organisers must all eagerly await the advent of heat-sensory pieces that can register whether or not they have been touched by the players .

[Stewart Reuben]

Christopher Kreuzer >Has there ever been a real dispute over the touch move rule?<
1957 London Schools League Final. The arbiter was the late Bob Wade, possibly Britain' best ever arbiter.
One of the players in my team, William Ellis, went to make his move, but instead knocked one of his pieces to the floor. He picked it up in his own time and replaced it on the board. Then he moved a different piece.
His opponent claimed that he had to move the first piece. After all he had touched it. The Laws were different in those days. Bob ruled that the Law stated 'if a piece is adjusted on the square without saying j'adouble it must be moved.' But our player had not adjusted the piece ON the square. He had adjusted it ONTO the square. Thus there was no penalty.
I have always thought that was a great way of dealing with a 17-18 year old self-opinionated youngster. Of course the Law is expressed better these days, it is whether the piece is touched with the intention of moving it.

In one Lloyds Bank Masters I observed a player pick up a piece with the obvious intention of playing a completely losing move. He put it back and moved a different one. I told him he had to move the first piece. He argued that he had not touched it. I repeated the instruction. He said he hadn't and now the opponent stepped in and said the player had not touched the piece. So I said, 'well, its your game' and walked off. Fortunately it was not on a demonstration board. Two people came up later and said I was quite correct. This was just as well because I thought perhaps I had gone mad. I was very pleased when the opponent later won the game.

Stewart Reuben

[Richard James]

I can only remember encountering (hearing, actually!) one dispute over the touch-move rule. It was a classic case between two young juniors: "You touched the piece, so you have to move it." "But I didn't touch it!" "Yes you did" "No I didn't" etc. etc. Obviously it was one player's word against another, so the game was allowed to continue normally (I think!). I'm sure every junior tournament organiser has encountered this type of dispute before.

Yes, hundreds of times over the years when I organised junior tournaments.

As you say, you have to let the game continue normally. But if the same player is accused of touching a piece and not moving it a second time you start to become suspicious.

The other thing they do is pick up a piece, decide they don't want to move it, say 'adjust' and put it back again - because they haven't been taught 'touch and move' correctly.

[Richard James]

In one Lloyds Bank Masters I observed a player pick up a piece with the obvious intention of playing a completely losing move. He put it back and moved a different one. I told him he had to move the first piece. He argued that he had not touched it. I repeated the instruction. He said he hadn't and now the opponent stepped in and said the player had not touched the piece. So I said, 'well, its your game' and walked off. Fortunately it was not on a demonstration board. Two people came up later and said I was quite correct. This was just as well because I thought perhaps I had gone mad. I was very pleased when the opponent later won the game.

A friend once confessed to me that he took a move back in a Lloyds Bank Masters game while his opponent was away from the board.

[Stewart Reuben]

Of course the DGT boards make it much more difficult to take back moves. But they don't do anything for the touch-move rule. Few strong players touch a piece and immediately let go of it and play another move. Much more likely is that the player picks it up, puts it on or above its destination and then realises it is a blunder. Such incidents of cheating are rare of course for experienced players.
The most common form of cheating in chess remains collusion between two players at the end of a tournament.

Stewart Reuben