Accidentally displacing a piece

[John Cox]

Sure, being the arbiter of fact is always going to be difficult and controversial. But that’s not what I’m talking about. There’s no excuse for creating a situation where, on the basis of a very common set of agreed facts which the laws have engaged with for a hundred years, two arbiters of considerable experience think the laws say diametrically opposed things, nor for creating one where FIDE’s top arbiter thinks the laws he’s written say one thing, whereas in fact any native English speaker can tell him immediately that they say the opposite.

The ironic thing is that I suspect most arbiters would be with AM and GG, that is that a player who adjusts a displaced piece without saying j’adoube does not have to move it whereas a player who accidentally picks up the wrong piece does. But actually the laws on their obvious construction say the opposite in both cases. That shouldn't happen; it’s just rubbish administration. And so easily preventable simply by sacking GG and paying someone competent to overhaul the drafting of the laws. Why, I expect White and Case would have done it for one-tenth of what they charged the ECF for its absurd litigation against FIDE.

If it wasn’t for the ennui induced by my overwhelming contempt for FIDE generally and GG’s long-standing pompous incompetence in particular, it would make me quite cross. As it is – well, just add it to the pile.

[Giulio Simeone]

I don't think I've ever been accused of beating about the bush before! You are correct that I haven't mentioned this law because Article 7.3 does not over-ride the requirements of Article 4.3 unless I've missed that in the laws.

Are you sure that Article 7.3 over-rides Article 4.3? Can you give me evidence of where is it written? (I feel a bit like an inspector here )

Perhaps it's not entirely clear what happened? When you say that you displaced your king, can you explain more fully what happened? There is a big difference between knocking the king off the board and onto the floor (or, as JC would have it, into a cup of tea) and, at the other extreme, brushing it thereby moving it 1mm off centre.

I'm going to explain it another time. Right after the incident occurred, I thought that my opponent and the arbiter were questioning me only the fact that, while executing the bishop move, I had slightly brushed the king. That's what in my heart I still believe it has happened - I remember clearly the kind of movement that I made, my hand passing over the king in e4 in order to pick up the bishop in e3.

In the following days Biancotti repeatedly stated that I had picked up the king. Since I want to assume that he has some honest reason to state this - but perhaps I'm too honest myself - I thought that, while approaching the bishop, I might have displaced the king and then adjusted it. Or grabbed it in order not to make it fall. In any case, I can rule out that I knocked the king far from its place - otherwise I would surely remember it. At most, I displaced it to an adjacent square, not further.

[Rob Thompson]

Article 7.3 does not over-ride the requirements of Article 4.3 unless I've missed that in the laws.

Are you sure that Article 7.3 over-rides Article 4.3? Can you give me evidence of where is it written?

Something here just doesn't match together...

[Stewart Reuben]

Amazing. An extensive discussion about an incident where you know that you have heard only one opinion of what happened.

>The following day, a friend of mine talked to Biancotti, and Biancotti said him "Giulio picked up the king and his opponent made a claim, I couldn't act otherwise".<

What nonsense is this? If Biancotti saw Giulio pick up the king, then B had to insist G move it. The opponent doesn't come into the matter. The 2014 Laws will make it clearer that a disabled or ill player should not be penalised.

I must say, it is admirable the way in which John Cox doesn't let facts interfere with his polemics.

I also admire the fact that so many of you observe so many disputes and arguments in chess games. That is not my experience. I have been the arbiter for 73 games played at great speed in Torquay this year and there have been no disputes of any nature whatsoever. Two people did ask whether it was touch-move and promptly resigned when they were told it was. In the British Championships I ran from 1981-1997 there were 10 disputes and 5 of those were 10.2 or equivalent which, as the late Harry Baines said, didn't count.

I very recently suggested that 13.1 should read: 'The Arbiter shall do nothing to bring the game into disrepute' (I don't have the exact wording in front of me), just like 12.1 for the players. But we decided we wanted to steer through those few amendments that the FIDE PB has interfered with, causing the delay in the new Laws until 1 July 2014 - a whole year late. Anything new can await 2017 as there is nothing urgent. Of course the PB and Executive Board may disagree. I expect the Tournament Regulations of 2015 to reflect the concerns about cheating.

Anybody who wants to make a suggested amendment to the Laws is welcome to do so. Anybody who claims to have an excellent understanding of English and just wants to be destructively critical must have rather odd motives.

I would welcome constructive comments about the Glossary of terms used in the Laws. You can find the document on the CAA website.

[Giulio Simeone]

Amazing. An extensive discussion about an incident where you know that you have heard only one opinion of what happened.

Yes, Mr. Reuben, but I correctly reported all the statements of Mr. Biancotti right after the game and during the following days. As for Albertini's opinion, anyone who is interested in it can contact him on Facebook, even though I think you'd need a language interpreter.

Unfortunately, whilst many and many players clearly recognised that the arbiter behaviour went against any common sense, because it is clear that I intended to move the bishop, I feel like the arbiters don't want to clearly state that their overseas colleague has made a bad mistake. This feeling that I have may be wrong, but ... I wrote to Alex Holowczak that whether I touched the bishop or the king first has been a question of milliseconds, and Alex Holowczak disappaered from the thread.

Then Alex McFarlane wrote

I didn't think that anyone was claiming that a piece which has been knocked over accidently or even nudged to another square should be penalised for simply picking it up and replacing it (even without saying j'adoube). The problem in this case is that neither of these things appears to have happened.

John Cox replied to him

My impression is that that's exactly what happened; the king was accidentally nudged to another square, then replaced deliberately, then ..Bf4+ played.

and Alex McFarlane disappeared from the thread.

Then I asked to Sean Hewitt to give me evidence of where it is written that Article 4.3 overrides Article 7.3, and he didn't answer me. Probably because there's no such evidence. Now, I'm not accusing anybody, surely Holowczak, McFarlane, Hewitt didn't reply because they had something else to do. In the meantime, though, I want to reassure them that nobody will put their overseas colleague in jail just because an arbiter clearly stated that he has made a mistake!!

[Eric Gardiner]

To be fair, both Alex H and Alex McF are busy at the British Championships this week and next.

[John Cox]

> If Biancotti saw Giulio pick up the king, then B had to insist G move it.

As long as he thought the king was touched 'deliberately', whatever that means.

>The opponent doesn't come into the matter.

Now this is fundamentally wrong. I know it's what the rules say, (one of the many, many regards in which they need revising) but they shouldn't. As a basic matter of principle, chess is a game played between two people. If they are happy with what goes on, then the arbiter should interfere only if one player is being taken advantage of – by not noticing something for example. This is where you went wrong all those years ago with Speelman and Ljubojevic. If that incident didn’t teach you anything, nothing will.

[John Cox]

Stewart, what do you say the intention of the laws is in situation A and situation B?

To refresh your memory, these are as follows:-

A: While reaching out to play a move, a player clearly knocks piece A over accidentally on the chessboard, and then picks it up and replaces it, with no ‘I adjust’, before moving piece B. Is he compelled to move piece A?

B: While reaching out to play a move a player clearly picks up the wrong piece and attempts to execute the move with it (several examples given but let’s stick with Kots’ innovation of 3…Rb4?!? in the Nimzo-Indian). Is he compelled to move the mistakenly touched piece?

[John Cox]

Giulio – I’m a lawyer and I construe documents for a living and Sean is right about this, IMHO. The natural construction is to try and give effect to both rules. So, if you have knocked a piece over, rule 7.3 obliges you to pick it up, but at the same time, if you deliberately touch it without giving notice of your intention, for example by saying ‘j’adoube’, then rule 4.3 compels you to move it. If complying with rule 7.3 was intended to suspend rule 4.3, it would have to say so.

Whether this was the intention of the laws is harder to say. Alex M thinks it can’t possibly have been. Sean H on the other hand thinks that’s what they say and that’s the end of it. Stewart’s refusing to say, so far.

The ambiguity could of course easily be addressed, as I pointed out higher up. Stewart prefers to address my motives than the uncomfortable reality that these rules are a mess.

[John Cox]

Also, Giulio, you really aren’t helping with your accounts of the incident.
What is clear is that (according to your version) you reached out to play …Bf4+, and accidentally touched the king. There seem to be two competing possibilities after that.

Either you then just went ahead and moved the bishop, but the arbiter somehow saw you pick up the king, which you cannot recall occurring at all. In that case there really isn’t much anyone can say.

Or you did pick up the king or touch it in some way to restore it to its position before moving the bishop, which the arbiter saw as ‘picking up’ the king, in which case we have my situation A above and it would be interesting to have an arbiter of Stewart’s authority tell us clearly what the correct decision is, which he hasn’t done so far. [Of course the arbiter might have concluded that what in fact was restoring the king to its position was ‘picking it up’ for some other purpose, in which case we are back to a factual dispute about an incident we didn’t see, and not much can be said].

It’s true of course that the arbiter might have some light to shed on events, but unlike Stewart I see some value in discussing the matter on the basis of assumed facts.

[Alex McFarlane]

I have indeed been quite busy.

I thought I started by saying that without having witnessed the incident (or at least had the other version presented) then I am not in a position to say whether I agree with the arbiter or not. If I didn't then apologies but I should have.

If the piece was knocked over or 'brushed' against sufficiently to move it to another square then it may be thought that the arbiter was wrong in not using common sense. However, if there is no clear evidence that the king was touched prior to it being picked up then the arbiter is correct in insisting that it was moved.

The arguement that it would result in a really stupid move holds no water. We have all seen (or made) some really silly moves. One classic example was the late teens player who realised that he didn't know how to mate with K & Q v K so did the decent thing and resigned!!! Ii is not uncommon to attempt to play the second or third move of a line of analysis before the first has been made, having convinced yourself that it had been especially if the first move is 'forced'.

[IM Jack Rudd]

It is not uncommon to attempt to play the second or third move of a line of analysis before the first has been made, having convinced yourself that it had been especially if the first move is 'forced'.

As indeed Keith Arkell did against me in the first round at Canterbury 2010...

[John Cox]

>The arguement that it would result in a really stupid move holds no water

Now that really can't be right. To apply the laws, the arbiter has to decide whether the piece was touched 'deliberately'.

Unless one is going to say that accidentally picking up a piece in mistake for something else still amounts to deliberately touching it, then determining that necessarily involves attempting to work out what the player had in his mind when he touched the piece. Since the arbiter doesn’t have second sight, that must be a question of probabilities, and part of the assessment of those probabilities has to be how likely it is that (for example) Kots intended to play 3…Rg8 and put his rook on b4 by mistake, as opposed to having accidentally picked up the wrong piece.

(Of course in 1955 the law was simply that a touched piece had to be moved, so the question didn’t actually arise)

[Martyn Harris]

Giulio, other people's sob stories are boring, and yours is showing all the classic signs as to why this is the case.

Start with a one-sided description of events - a first post.

Concede that your own actions may not have been immaculate - there was some handling of the king.

Lay-out your own damning evidence:
He was a very unpleasant and unsporting person. (says who?)
He lives near Rome. (Yikes!)
I am completely sure that I intended to move the Bishop. (You would say that.)
I'm far too good a player to make that bad a move. (Amazing how often one sees this as an objection to a ruling.)

Quote what you think is the relevant rule(s) and how you think they should be interpreted.

Take succour from any sympathetic reply and refuse to accept the validity of any responses you don't like.

You end up coming across as someone with whom it is not possible to have a sensible conversation, and looking like a sore loser. The posts you really need to read again are on the first page: especially those from Michael Flatt and Geoff Chandler. You have presented no compelling evidence that the arbiter is wrong.

Looking forwards, if you are unable to let this go you will make it harder for yourself next time you play this gentleman. You will be continually thinking about this and possibly other bad experiences rather than giving your full concentration to the game. You think he is unpleasant and unsporting. Maybe he plays on against you in lost positions because he thinks you are a choker - don't give him any more evidence to support this view than you have to. Or maybe he plays on because he is a late resigner. It is allowed. There is no law in chess that allows you to claim that your opponent should resign. And every extra half-point he gains by playing on in lost positions will reinforce his belief that he is right to play on.

You cannot control your opponent or the arbiter. You can control yourself, so do so. If you have the mindset that you are a victim, then you will play like one. If you accept that you failed to win because of what you did you'll have no extra baggage dragging you down.

When you have decided upon your move, play it. If you knock, nudge, caress, fondle or in any other way disturb any other pieces, don't stop. Play your move. Then undo any unintended carnage committed elsewhere by resetting pieces correctly. Then press your clock.

If you believe that you have a disability that may prevent you from always acting within the letter of the laws let the arbiters know in advance so that they can be ready to take this into account. Don't simply use it as another thing to prop up your hard luck story.

But I guess you will ignore all that as it is not what you wish to hear.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Unless one is going to say that accidentally picking up a piece in mistake for something else still amounts to deliberately touching it <snip>

There is a difference in 'accidentalness' (new word!) between deliberately intending to pick up a piece and picking up the wrong one, and a genuine accident such as reaching out to pick up a cup, or brush a fly away from the board, or something of that nature, and knocking over a piece. It is common to knock over the king accidentally (it is the tallest piece on the board) while attempting to pick up and move another piece). That is what is meant by accidental. If your brain tells your hand to pick up a piece, and the hand picks up that piece, or another one, then that is deliberate by most definitions of that word.

(Of course in 1955 the law was simply that a touched piece had to be moved, so the question didn’t actually arise)

Good point. Much simpler then.

I agree with all of what Martyn Harris says, except the last sentence, which may mean the advice won't be taken.