Novice touch move error

Running Chess Tournaments
1

The questions of the touch move rule, as one of many important rules should be enforced. The question of the lack of experience of the player also has an important value as well. There have been only a few times the penalties of the touch move have been discharged – as the opponent never made the claim. The standard penalty for a touch move is two minutes added to the opponents’ clock. There has never been a second such granting of more than two minutes during any of my tournaments for the same game.

The problem that comes up the most with touch move, is with scholastic players. Directors’ have watched scholastic game, noticed touch moves that are rejected for some other move. Even noticed scholastic games when the players are repeating the same rule breaking. It is a bad habit the players are doing, the director is not the coach, the coach should have informed the player before the tournament. When it is with an adult vs’ scholastic that breaks this simple rule: most adults would not make the claim. Most adults would inform the scholastic player of the touch move, the game would move on from there

There has been some debate on this issue, when the player demands the two extra minutes. If it is with a player that breaks the touch move rule (more than once), and the opponent demanding to get the extra two minutes. The meeting of the average adult player in rating vs the average scholastic player in rating, could be as great as one-thousand points, as the novice scholastic player would have a higher change of touch move errors. If the player earns two-points under rule 1C2a each and every move, does it really help the player to win the game. If it is between two strong adult players, the player that earns the two-minutes could shift the balance to win or earn a draw against their opponent. If it is between an adult and a very novice scholastic player, do not see the shift or possible change the adult has a better chance to win or earn a draw with an extra two minutes. This could be the rational reason why adults do not make the claim for the extra two-minutes against the scholastic player. If it is an adult player v a novice scholastic player, does the extra two minutes make a difference to the adult, in my judgment it does not.

Looking for a case of precedent, or a case of stare decisis, for a case that has been decided. Each and everyone that has played the game has broken the touch move rule. Even broken the rule when under the clock, settled between my opponent and myself without the penalties. Myself, would stand with the first piece touched, even if the move was a blunder. Having one of my opponents making the claim (touch moves rule) for the two extra minutes, other than a sarcastic claim, only as a point of order – no. Even in a rated game, have blundered with a touch move, none of my opponents demanded the extra two minutes.

Looking back of my memories of the events of last year (2004), only two times has anyone made a claim. With this year, have let to settle any touch move claims for a rated USCF event. Have notice players from all age groups, making the error but never going to a valid claim from one of the players. Having the opponent making the claim is rare and uncommon. Knowing other directors over the years at their tournaments, seeing or knowing they had to make the ruling – was rare and uncommon. Talking or knowing of a player that has made the claim of touch move, just to get the extra two minutes – has been rare and uncommon.

There was a past debate on this topic before. The question was the repeated breaking of the touch move with a novice scholastic player v an adult player. There being a number of the members of this form demand the child be forfeited for breaking the touch move rule. Have pointed out a number of stare decisis views that many opponents would waive the two extra minutes. Only demanding the touch move is made on the board than the extra two minutes.

If the opponent demands the two extra minutes, it could slow down the start of the next round. If the scholastic player is a novice, the touch move could be broken for each and every move. For the first thirty moves, the opponent could be granted an extra sixty minutes. With my tournaments being a game in sixty, this would double the amount of time the player would have. This would if the opponent wants to use all the time on the clock, slow down the start of the next round. In general, the adult player should only use half of the amount of time to win the game against such a novice scholastic player. If the tournament is a game sixty, the player should be able to win with only half the amount of time. The question becomes, does the granting of the two extra minutes does anything, in practice it should not.

The idea to use rule 1C2b, the non-standard penalties. It says the director may assess more severe penalty, if and only if the player is repeatedly not following the rules of chess. It is not clear if the director does have the right to forfeit the player under rule 1C2b. Directors have done so, but the rule is not clear as the word forfeit is not spoken. It becomes a case of precedent, is there any stare decisis of any director forfeiting a player on the grounds of touch move (other than non-rated blitz). Has anyone forfeited a game because of a touch move, never had anyone tell me they had. Has there ever been a director ever forfeit a player in any rated game because of a touch rule claim: none I can recall. Is there a director willing to forfeit a player, on the grounds of touch move, that would be over reaching.

If there is a director willing to forfeit a player on the grounds of touch move. That would be over reaching the powers of the director. The director should have limited powers to decide the out-come of the game. Forfeiting any player during the game, needs strong evidence for the director to change the course of the game. Forfeiting the player during the game, would be to restore order for the whole tournament, or to notice the abandonment of the game. Forfeiting the game because the player is a novice, is a clear abuse of power.

Now with the opponent demanding the extra two minutes, the opponent will get the extra two minutes if and only if the player makes the claim. As forfeiting the player is over reaching the powers of the director, as there is limited precedent any director has done so. The player that earns the two extra minutes should win the game in the first place, as a novice player that makes simple errors of touch move does not have the equal skills or close to the skills of the adult player. The adult player, should win the game within the time limit of the round, even to the point to only use half the allotted time.

It would give myself as the director a question of concern, if the opponent needing to use the time earned because of the two minutes. If the novice player has made thirty touch move errors, than the opponent is indeed past the expired time from the start of the game. If it is a game sixty, and the player is now used the sixty minutes and into the time granted makes myself wonder if the game is fixed. It begs the question how an adult player having a hard time with a novice scholastic player. The novice scholastic player should be around 100 - 250 on the USCF rating scale. Just wonder how an adult average player would need so much time to win a game against such a match. It begs the question, is it not a fake game.

Some of the members of this form would say forfeit the player or grant the opponent all the two minutes. As stated above, forfeiting someone on a touch move, never recall anyone ever being forfeited for a touch move. The idea would than be over reaching the powers of the director. Granting the two extra minutes for each touch move claim, would not change the out come of the game. Having the player play past the established granting of time into the earned time from the penalties, beg the question if the whole game is a pre-arranged.

This is the reason I feel the granting of the two extra minutes does not work. It works for equal players but not for the stronger player getting more time against the novice player. If the opponent demands the claim, the player would get the two extra minutes. If the player makes the claim more than once, it begs the question what is going on with the game. Hope I have answers the question some of the players wanted to understand.

2

Where in the rule book does it say you are supposed to grant two minutes for a touch move violation? Could you give a rule number reference? Thanks!

3

The standard rule is rule 1C2a. It has been my personal feeling not to grant it, if the player that would get the extra two minutes should win the game. If it is between players of equal rating or a change of an accepted upset, would grant the two extra minutes.

Lets’ put it this way, myself has been paired up with a now GM – elect, if I made a touch move error, very sure Ben was going to crush me like a bug anyway. Having Ben have an extra two minutes would be like driving one-hundred miles and hour than seventy miles an hour to kill a bug on the windshield.

When I made the statement I would not grant the extra two minutes because the player is such a novice. There a number of players upset about the idea. The idea to forfeit a player because of a touch move error would be over stepping my powers as a director. As I never know of any director ever forfeiting a player for a touch move other than a non-rated blitz game. Granting the two extra minutes, some scholastic players would find that to be funny and break the rule to tease the opponent. Granting or having to deal with an opponent needing or wanting the extra two minutes would be wasting the time of the director to always being at the board.

4

Doug,

So what about 1C2b. Non-standard penalties? Doesn’t that rule allow the TD a lot of room to deal with all these hypothetical situations you are describing? For example (your’s from your posts), a player is willfully breaking a rule over and over to tease their opponent. The TD keeps adding the 2 minutes, over and over again, to the opponent’s time. 1C2b gives that TD the option to start subtracting 2 minutes or more from the teasing player’s time (“…the director may assess penalties either more or less severe than the standard penalty (1C2a).”).

I have a question concerning your reasoning regarding the enforcement of a rule that might cause a player to lose a game. Where in the rules does it say the TD should consider the position or clock or anything else when enforcing the rules? If you are going to go that route I assume you will post this variation (i.e., not enforcing the rules due to rating, experience, …)? What about following 1C2b and give a warning first then enforcing the rule (regardless of the game outcome, player’s rating…)?

Tim Just

5

True, the enforcement of the rule should be blind to the players’ ratings. Being blind to the facts, being blind to the rational ending of the game is a different issue. The position on the board could be forced mate in one. If the opponent wants the extra two minutes because the player made a touch move, what value does it has when its mate in one.

Unless the player admits to the teasing, than it is only my view it was teasing. Unless the player makes a confession, than it is only my view not a finding of facts. In all my life never talked with anyone that had time removed from their clock for anything. Never talked with anyone that was forfeited for a touch move rule.

The rule 1C2b, it is true that the director can give a more severe penalty, the question becomes what is the limits of the punishment. Does the director have the right to use capital punishment, as capital punishment is a more severe penalty. You might want to take time away from the players’ clock, on the other hand I might want to take the player behind the building to be shoot. The problem with rule 1C2b, it leaves open to the director the limits of what is a more severe penalty. Since it leaves open the idea of capital punishment, I’m sure the rules committee is not supporting directors executing the players. Capital punishment is a more severe penalty so the director in theory does have that right.

The reason I do not use rule 1C2b, as it does not set the limit the director has. The director should have limited powers not total powers. Looking at past stare decisis, never know anyone uses this rule in such a bold way to control the players. The rule 1C2b can give the director total control over the game, this making the director control the final out-come of the game.

6

You’re looking in the wrong place. The sort of situation you are describing should be dealt with under 20G (Forbidden ot distract or annoy the opponent) or 13I (refusal to obey rules). The limits on the TD’s authority to impose penalties are defined under 20K (extreme penalties are loss of the game and expulsion from the tournament, which is simply common sense), as modified by 21K2 (Beware abuse of power, which more TDs ought to read).

7

That is an idea, but Tim Just pointed out rule 1C2b when the player was doing touch move all the time. Annoying the opponent into making 1C2a claims. The opponent has to make the complaint for the rule 20G. Rule 1C2b on the other hand gives the director the right without the opponent making any claim.

The problem I have with the rule 1C2b, as it gives the director the right to place a penalty on someone without the opponent making any claim. Example, your opponent is not keeping score, can give your opponent a warning to keep score. If I come back, notice your opponent is not keeping score: I could use rule 1C2b to forfeit your opponent for not keeping score. The director could say he does not like your glasses: it is not specifically noted in the rules. The director could say you cannot have your glasses on during the tournament. If you have your glasses on during the tournament, you were warned not to have them on, so the director could forfeit you.

My idea is this, the director should not make the law only enforce the rules. It is up to the players to make a claim, not the director having the right to make a claim. The rule 1C2a is a rule any director could use for abuse. This is the reason I never use rule 1C2a, as it gives the director unlimited power over the players.

8

Doug,

So there is another rule you disagree with. Wow, Based on all your other posts that list of revisions you are making must be real long by now. Don’t forget to submit them to the delegates so you can effect all those rules changes (or in this case rules elimination).

Tim

9

I do not agree with your interpretation of 1C2b. All it says is that if there is a valid claim, the TD may impose a penalty other than the “standard penalty” specified in 1C2a. I see nothing in it that would justify TD intervention without a claim being made by a player. See also 21B Tournament Director, Duties and powers. The cases in which the TD may intervene sua sponte are rare and limited.

10

I don’t believe that 1C2a applies to a touch move violation.

1C2a says, “Except where specifically noted in the rules, the standard penalty assessed by the director is to add two unused minutes…”.

However, a touch move violation, 10B, does specify a very severe penalty in that the player must move the touched piece, even if they do not want to. This may, for example, force the player to block a check with their queen if they did not notice they were in check before touching their queen. No additional penalty is needed for this violation.

11

It is not a question I disagree with the rule, it is the question of the limited powers the director has. The director should only use penalties that have been used before. The director should not enforce penalties that other directors would not use. The director should not use cruel and unusual punishments, this would limit the director to past penalties.

The point I was making was the penalties of the touch move rule. As a director or as a player never seen anyone ever forfeited (USCF rated) for a touch move. In rated blitz games, the standard rule is to add two minutes than the standard of forfeiting in non-rated blitz tournaments. The rules are more clear in the 5th edition than the 4th edition that forfeiting because of a touch move is not acceptable.

The idea to remove time from the players’ clock, is a novel idea but never talked with any player or talked with any director that did remove time from the clock. There have been directors that have done so, but the enforcement of this rule is rare and uncommon. It would be unusual for the director, it would be uncommon to remove time from any players clock as a penalty.

In all the years as a player, never had anyone ever make any statement their opponent should have time removed from their opponents clock for a touch move error. Never had anyone ever make a statement their opponent should be forfeited for a touch move error. If the players are asked if their opponents should be forfeited or have time removed from their opponents clock on the second violation of the rule – only a very limited number of players would be in full agreement to the policy.

If the players do not support the policy of the penalty, if the directors do not support the policy of the penalty – than the penalty would be cruel and unusual punishment. The director should limit the scope of the penalties to the accepted norms of the public. If the director uses a penalty greater than was ask by the opponent, than the director has over reached the authority as a director. If the director uses a penalty greater than was asked by the opponent, than the director is active in the final results of the tournament.

12

1C2b. Non-standard penalties. Except where specifically noted in the rules, the director may assess penalties more or less severe than the stand penalty (1C2a). It is often more appropriate for a director to issue a warning(s) before applying 1C2a in cases involving youg or inexperience players. A director may assess a more severe penalty in cases involving players who repeatedly do not follow the rules of chess.

Do not see the player making the claim of rule 1C2b. Only seeing the director having the sole right to the rule 1C2b, not the player making any claim to the right. The non-standard penalties, other than specifically noted in the rules, the director can assess penalties more or less severe than the standard penalty. The non-standard penalties not specifically noted in the rules, the director can assess the penalty, than assess what level of punishment the director feels is just.

13

You are quoting 1C2b out of context in a way that makes no sense. 1C2 is headed “Director discretion,” but the only discretion discussed is what penalty to impose. The TD may only assess a penalty in response to a properly made claim. This is explicitly stated in 21D. You might as well argue that a judge can sentence someone even if he hasn’t been arrested or charged.

To the extent I can follow your argument, you seem to be conccerned that a TD could abuse 21D (“… provide suitable conditions of play”) to impose absurd requirements on the players (demand that they all wear tuxedos, or knock their heads three times on the floor before addressing him). Yes, this could happen, if you set your plausibility filter at zero. The solution is that no one would play in his tournaments.

14

John:

My point is this, if you ask the director to come over to make a ruling. Knowing past judgments of the rule of touch move, you should be able to get your extra two minutes. The director does not have to give you an extra two minutes, the director could give your opponent a warning. Before I would give someone the extra two minutes, would ask the player making the claim if they want the extra two minutes.

If I come to the board, now being my second time to correct or enforce the touch move rule. As the director the rule 1C2b gives me the right to go past the final judgment you was wanting. The director could forfeit your opponent, an action that has gone past what you wanted.

In a trial of a person found quilt of a major crime, there is the sentencing hearing to get the victims’ statement. The judge could go past the wants of the victims to place a harder sentence, but that would be uncommon as it was going past the wants of the victims. It would be the same as the director, if the director places a much harder penalty on the player than the opponent wants. It would make the director take an active role in the final out come of the tournament.

The reason I would not use the rule 1C2b, as it makes the director go past the penalty the opponent wanted. Not going to say it should be removed, as in other stranger acts that nobody would dream it would ever happen. The director can use the rule to forfeit players of doing some odd or illegal acts over the game.

15

Doug,

Ah yes, once again the world is wrong and Doug is right?!

Tim

16

There seems to be no point to discussing this on the forum. Doug will not accept your interpretation of what you wrote, Tim.

Please take this thread to e-mail.