PDA

View Full Version : Touch move rule



harry
10-09-2006, 11:42 AM
You pick up your piece and go the take one of theirs. You touch their piece with your piece but not with your fingers. Is that still called a touch?
Thanks

tcn (on locatio
10-09-2006, 12:29 PM
assuming that the touch of the opponents piece was accidental and assuming tthat the opponentts piece would be a legal move for your piece thhhen i think that tthere is no problem wiith moving the piece to its desired position.

please excuse the typos i am at an internet kiosk which is tooooooooooooooo sensitive and i'v just given up on redoing typos.

bergil
10-09-2006, 01:10 PM
assuming that the touch of the opponents piece was accidental and assuming tthat the opponentts piece would be a legal move for your piece thhhen i think that tthere is no problem wiith moving the piece to its desired position.

please excuse the typos i am at an internet kiosk which is tooooooooooooooo sensitive and i'v just given up on redoing typos.
Or maybe he's drunk? :P

Rincewind
10-09-2006, 03:04 PM
You pick up your piece and go the take one of theirs. You touch their piece with your piece but not with your fingers. Is that still called a touch?
Thanks

I would say it is still called a touch. If you touched the piece deliberately with the intent to take it then the move should be played (assuming it is legal to do so).

I'm assume you used your piece to move the other off the square so that you could place your piece on that square. If you just touched the piece accidentally then that doesn't count. The touch needs to be deliberate.

Bill Gletsos
10-09-2006, 04:27 PM
I would say it is still called a touch. If you touched the piece deliberately with the intent to take it then the move should be played (assuming it is legal to do so).Agree.

I'm assume you used your piece to move the other off the square so that you could place your piece on that square. If you just touched the piece accidentally then that doesn't count. The touch needs to be deliberate.Agree.

sleepless
10-09-2006, 06:30 PM
I had an opponent come late for an interclub game. He sat down and with the clock going proceeded to straighten his pieces without an 'I adjust'. I chose to warn him about touch move. I don't know what I would have played against 1. ....a5 anyway.

Ian Rout
11-09-2006, 09:11 AM
I think you have to say a touch with another piece counts (assuming it is deliberate) and not that a "touch" only occurs when there is contact with flesh. Otherwise somebody could exempt themselves from touch-move by wearing gloves, or using tongs.

pax
11-09-2006, 09:44 AM
I had an opponent come late for an interclub game. He sat down and with the clock going proceeded to straighten his pieces without an 'I adjust'. I chose to warn him about touch move. I don't know what I would have played against 1. ....a5 anyway.

Just as well. If you attempted to enforce touch-move in that situation you would find yourself branded a loser forever more.

Phil Bourke
11-09-2006, 01:39 PM
I am not sure if I understand where the correctness of this ruling comes from.
Article 4.6
a. in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand;
To me this isn't implicit in that the capture is complete until the player releases his piece on the capturing square. Therefore, why can't a player pick up his piece, move the opponent's piece off the square, then replace the opponent's piece back on its square and select another move with the piece that he first picked up.
Sorry to be so thick :) , but I feel that the rule isn't specific that a capture must be made, unless you pick up the opponent's piece first.
A gentle explanation would be appreciated :)

Jesse Jager
11-09-2006, 02:10 PM
I had an opponent come late for an interclub game. He sat down and with the clock going proceeded to straighten his pieces without an 'I adjust'. I chose to warn him about touch move. I don't know what I would have played against 1. ....a5 anyway.


Would an arbiter be obliged to uphold the touch move rule in such a situation? :doh:

Garvinator
11-09-2006, 02:34 PM
I am not sure if I understand where the correctness of this ruling comes from.
Article 4.6
a. in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand;
To me this isn't implicit in that the capture is complete until the player releases his piece on the capturing square. Therefore, why can't a player pick up his piece, move the opponent's piece off the square, then replace the opponent's piece back on its square and select another move with the piece that he first picked up.
Sorry to be so thick :) , but I feel that the rule isn't specific that a capture must be made, unless you pick up the opponent's piece first.
A gentle explanation would be appreciated :)
Hello Phil,

I believe the answer is located just a little bit further up in the laws of chess.


Article 4: The act of moving the pieces

4.1 Each move must be made with one hand only.

4.2 Provided that he first expresses his intention (e.g. by saying "j`adoube" or "I adjust"), the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.

4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard
a. one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved, or
b. one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched, which can be captured, or
c. one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent’s piece with his piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched which 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.
4.3c matters here. I am sure I will be corrected if wrong ;)

Ian Rout
11-09-2006, 02:51 PM
Would an arbiter be obliged to uphold the touch move rule in such a situation? :doh:
Possibly an arbiter could rule that the player had "expressed his intention" non-verbally by adjusting so many pieces. The rule only gives examples of how to do it, not an exclusive list.

Rincewind
11-09-2006, 02:57 PM
Possibly an arbiter could rule that the player had "expressed his intention" non-verbally by adjusting so many pieces. The rule only gives examples of how to do it, not an exclusive list.

You still have to get around the word "first". ;)

pax
11-09-2006, 03:18 PM
Possibly an arbiter could rule that the player had "expressed his intention" non-verbally by adjusting so many pieces. The rule only gives examples of how to do it, not an exclusive list.

I reckon the fact that he touched the a-pawn first is a pretty good indication :D. Of course, if he touched the rook first then there would be no ambiguity at all.

Ian Rout
11-09-2006, 04:47 PM
I suppose to be really safe you could make your opening move first and then adjust the pieces before pressing your clock. I remember at least once noticing one of Australia's top players do this.

Denis_Jessop
11-09-2006, 08:39 PM
I suppose to be really safe you could make your opening move first and then adjust the pieces before pressing your clock. I remember at least once noticing one of Australia's top players do this.

My practice in this situation, as I cannot stand seeing my pieces all higgledy-piggledy is to notify my opponent of a "general j'adoube" and then adjust them all so that they are in the middle of the squares to which they belong and the knights are facing inwards at an angle towards the centre. I've never had any one object to this.

Note: not all players agree about how the knights should face. GM Ian Rogers, for example always has his facing directly forwards while some juniors actually have them facing backwards perhaps to try to convince their adult opponents that they don't know much about the game. Fortunately this matter is not covered by the FIDE Laws. :cool:

DJ

Rincewind
11-09-2006, 10:48 PM
Note: not all players agree about how the knights should face. GM Ian Rogers, for example always has his facing directly forwards while some juniors actually have them facing backwards perhaps to try to convince their adult opponents that they don't know much about the game. Fortunately this matter is not covered by the FIDE Laws. :cool:

This could be a thread in its own right.

My general thought has been players orient their knights in a way which they find comfortable to move. I suspect the reason those juniors face them backwards is something to do with making them easy to move too.

I tend to arrange them facing inward, parallel with the ranks. The reason is because I find parallel the most comfortable orientation to move but equally easy regardless of which direction they face. With them facing inwards I can tell apart the king's knight from the queen's knight. Though these days that is not important.

Kevin Bonham
11-09-2006, 11:29 PM
[piece contact]


You pick up your piece and go the take one of theirs. You touch their piece with your piece but not with your fingers. Is that still called a touch?
Thanks

Definitely. Likewise it is still a touch if, for instance, you push a piece from square to square with your pen.

[adjusting pieces]


Would an arbiter be obliged to uphold the touch move rule in such a situation?

Yes.

pax
12-09-2006, 12:07 AM
Would an arbiter be obliged to uphold the touch move rule in such a situation?



Yes.

"But Mr Arbiter, I really *did* say j'adube - it's just that he's a bit deaf and didn't hear me. And anyway, isn't it totally obvious that I was adjusting?"

If it was me I'd be tempted to give the claimant a clip around the ears.

pax
12-09-2006, 12:10 AM
Note: not all players agree about how the knights should face. GM Ian Rogers, for example always has his facing directly forwards while some juniors actually have them facing backwards perhaps to try to convince their adult opponents that they don't know much about the game. Fortunately this matter is not covered by the FIDE Laws. :cool:

Interesting question. I wonder if the backwards facing knights could be construed as gamesmanship?

Incidentally, is there anything stopping you from 'adjusting' your opponent's pieces? I could imagine all sorts of fun between two players with differing knight position obsession.

(I'm a straight forward man myself)

Basil
12-09-2006, 12:11 AM
Incidentally, is there anything stopping you from 'adjusting' your opponent's pieces? I could imagine all sorts of fun between two players with differing knight position obsession.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/rofl.gif
Hilarious! The mind conjures up wonderful images of brinksmanship and obsessive compulsives being driven nuts!


I'm a straight forward man myselfNTTAWWT

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2006, 12:24 AM
Incidentally, is there anything stopping you from 'adjusting' your opponent's pieces?A player may only touch the pieces (his and his opponents) when it is his turn to move.
Doing so on your opponents move would be a breach of Article 12.6.

12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw.

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2006, 01:03 AM
"But Mr Arbiter, I really *did* say j'adube - it's just that he's a bit deaf and didn't hear me. And anyway, isn't it totally obvious that I was adjusting?"

If it was me I'd be tempted to give the claimant a clip around the ears.

My concern is that if you let one case of a player not saying j'adoube (on move 1) go, they will claim that there were other cases later in a game in which it's "totally obvious" they were only adjusting. And frankly, being forced to play 1...a5 is hardly the worst thing that can happen to someone in a tournament game, probably won't alter the result and will make sure they get it right in future.

The "didn't hear me" situation is different. If it's one player's word against another about whether it was said or not you have to assume it was said and dismiss the claim unless there is some additional reason to believe otherwise. (This was discussed a bit on the "inaudible mutterings" thread.)

Denis_Jessop
12-09-2006, 12:31 PM
Interesting question. I wonder if the backwards facing knights could be construed as gamesmanship?

Incidentally, is there anything stopping you from 'adjusting' your opponent's pieces? I could imagine all sorts of fun between two players with differing knight position obsession.

(I'm a straight forward man myself)

You can adjust the opponents pieces in your own time but to do so frequently as in placing his pieces facing the way you like them when he clearly doesn't like them that way or persistently putting them in the centre os their sqaures would almost certainly fall foul of Art 12.6 - distracting or annoying the opponent. I'm fairly sure that this view has been put by Geurt Gijssen in his Arbiter's Notebook.

Also the point made by Rincewind about convenience is right I think. I adopted my practice (not original) for that reason and then I started to think they looked best that way too. Come to think of it, the Knight is almost the only piece with which this is an issue, though I like to have the Bishop's mitre slits facing forwards or at least not backwards for aesthetic reasons. :hmm:

DJ

MichaelBaron
12-09-2006, 04:49 PM
I think you have to say a touch with another piece counts (assuming it is deliberate) and not that a "touch" only occurs when there is contact with flesh. Otherwise somebody could exempt themselves from touch-move by wearing gloves, or using tongs.

Sometimes its hard to make assumptions whether the piece was touched deliberately or not:hmm:

Oepty
12-09-2006, 08:12 PM
What is the general rule regarding adjusting pieces when your opponent is not at the board. Do you stop the clock and find the arbiter just in case they see you adjusting across the room and try and enforce touch move. Would you ever uphold a touch move claim if the claimant was not at the board?
Scott

P.S. I could not care less which way my knights move, I just have to worry about not losing them.

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2006, 01:19 PM
What is the general rule regarding adjusting pieces when your opponent is not at the board. Do you stop the clock and find the arbiter just in case they see you adjusting across the room and try and enforce touch move. Would you ever uphold a touch move claim if the claimant was not at the board?

I would just procede as normal as a player unless it was very convenient to get the arbiter.

No arbiter in his/her right mind would uphold a disputed claim that j'adoube had not been said when the claimant was not even at the board, unless other witnessed attested to it too.

EGOR
13-09-2006, 01:29 PM
I would just procede as normal as a player unless it was very convenient to get the arbiter.

No arbiter in his/her right mind would uphold a disputed claim that j'adoube had not been said when the claimant was not even at the board, unless other witnessed attested to it too.
This may be a silly question, but do you have to say "j'adoube" or is just say "I adjust" alright, or just saying "I'm going to adjust this piece." or something like that? The main reason I'm asking is because I can never remember how to pronounce "j'adoube".

pax
13-09-2006, 02:24 PM
This may be a silly question, but do you have to say "j'adoube" or is just say "I adjust" alright, or just saying "I'm going to adjust this piece." or something like that? The main reason I'm asking is because I can never remember how to pronounce "j'adoube".

You can say anything that clearly indicates the intention to adjust. I find more players tend to say "adjusting" than "j'adoube" for the same reason as you.

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2006, 02:29 PM
This may be a silly question, but do you have to say "j'adoube" or is just say "I adjust" alright, or just saying "I'm going to adjust this piece." or something like that? The main reason I'm asking is because I can never remember how to pronounce "j'adoube".

The Laws say "(for example by saying 'j'adoube' or "I adjust")". Anything that makes it clear is OK.

EGOR
13-09-2006, 02:30 PM
The Laws say "(for example by saying 'j'adoube' or "I adjust")". Anything that makes it clear is OK.
Thankyou.:)

Oepty
13-09-2006, 06:25 PM
I would just procede as normal as a player unless it was very convenient to get the arbiter.

No arbiter in his/her right mind would uphold a disputed claim that j'adoube had not been said when the claimant was not even at the board, unless other witnessed attested to it too.

Kevin. Thankyou for the answer, but what classes as being at the board. Does standing behind your chair class as being at the board?
Also if the touch move claim was more than the player just touched a piece, but he actually picked the piece up and made a move then took it back. Could that kind of claim ever be upheld even if the claimant said they saw it from across the room?
Scott

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2006, 07:40 PM
Kevin. Thankyou for the answer, but what classes as being at the board. Does standing behind your chair class as being at the board?
Also if the touch move claim was more than the player just touched a piece, but he actually picked the piece up and made a move then took it back. Could that kind of claim ever be upheld even if the claimant said they saw it from across the room?

This is all very subjective stuff, but in my view:

You can never uphold any claim about whether a piece wasn't touched if there are no witnesses, the claim is disputed and you have no reason to be confident the player is in the wrong. You have to give the player the benefit of the doubt - at least the first time it happens.

It gets a bit trickier if the player who is denying touching the piece is a known fibber. Then you might want to balance the chance that the person is lying against the chance that the player is mistaken. How far away the player was makes a difference to the latter.

The case of watching across the room is an interesting one. Suppose that a player says they saw their opponent touch a piece from across the room. The opponent says "no I didn't, I touched the piece next to it". You would wonder how the player could know which piece was touched.

harry
13-09-2006, 07:46 PM
Knew I was right! deliberate touch of a peice with a peice means touched it. Thank youse guys.

Jezza
18-11-2006, 10:11 PM
I often (not always) have the cross on top of my king running parallel to the rows of the board so that I can see the cross. But I ALWAYS have my Knights facing directly forward. I got really annoyed one day when my opponent (doing it correctly when it was his turn) adjusted MY Knights to face left and right the way that he liked them! EVERY TURN!! I:eek: should have said something but was a lot younger then and less wise. I just ended up moving my Knights more than usual during that game so that I could face them the way I wanted. (Stupid, I know. I should have just adjusted them back when it was my turn and asked him to leave them the way they were).

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2006, 10:42 PM
I got really annoyed one day when my opponent (doing it correctly when it was his turn) adjusted MY Knights to face left and right the way that he liked them! EVERY TURN!!

If your pieces were placed neatly on their squares then it isn't reasonable for your opponent to do this and you can complain to the arbiter. No need to talk to your opponent about it - just get the arbiter to tell your opponent to stop.

Phil Bourke
19-11-2006, 12:25 PM
I often (not always) have the cross on top of my king running parallel to the rows of the board so that I can see the cross. But I ALWAYS have my Knights facing directly forward. I got really annoyed one day when my opponent (doing it correctly when it was his turn) adjusted MY Knights to face left and right the way that he liked them! EVERY TURN!! I:eek: should have said something but was a lot younger then and less wise. I just ended up moving my Knights more than usual during that game so that I could face them the way I wanted. (Stupid, I know. I should have just adjusted them back when it was my turn and asked him to leave them the way they were).
Or, if in a facetious mood, you may have retrieved some spare queens from other games, and on your next move, replaced the 'offending' knights with the queens and then asked your opponent if that was more to his liking. :)
Just make sure you have made a loud and audible "I adjust" before this action, so that your opponent can't claim a win by your illegal move. :)

MichaelBaron
19-11-2006, 12:44 PM
If your pieces were placed neatly on their squares then it isn't reasonable for your opponent to do this and you can complain to the arbiter. No need to talk to your opponent about it - just get the arbiter to tell your opponent to stop.

I would rather talk to the opponent nicely first. It is really not a big deal so it can be resolved without an arbiter getting involved

Kevin Bonham
19-11-2006, 01:15 PM
I would rather talk to the opponent nicely first. It is really not a big deal so it can be resolved without an arbiter getting involved

It is best to always go through the arbiter in a case where the opponent is clearly deliberately doing something that isn't on. Otherwise a noisy confrontation can easily occur - eg if you talk to the opponent nicely and the opponent responds rudely it is very difficult to keep yourself from saying something in return, leading to an exchange which can distract other players.

pull_my_finger
20-11-2006, 12:29 PM
The Laws say "(for example by saying 'j'adoube' or "I adjust")". Anything that makes it clear is OK.
What can be done about an opponent who constantly adjusts pieces? I'm think more of juniors but it has happened with an adult as well

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2006, 02:05 PM
What can be done about an opponent who constantly adjusts pieces? I'm think more of juniors but it has happened with an adult as well

If they constantly adjust pieces (even on their time) without valid reason they can be warned and ultimately penalised for distraction.

Likewise if they persistently place pieces very sloppily creating a need for constant adjustments.