It is only a variation of US Chess rules that keeps a TD from calling illegal moves. Granted it is an almost universally used variation but I’ve discarded it for some small tournaments with a low player/TD ratio.
Some penalties get assessed without the opponent saying anything. A ringing cell phone will have a penalty assessed even if the opponent is willing to waive it, thus eliminating the possibility of trying to use peer pressure to shame the opponent into “being nice” and letting the penalty slide.
I have had no qualms assessing fair play violation penalties even if the opponent did not make a claim. Although 20D mentions using a different board for analysis, using the same board when the opponent is absent would still be a fair play violation. When somebody completes a move by pressing the clock while the opponent is away, and then returns the piece to the original square and moves a piece to a new square before the opponent returns, I have intervened while the opponent is still absent to keep them from making those three moves in a row and thus violating fair play.
I agree its between two players. If A walks back into the room, files a complaint with the TD during which time B puts the pieces back and says “You didn’t punch your clock” are we really to believe that A and the TD would think such analysis had been ok?
I would also think though, that not allowing analysis in the tournament room is one rule that doesn’t require an opponents complaint - it doesn’t even require an in-process game.
A monarch butterfly is not a type of monarch. It is a type of butterfly. Here is something I wrote to you earlier that you don’t seem to grasp:
You keep arguing that I have said the player is not on the move. Yet here I very clearly state the player is still on the move. So please remove from your argument the idea that I’m saying the player is not on the move. You’ve continuously made a strawman argument based on this false impression of yours.
The player cannot choose a new move - they are no longer on the move for move purposes.
I also previously tried to explain this to you in the same post. Stop and think about it because you aren’t HEARING it.
This last statement MUST be true, because without it, there would be nothing to validate via a clock press.
What I’m pointing out is that the rule recognizes this bifurcation. It’s clear. The chess move is set, but other aspects of completing a legal turn (move) are not.
You, apparently again misunderstanding what I’m saying, said:
I responded:
You’re not seeing the discussion of the meta-rule over the tournament rule. I tried to clarify this for you by asking the practical question:
You’ve continued to ignore this, I suspect because you cannot answer it and do not understand the point of the question. The question points out to you that the meta-rules of chess have precedence.
I would really like you to focus on the answer to this question. Particularly: “What logical factor has changed by adding a clock such that the situation should change by the mere addition of the clock?” Trust me, in tax and finance situations, we deal with this question of rules all the time in this very way, and it is an excellent way of knowing if we have a sound argument.
Unless any organization’s rulebook can provide a logical reason for this, then ANY rulebook that states that touch-move for the opponent shouldn’t be effective from determination is just wrong. It was wrong in your analysis, it was wrong in Chris Bird’s analysis. If you don’t get it, I suggest you contemplate the question until you do. Because the approach I’m using is correct.
You quoted (or, more accurately, paraphrased) only the part that refers to the end of the proposed interval (when the player relinquishes the right to move). That part is indeed a tautology. You pointedly ignored the more important part, which had to do with the beginning of the interval – when a player acquires the right to move. From everything you’ve said in this thread so far, you appear to disagree with that part (and with what the rules say about it). If that part is a tautology, you must not be very bright, because you’re not getting it.
You have said several times that a player who touches a piece during the interval between determination and completion of his opponent’s move is subject to the touch move rule. I’m not imagining this – you have clearly said it, and I strongly disagree with it. “Hierarchy of rules” notwithstanding, the US Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess very clearly and explicitly define what it means to be on move, and they also very clearly and explicitly define “touch move” only for the player who is on move. A player touching pieces before his opponent has completed his move may be violating the rule forbidding analysis or the rule about annoying the opponent, but he is not subject to “touch move”, because it simply doesn’t apply to him. It is only defined for the player on move, and he is not on move yet. His opponent is still on move.
The only way you can justify your position is by claiming that the second player actually is on move as soon as the other player’s move is determined (and you have said this as well, or at least strongly implied it). The rules very clearly and explicitly say otherwise. We can’t just make up our own rules, nor we can just ignore rules that we don’t like. This is chess, not Calvinball.
Again, I’m not going to quote your excessively wordy post. There are only a few things worth discussing, and I’ll bet I can do it in a lot fewer words than you used.
(1) Please stop saying “on the move”. The correct expression (as used over and over again in the rulebook) is “on move”.
(2) The addition of the clock does not fundamentally “change the logic” of the touch move rule. But it does change the period during which the rule applies. This is not something horrifying. You can’t add a clock and require players to make a certain number of moves (up to and including “all of them”) within a certain time period without changing some other things as well. In order for the whole clock business to work at all, the clock must run only for the player who is on move, and we must have a procedure for defining that period, including a procedure for sequencing moves and clock presses properly. This is not “changing the logic of the game” – it’s simply accommodating the presence of the clock.
ETA: A further clarification: “Touch move” has only ever applied to the player whose turn it is to move, and that hasn’t changed at all. The definition of whose turn it is has become more complicated with clocks involved, and it is now defined by clock presses. You may or may not like that, but that is how it’s defined, and there are good reasons for so doing, as I have outlined in previous posts. Those reasons have still not been addressed by you or anyone else.
(3) You can talk all you want about history and hierarchy and “meta” this and “meta” that – that’s just irrelevant handwaving. The rules say what they say, and they are very clear on these procedures. You don’t have a leg to stand on. If you don’t like the rules, please take it up with the rules committee. Don’t insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that the rules say (or mean) something other than what they clearly do say. I can read just as well as you can.
So wouldn’t one consider that if a player touched and or tried to move a piece when it isn’t his or her turn, that that move would be illegal because it wasn’t their turn?
So here we have the crux of your argument, the rulebook is wrong. I’m sorry, but we must make rulings based on the rulebook that is in effect at the time of the ruling. In this case, it is clearly spelled out in black and white when a player is on move (6B) and you cannot expect TDs to know some perceived historical hierarchy of the rules that contradicts that black and white wording.
I’m not sure 10D helps. Its ending (“the player is free to make any legal move”) indicates that we are still in the context of the player on move touching pieces (and doing so before he has determined his move). I would argue that that context (as defined in 10A through 10C) holds for all of rule 10. 10D through 10J have the nature of commentary on the basic rule, and retain its conditions and context.
The beginning of 10D talks about the pieces (not the player) having or not having legal moves, so I’m not sure it can be taken to refer to player B (the player not on move) doing anything illegal. I couldn’t find a rule specifically prohibiting this player from touching pieces, unless you interpret the touching as “analysis” or annoying the opponent. It just seems like common sense that only the player “on move” can move (i.e., move the pieces).
Repeating a comment I made a week ago on page two:
In the stronger case where a piece is moved and released before the opponent hits the clock and is then allowed to be freely retracted then one potential issue happens when an opponent neglects to hit the clock for multiple moves while the players are moving. When it is finally realized then is the board backed up two or three or eight moves to the last time the clock was not hit?
The rulebook does not cover every single possible combination of events and has 1A to let the TD handle them.
For instance, the rulebook says that you can only get out of check by moving the king, capturing the checking piece or blocking the check. In a position with White on move having Kh1, Ph2 and Black having Kh8, Ra2, Rb2 White might play Ph2-f8=Q+ and say that Black cannot claim an illegal move because that is not one of the three ways of getting out of check - and since White still does not have an advantage in the game you cannot even use the TD tip (not rule) about neglecting to call illegal moves that give a player an advantage. 1A can be used to stop that travesty (there are continual checks along the f file so there will never be a time when Black is not in check and can claim the illegal move).
When there is no complaint because the players are using option 3 then I am fine with that.
When there is a complaint because a move is made and released before the opponent hit the clock from the previous move I have no qualms using option 4. And the neglectful player still has a chance to hit the clock with the other player hitting it back so that any increment is added or the neglectful player gets the delay for the next move.
When there is a complaint because a piece was touched and not yet released on a new square then options 2 and 4 seem to have the most support from the people that commented (well, add option 5 if you go by the number of supporting posts rather than the number of people supporting it).
Please stop with the insults. I haven’t insulted you, and expect the same.
Contrary to your belief, I understand your argument. I’m telling you the argument is wrong. I also understand what the rules currently say. I’ve now told you several times that any rulebook that says that is also wrong. I’ve said it quite directly, I don’t know why you are still quoting other things.
If I need to I would rely on 1A. Generally, I hate when the rulebook forces us into 1A; to me, it means the rules have been poorly written. The idea of the addition of a clock changing the rules of chess is unintended. It’s also very clear that the result of it doing so is undesirable. I’ve made that very clear.
I’ve not ignored anything, as far as I can tell this indicates that when I said the rule needs to state that touch move begins with move determination and fully explained why that somehow didn’t make sense to you.
I’m not one for creating a list of checkboxes and then checking boxes off the list. Rather, I like to work to fully see an issue from multiple sides and ensure that a solution fits from multiple sides as it is then more likely organic to the issue. My description of the issue here has been organic and multiple-sided; for some people that makes it too long. I can see you like checkboxes. Hopefully, you now understand what I’ve said.
History is not just perceived, it is real. And yes, I can expect TDs to know that. In fact, all TDs should have a sense of history since we understand that decisions will be correct. The lack of this expectation shows up not infrequently among US Chess TDs. We should do better.
A great example is baseball. In baseball the rules rely on history and fairness; if one gets stumped in a situation, one can nearly always fall back on that. Golf is the same. Football isn’t quite the same because of rules introduced for safety, separate from history and fairness. I’m not aware of a need for safety in chess. I do know that rules had two phases - the initial working out of the rules of the game, and the secondary working out of the rules for matches and tournaments. The intent has never been for the latter to override the former, in fact, quite the opposite (hence the introduction of rules like “insufficient losing chances”)and every TD should know at least that amount of history. We’ve lost something if, through the refocus of the rulebook to “what players must know” and “what TDs must know” from “Laws of Chess” “Rules for Competitions”, TDs have forgotten that the laws of chess are fundamental. I can’t believe any good TD would disagree.
We have the unfortunate, but apparently necessary, rule 1A which would be used. The blind use of 6B leads to a plethora of unintended consequences. This should not be a surprise, the rule is inorganic, and now through a practical circumstance, someone has demonstrated a flaw. I’ve never felt an overpowering need to become an NTD although I did help to kick off a few careers; I’ve always been happy as a Sr. But one thing I know is that if I come across a rule that yields a plethora of unintended consequences, then I’m better off not following the Black and White rule. That is, after all Chris, part of what makes a good experienced TD good and experienced.
The rule is wrong. I suspect that the fix I suggested, that touch move comes into effect as soon as the opponent’s move is determined, is a likely good fix because it flows organically from the Laws of Chess. It’s possible that there something else in the tournament rules that this triggers; so it should be carefully examined.
I’ve understood what you’ve said all along. You don’t like the rules, and think they should be different. That’s fine. Your likes and dislikes and opinions are your own business. Having said that, though, I don’t care what you think the rules should say. I care what they do say, and as a TD, I am obligated to enforce what they do say – not what you or I or anyone else would like them to say. What they do say is that (a) touch move is only defined for the player on move (rules 10A through 10C), and (b) a player is on move until he completes his move (rule 6B), and (c) the move is completed by pressing the clock button (rules 9A through 9D). I will repeat: if you don’t like that, take it up with the rules committee.
If you want to (as a TD) enforce your own personal preference as to what the rules “should be”, I can’t stop you. However, I can hold the opinion that, by doing so, you are in dereliction of your duty as a TD – and you can’t stop me from holding that opinion. You also can’t stop me from doing what I have always done, and what I will continue to do: enforcing the rules as they actually are, regardless of what anyone thinks they should be.
What insults? Are you butthurt because I implied (in an “if” statement, not directly) that you’re not very bright? That wasn’t an insult – it was an observation. Look at what you did: You paraphrased half (the less important half) of one of my statements, and then claimed that the entire statement (including the first half, with which you disagree) was a tautology. If you disagree with a tautology, you are indeed not very bright. The only other interpretation is less charitable (but unfortunately, more likely): that you were deliberately being dishonest by cherry-picking a fragment of a statement and mischaracterizing the entire statement by that fragment. Take your pick.
If I wanted to insult you, I could do a lot worse than what I have done in this thread.
For a moment pretend that the player did more than just touch the piece. Pretend that the piece was actually moved. Even if clocks aren’t involved. It can’t be legal for a player to move twice in a row without the other player moving. So the logical thing, to me anyway, is that the second illegal move would be undone and the game would continue. After the opponent’s move the player wouldn’t be required to make the same move because the game has progressed back to legality so to speak. If the opponent knew that the player was going to have to move the piece he touched that would create an unfair advantage. With my line of thinking here I am avoiding all of the determination of move specifics.
The blitz rules are written this way because the regular rules are different. If they were the same then this having this wording in the blitz rules would not be necessary. I believe this is due to the realization that in blitz, players move so fast that this is bound to happen.
This is why I like the FIDE Law about the previous move being completed when a player makes their next move.
I agree, but in the situation covered in the OP, I believe the correct ruling can be achieved by reading the current rules. In my opinion, TDs should not be using 1A to circumvent the actual rules, despite their own personal beliefs.
That doesn’t quite work either. For brevity, let’s call the player on move player A (or simply A) and the player not on move player B (or simply B). To get the scenario you describe (B making two moves in a row), the illegal touch/move would have to take place before A makes his move. But in the actual situation under dispute (going back to the beginning of this thread), A has already made/determined his move. He just hasn’t pressed his clock button yet. So there aren’t two moves in a row by anyone. The (illegal) move B made would either stand as his move, and now it’s A’s move again (this is Kevin’s interpretation), or B takes back his touch or move or whatever he did and has to wait until it’s his turn (i.e., until after A presses his clock button) and then make a legal move, which doesn’t have to be the same as the one he tried to make earlier. This is my interpretation.
Anyway, in this scenario (B’s action occurs between the determination and completion of A’s move), I still don’t think 10D helps, for the reasons I gave earlier (in my previous post).
I realize there aren’t actually two moves in a row in the original scenario. But there were two touches before player A has punched the clock. My point is touching the piece is the same illegality as moving it before player A has finished his or her move by pressing the clock. So since it is an illegal move one would normally set the position back to before the illegality occurred and the player on the move would have to move the piece they touched before the illegality which in this case would not be the illegally touched piece but the piece they had moved before touching the second piece.
What is the penalty for adjusting a piece on your opponents time?
Like for example: while it is your opponents turn, you pick up his King twirl it around a little bit, break the cross off and then throw it back on the board on a different square? Completely hypothetically speaking of course!
There are two types of rules in play: whether or not a player is on move and whether or not a player can move the pieces around on the board. Use the entire rulebook and take both into account, not just one. 1A is best used to determine what ruling to make when either something is not covered or when different aspects of a situation are covered by different rules (not every issue or combination of issues is going to be covered in a rulebook).
In the touched and moved scenario I feel comfortable in saying that the prohibition against analyzing by moving pieces around is probably stronger than the free pass given by not being on move. Maybe not in 100% of the situations but probably in most.
In the touch (not moved) scenario I am guessing that different TDs would have different opinions (or a single TD would have different opinions depending on various additional aspects of the situation).
In such situations it should probably be difficult to overturn the ruling the TD made (I’ve upheld rulings that were not what I would have done but which were reasonable rulings).