Touch move by player who is not on move

[kevin_bachler]

@dennisk

@kbachler

To: “dennisk” …

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.

It isn’t. If you won’t put in the effort to understand what I’m saying, then quit commenting on it.

Your post had 360 fresh words, mine had 460. Appx 1 paragraph more.

@dennisk

(1) Please stop saying “on the move”. The correct expression (as used over and over again in the rulebook) is “on move”.

It has been used in our chess rulebook since the Goichberg edition. It’s not the correct expression though. On the move is correct using the definite article as was done in rulebooks before the 4th edition. It’s referring specifically to the next move, so the definite article is used. Moves are sequential, not unordered.

@dennisk

(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.

Yes it does. Changing the period changes the rule. It changes the fundamental touch-move rule by adding a clock through the bifurcation of completed into determined and completed. The bifurcated result should go with the earlier of the two events so that no time period is missed.

@dennisk

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.

Yes, you can. I just explained how.

@dennisk

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.

This is demonstrably false by the example that started this thread. I’ve already demonstrated this. Since you’re concerned about brevity the words “In order” are unnecessary filler.

@dennisk

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.

False, it’s changed because the move completion was bifurcated.

@dennisk

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.

Sorry, I hadn’t seen any good reasons.

@dennisk

(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.

The rules say what they say because of the history and evolution of the rules. I don’t think it would be possible for me to insult your intelligence.

[kevin_bachler]

@dennisk

@kbachler

Hopefully, you now understand what I’ve said.

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.

Nope, it has nothing to do with like or with preference, it has to do with what is the most objectively logical and correct. Rules are derived from principles, they do not come from ad hoc authority. You follow rules blindly without understanding them, and check off little boxes. I prefer both in chess and in the rules to hold a deeper understanding. Your checkboxes have led you to an incorrect opinion. You’re welcome to hold incorrect opinions if you wish.

[kevin_bachler]

@dennisk

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.

No.

Real situation I watched while in a tournament in 1978 at Jules Stein’s place in Chicago.

Player A is on the move, player B eventually gets up and walks around.
While B is away, A moves, and gets up and walks around.
B returns, sees his clock is running but does not recognize a move by A. He assumes he forgot to press his clock, and presses it again with no responding move, and leaves.
Player A returns, sees his clock running, and makes a second move.
Player B returns, and becomes quite angry because his clock is running, and player A has made two (consecutive) moves.

[kevin_bachler]

Player A is on the move while B is away.

A moves, does not press the clock and steps away.

B moves, and gives mate.

B also stops the clock, waits a while, and leaves to go to the bathroom. A comes back, sees the mate, realizes he hadn’t pressed his clock, undoes the mate and restarts his clock. B decides to get lunch. A realizes he has no choice and presses the clock. Three minutes later, B’s flag falls. Both players report wins.

What’s the result?

What makes sense?

[dennisk]

@wzim

@dennisk

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. …

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?

I guess I’m having trouble seeing B’s action (whether he actually makes a move, or just touches a piece) as an “illegal move”. It’s not really a “move” at all, because it’s not his turn to move. In the rulebook, illegal moves are always referred to as being made by the player on move, who either (1) makes a move that ends with his King in check, or (2) moves a given piece in a way that piece is not allowed to move (such as moving a Rook along a diagonal, or moving a Knight to a square of the same color as the square it started on). Touching a piece is never defined as “illegal” at all – it’s just that you have to move the piece you touched (assuming that it has a legal move, and that it is the player on move who touched it).

As far as I’m aware, the rulebook never explicitly prohibits touching or adjusting a piece on your opponent’s time. However, it is generally understood that this is not a good thing to do. I wouldn’t usually penalize a player at all for doing this. I would just remind him that he should do adjustments only when his own clock is running. If he persists in doing it repeatedly, at some point I would assess the standard penalty of adding 2 minutes to his opponent’s time. I might do this more than once, and if he still persists in doing it repeatedly, at some point I would just award the win to his opponent (although he would get at least one warning before I did anything this drastic). These are all judgment calls, though, because the rulebook doesn’t directly address this situation.

There are other interesting questions about adjusting pieces (for instance, is a player allowed to adjust his opponent’s pieces?), but that’s for another thread. This one has strayed far enough already.

[dennisk]

@kbachler

@dennisk

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.

Sorry, I hadn’t seen any good reasons.

Here they are again:

(1) The period between determination and completion of a move is designated (in rule 9G) as the proper time for the player on move to make claims, offer draws, etc. By your interpretation, his opponent (who is, by definition, not on move yet), can move during this time. What happens if one player is trying to make a claim or offer a draw while the other player is already moving? What happens if the second player moves so fast that the first player never gets a chance to make his claim at all? Who is on move at this point? Does the first player still have the right to make a claim or offer a draw? What if he was going to claim a draw by the 50-move rule and his opponent moved a pawn before he could make the claim? Now the 50-move rule no longer applies, unless you apply it retroactively. But can you do that? None of this confusion arises if things are done in the proper order.

(2) What about the “blitzer” who repeatedly moves and phantom-presses his clock without ever giving his opponent the chance to press his clock at all? I have been in this situation, and it can easily degenerate into neither player being quite sure whose move it is. It is clearly an undesirable situation, but your interpretation would allow it. In my book, a player has to be able to press his clock before the opponent can move. This is especially important in a time trouble situation, and even more so if it is an increment time control.

As for the examples you give, all of them involve a player getting up and leaving the board (going “on the move” in the literal sense) without pressing his clock. In these cases, it is clear that he forgot to press the clock, and I would not penalize the other player for moving. However, if the player has moved and is still sitting at the board, the proper procedure is to wait for a reasonable time (he may be pondering whether or not to make a claim or offer a draw, or maybe he just wants to notate his move before pressing the clock), and then indicate to him somehow that he needs to press the clock. Second-best is to just calmly wait until he runs out of time and then claim the win (this has been attempted several times by opponents of mine, and although I found it annoying, I couldn’t fault them – I was the one who neglected to press the clock). Just moving is third-best, and has the drawbacks of throwing the move counter off and denying both players their increment (assuming it is an increment time control). But just moving immediately, without giving the first player a chance to press his clock, is a no-no.

Here is another scenario which doesn’t really fit into the current discussion, but I would be interested to know what you would have done. Player A (unrated) has just determined and completed a move that produces a “mate in one” position – no matter what player B does, player A can play checkmate on the next move. Player B (who has a rating, and considers himself “better” than his unrated opponent) gets up and stands behind his chair – and continues to stand there until his time runs out (his remaining time is around an hour). We (the TD team at the event) elected not to intervene, because we couldn’t find any justification for doing so in the rules. After the game, we did give player B a stern mini-lecture on sportsmanship.

When I brought this up a few months later to a more experienced TD, he said he would absolutely have intervened. One possibility is to tell player B that if he doesn’t make a move within 5 minutes, half of his remaining time will be deducted – and then continue doing this until he moves, resigns, or flags. But what if one or both players does not realize that it’s mate in one? That almost certainly wasn’t the case, but it’s not totally implausible either. [I once had mate in one, didn’t realize it, and repeated the position and offered a draw (which my opponent immediately and gleefully accepted).] Then, by intervening, you’re alerting them to something that they didn’t know, and that doesn’t seem right either. I still think we did the right thing by letting the players work it out themselves. What do you think?

[relyea]

@dennisk

(2) What about the “blitzer” who repeatedly moves and phantom-presses his clock without ever giving his opponent the chance to press his clock at all? I have been in this situation, and it can easily degenerate into neither player being quite sure whose move it is. It is clearly an undesirable situation, but your interpretation would allow it. In my book, a player has to be able to press his clock before the opponent can move. This is especially important in a time trouble situation, and even more so if it is an increment time control.

Mr. Wiewel and I have both addressed that above. Mr. Wiewel has also explained how easily this can backfire against a “blitzer”.

@dennisk

Here is another scenario which doesn’t really fit into the current discussion, but I would be interested to know what you would have done. Player A (unrated) has just determined and completed a move that produces a “mate in one” position – no matter what player B does, player A can play checkmate on the next move. Player B (who has a rating, and considers himself “better” than his unrated opponent) gets up and stands behind his chair – and continues to stand there until his time runs out (his remaining time is around an hour). We (the TD team at the event) elected not to intervene, because we couldn’t find any justification for doing so in the rules. After the game, we did give player B a stern mini-lecture on sportsmanship.

When I brought this up a few months later to a more experienced TD, he said he would absolutely have intervened. One possibility is to tell player B that if he doesn’t make a move within 5 minutes, half of his remaining time will be deducted – and then continue doing this until he moves, resigns, or flags. But what if one or both players does not realize that it’s mate in one? That almost certainly wasn’t the case, but it’s not totally implausible either. [I once had mate in one, didn’t realize it, and repeated the position and offered a draw (which my opponent immediately and gleefully accepted).] Then, by intervening, you’re alerting them to something that they didn’t know, and that doesn’t seem right either. I still think we did the right thing by letting the players work it out themselves. What do you think?

I don’t understand the proposed intervention, nor why it is necessary that the position be a mate in one. TDs must appreciate two things: 1) that players have all the time that remains on the clock to solve even the most unpromising positions (except under 14D) and 2) under 20H1 it is possible to abandon a position while remaining at the board. IMO, if a player, even if seated at the board, is demonstrating no interest in the position for a reasonable length of time, then adjudication is appropriate. So if player B can plausibly be looking for something, anything, to play that won’t result in mate, he should have all the time he wants. If when he’s standing behind the board his eyes rarely glance at it, I’m very willing to consider a claim of abandonment.

I actually had a situation like this once with a strong expert and a weak master where the expert (losing) was completely focused on the game on the next board and would glance at the board every five to ten minutes and toss off a desultory move. I was not about to intervene without a claim of some sort, but remained near the board in case of one as I anticipated that direct witness to the behavior would be crucial, but the increasingly exasperated opponent apparently never considered making a claim. Incidentally, I’d consider something along the lines of “Is there anything I can do about this?” a claim. Even the rawest beginner shouldn’t have to put up with a disinterested opponent for an hour.

Alex Relyea

[jwiewel]

@kbachler

Player A is on the move while B is away.

A moves, does not press the clock and steps away.

B moves, and gives mate.

B also stops the clock, waits a while, and leaves to go to the bathroom. A comes back, sees the mate, realizes he hadn’t pressed his clock, undoes the mate and restarts his clock. B decides to get lunch. A realizes he has no choice and presses the clock. Three minutes later, B’s flag falls. Both players report wins.

What’s the result?

What makes sense?

Player A getting up and and walking away makes the example contrived. A temporarily absent player A could have known that A’s clock had not yet been punched only if the lack of a punch was deliberate.

Since the lack of a punch was deliberate you may as well modify the example by saying the following:
player B is in moderate time trouble with a little under one minute left;
player A moves and stays at the board without hitting the clock;
player B plays the mating move, tells the silent player A that it is mate and goes to mark the result in another room;
player A adjusts the pieces back since it is still A’s move and presses the clock waiting for the flag to fall;
player A then calls over a TD to verify the flag (in player B’s absence) and goes to record the win on time.

[kevin_bachler]

@jwiewel

@kbachler

Player A is on the move while B is away.

A moves, does not press the clock and steps away.

B moves, and gives mate.

B also stops the clock, waits a while, and leaves to go to the bathroom. A comes back, sees the mate, realizes he hadn’t pressed his clock, undoes the mate and restarts his clock. B decides to get lunch. A realizes he has no choice and presses the clock. Three minutes later, B’s flag falls. Both players report wins.

What’s the result?

What makes sense?

Player A getting up and and walking away makes the example contrived.

I just gave a real life example where this happened, Jeff.

@jwiewel

A temporarily absent player A could have known that A’s clock had not yet been punched only if the lack of a punch was deliberate.

No, it could dawn on A that they had forgotten to press the clock.

@jwiewel

Since the lack of a punch was deliberate

Again, I just gave a real case where it was accidental.

@jwiewel

you may as well modify the example by saying the following:
player B is in moderate time trouble with a little under one minute left;
player A moves and stays at the board without hitting the clock;
player B plays the mating move, tells the silent player A that it is mate and goes to mark the result in another room;
player A adjusts the pieces back since it is still A’s move and presses the clock waiting for the flag to fall;
player A then calls over a TD to verify the flag (in player B’s absence) and goes to record the win on time.

I agree that this is equivalent, but I was working to stress a different point and not rely on a time pressure/blitz situation. But because I’ve seen approximately this happen, I view both cases as valid, possible, and problematically equivalent.

[kevin_bachler]

@relyea

@dennisk

(2) What about the “blitzer” who repeatedly moves and phantom-presses his clock without ever giving his opponent the chance to press his clock at all? I have been in this situation, and it can easily degenerate into neither player being quite sure whose move it is. It is clearly an undesirable situation, but your interpretation would allow it. In my book, a player has to be able to press his clock before the opponent can move. This is especially important in a time trouble situation, and even more so if it is an increment time control.

Mr. Wiewel and I have both addressed that above. Mr. Wiewel has also explained how easily this can backfire against a “blitzer”.

@dennisk

Here is another scenario which doesn’t really fit into the current discussion, but I would be interested to know what you would have done. Player A (unrated) has just determined and completed a move that produces a “mate in one” position – no matter what player B does, player A can play checkmate on the next move. Player B (who has a rating, and considers himself “better” than his unrated opponent) gets up and stands behind his chair – and continues to stand there until his time runs out (his remaining time is around an hour). We (the TD team at the event) elected not to intervene, because we couldn’t find any justification for doing so in the rules. After the game, we did give player B a stern mini-lecture on sportsmanship.

When I brought this up a few months later to a more experienced TD, he said he would absolutely have intervened. One possibility is to tell player B that if he doesn’t make a move within 5 minutes, half of his remaining time will be deducted – and then continue doing this until he moves, resigns, or flags. But what if one or both players does not realize that it’s mate in one? That almost certainly wasn’t the case, but it’s not totally implausible either. [I once had mate in one, didn’t realize it, and repeated the position and offered a draw (which my opponent immediately and gleefully accepted).] Then, by intervening, you’re alerting them to something that they didn’t know, and that doesn’t seem right either. I still think we did the right thing by letting the players work it out themselves. What do you think?

I don’t understand the proposed intervention, nor why it is necessary that the position be a mate in one. TDs must appreciate two things: 1) that players have all the time that remains on the clock to solve even the most unpromising positions (except under 14D) and 2) under 20H1 it is possible to abandon a position while remaining at the board. IMO, if a player, even if seated at the board, is demonstrating no interest in the position for a reasonable length of time, then adjudication is appropriate. So if player B can plausibly be looking for something, anything, to play that won’t result in mate, he should have all the time he wants. If when he’s standing behind the board his eyes rarely glance at it, I’m very willing to consider a claim of abandonment.

I actually had a situation like this once with a strong expert and a weak master where the expert (losing) was completely focused on the game on the next board and would glance at the board every five to ten minutes and toss off a desultory move. I was not about to intervene without a claim of some sort, but remained near the board in case of one as I anticipated that direct witness to the behavior would be crucial, but the increasingly exasperated opponent apparently never considered making a claim. Incidentally, I’d consider something along the lines of “Is there anything I can do about this?” a claim. Even the rawest beginner shouldn’t have to put up with a disinterested opponent for an hour.

Alex Relyea

When I first broke 2200, I immediately went from being a strong expert, to a weak master.

[kevin_bachler]

@dennisk

@kbachler

@dennisk

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.

Sorry, I hadn’t seen any good reasons.

Yeah, these aren’t good reasons.

@dennisk

Here they are again:

(1) The period between determination and completion of a move is designated (in rule 9G) as the proper time for the player on move to make claims, offer draws, etc. By your interpretation, his opponent (who is, by definition, not on move yet), can move during this time. What happens if one player is trying to make a claim or offer a draw while the other player is already moving? What happens if the second player moves so fast that the first player never gets a chance to make his claim at all? Who is on move at this point? Does the first player still have the right to make a claim or offer a draw? What if he was going to claim a draw by the 50-move rule and his opponent moved a pawn before he could make the claim? Now the 50-move rule no longer applies, unless you apply it retroactively. But can you do that? None of this confusion arises if things are done in the proper order.

This doesn’t require my definition. It can happen now, and does. Again, since you refuse to read what I write, you seem to again be making an irrelevant straw man argument.

@dennisk

(2) What about the “blitzer” who repeatedly moves and phantom-presses his clock without ever giving his opponent the chance to press his clock at all? I have been in this situation, and it can easily degenerate into neither player being quite sure whose move it is. It is clearly an undesirable situation, but your interpretation would allow it. In my book, a player has to be able to press his clock before the opponent can move. This is especially important in a time trouble situation, and even more so if it is an increment time control.

Again, strawman argument. You again seem to be arguing against a point I’ve not made. Perhaps you should actually read that extra paragraph you refuse to read.

@dennisk

As for the examples you give, all of them involve a player getting up and leaving the board (going “on the move” in the literal sense) without pressing his clock.

This is false. They’re just some real cases I’ve seen. It can get bad and confusing if a player leaves the board or not - the confusion is simply more understandable if players leave the board.

The OP didn’t have that, and falls into the discussion, right?

@dennisk

In these cases, it is clear that he forgot to press the clock, and I would not penalize the other player for moving. However, if the player has moved and is still sitting at the board, the proper procedure is to wait for a reasonable time (he may be pondering whether or not to make a claim or offer a draw, or maybe he just wants to notate his move before pressing the clock), and then indicate to him somehow that he needs to press the clock.

Dear Mr. - we can only do exactly what the rulebook says - would you care to point this out?

@dennisk

Second-best is to just calmly wait until he runs out of time and then claim the win (this has been attempted several times by opponents of mine, and although I found it annoying, I couldn’t fault them – I was the one who neglected to press the clock). Just moving is third-best, and has the drawbacks of throwing the move counter off and denying both players their increment (assuming it is an increment time control). But just moving immediately, without giving the first player a chance to press his clock, is a no-no.

There’s no reason why moving is any worse than anything else other than your opinion. In fact, historically, its the best choice.

@dennisk

Here is another scenario which doesn’t really fit into the current discussion, but I would be interested to know what you would have done. Player A (unrated) has just determined and completed a move that produces a “mate in one” position – no matter what player B does, player A can play checkmate on the next move. Player B (who has a rating, and considers himself “better” than his unrated opponent) gets up and stands behind his chair – and continues to stand there until his time runs out (his remaining time is around an hour). We (the TD team at the event) elected not to intervene, because we couldn’t find any justification for doing so in the rules. After the game, we did give player B a stern mini-lecture on sportsmanship.

When I brought this up a few months later to a more experienced TD, he said he would absolutely have intervened. One possibility is to tell player B that if he doesn’t make a move within 5 minutes, half of his remaining time will be deducted – and then continue doing this until he moves, resigns, or flags. But what if one or both players does not realize that it’s mate in one? That almost certainly wasn’t the case, but it’s not totally implausible either. [I once had mate in one, didn’t realize it, and repeated the position and offered a draw (which my opponent immediately and gleefully accepted).] Then, by intervening, you’re alerting them to something that they didn’t know, and that doesn’t seem right either. I still think we did the right thing by letting the players work it out themselves. What do you think?

I think it’s generally possible to tell by body language what is happening. I’ve missed a mate in one twice against roughly 2400 strength players, once was chess blindness, once was a time scramble. In each case what was happening would have been apparent to anyone (continuously) watching the game.

Given that, the intervention is possible under the right circumstance.

[jwiewel]

@dennisk

…

Here is another scenario which doesn’t really fit into the current discussion, but I would be interested to know what you would have done. Player A (unrated) has just determined and completed a move that produces a “mate in one” position – no matter what player B does, player A can play checkmate on the next move. Player B (who has a rating, and considers himself “better” than his unrated opponent) gets up and stands behind his chair – and continues to stand there until his time runs out (his remaining time is around an hour). We (the TD team at the event) elected not to intervene, because we couldn’t find any justification for doing so in the rules. After the game, we did give player B a stern mini-lecture on sportsmanship.

When I brought this up a few months later to a more experienced TD, he said he would absolutely have intervened. One possibility is to tell player B that if he doesn’t make a move within 5 minutes, half of his remaining time will be deducted – and then continue doing this until he moves, resigns, or flags. But what if one or both players does not realize that it’s mate in one? That almost certainly wasn’t the case, but it’s not totally implausible either. [I once had mate in one, didn’t realize it, and repeated the position and offered a draw (which my opponent immediately and gleefully accepted).] Then, by intervening, you’re alerting them to something that they didn’t know, and that doesn’t seem right either. I still think we did the right thing by letting the players work it out themselves. What do you think?

This might end up getting split off since in your example player B’s clock is the one that is running and there is no confusion over who is on move.

Reread 18G1 and see what you can do an emergency adjudication. It sounds like your more experienced TD would be willing to do an emergency adjudication even without a claim by player A, which is quite unusual. Out of curiosity was this the last game of the round?

PS That action and sealing checkmate for adjournment are the only two actions explicitly defined as unsportsmanlike. The rulebook allows that other actions may be unsportsmanlike but does not define all of them as otherwise you might have somebody trying to perpetrate one that hadn’t been explicitly listed.

[jwiewel]

@kbachler

…

@jwiewel

A temporarily absent player A could have known that A’s clock had not yet been punched only if the lack of a punch was deliberate.

No, it could dawn on A that they had forgotten to press the clock.
…

Undoing the position requires extreme confidence that the clock had not been punched. Unless A was certain that the clock had not been punched there is no justification for changing the position. Even if the clock had a move counter and the move counter was off that would still require A being absolutely certain that A’s last move is the only one that was possible to have been missed and throw the counter off.
Other than deliberately not punching the clock or an eidetic memory or something that requires each action of pressing A’s clock to be extremely memorable I cannot think of a case where A would legitimately be certain that forgetting to punch the clock was more likely than forgetting that the almost automatic action of punching the clock had occurred.

In any case, I agree with you that the two versions are pretty much equivalent.

[fantasychess]

@jwiewel

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).

The question I answered from the OP is basically whether a player can be held to “touch move” when they are not on move. I believe the rules noted previously clearly state they cannot be.

Note that I did not go into whether a player should be penalized for doing this, but a player has to be very careful when touching pieces when they are not officially on move, as doing so runs the potential of being penalized in some way as it is clear they should not be doing this. If they are doing this after an opponent has determined their move and not completed it, they may find themselves obligated via touch move if they are touching a piece, or to keep the move they determined if they have made a move, if the other player presses their clock and completes their move at that time.

[dennisk]

@kbachler

Dear Mr. - we can only do exactly what the rulebook says …

I have never said that we can only do what the rulebook says. I have no problem with a TD using his best judgment in cases (such as the one I was referring to) where the rulebook is silent or ambiguous. That’s what TDs are for. But when the rulebook gives clear and explicit rules and procedures, and they apply to the situation in question, we follow the rules. This is not “checking boxes” – it’s just following the rules. That’s what rules are for. Why bother having rules at all if you’re going to ignore them and just do whatever you think “feels” right?

Other than that – since you don’t seem to have any interest in actual discussion, and just seem to want to dismiss anything and everything I say (because you are the great genius Kevin Bachler, smartest person who has ever lived, who can never be wrong about anything, and who am I to question you?), I’m not going to bother trying to communicate with you anymore. I don’t like wasting my time. Take your arrogance and superior attitude and stuff 'em where the sun don’t shine.

[Mulfish]

@dennisk

@kbachler

Dear Mr. - we can only do exactly what the rulebook says …

I have never said that we can only do what the rulebook says. I have no problem with a TD using his best judgment in cases (such as the one I was referring to) where the rulebook is silent or ambiguous. That’s what TDs are for. But when the rulebook gives clear and explicit rules and procedures, and they apply to the situation in question, we follow the rules. This is not “checking boxes” – it’s just following the rules. That’s what rules are for. Why bother having rules at all if you’re going to ignore them and just do whatever you think “feels” right?

Other than that – since you don’t seem to have any interest in actual discussion, and just seem to want to dismiss anything and everything I say (because you are the great genius Kevin Bachler, smartest person who has ever lived, who can never be wrong about anything, and who am I to question you?), I’m not going to bother trying to communicate with you anymore. I don’t like wasting my time. Take your arrogance and superior attitude and stuff 'em where the sun don’t shine.

I find it fascinating that the same person can complain is putting words in his mouth, attacking strawman, or either not listening to what he said or not understanding it, then proceed to equate “we can only do exactly what the rulebook says” with “we must follow what the rulebook clearly does state”. Dennis (and most of the other’s on this thread" endorse the latter; no one has espoused the former. Kevin, surely a wordsmith of your caliber can recognize that’s a strawman, can’t you?

The minute Kevin went over to “the rule is wrong” he shifted the playing field. All of his arguments on why the rule should be changed might be 100% logical, but that doesn’t change the fact that the rule as it exists today clearly says you are still on move until you punch your clock. I’ll take Chris Bird’s judgment on that one.

[jwiewel]

@fantasychess

@jwiewel

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).

The question I answered from the OP is basically whether a player can be held to “touch move” when they are not on move. I believe the rules noted previously clearly state they cannot be.

Note that I did not go into whether a player should be penalized for doing this, but a player has to be very careful when touching pieces when they are not officially on move, as doing so runs the potential of being penalized in some way as it is clear they should not be doing this. If they are doing this after an opponent has determined their move and not completed it, they may find themselves obligated via touch move if they are touching a piece, or to keep the move they determined if they have made a move, if the other player presses their clock and completes their move at that time.

Bolding added.

And if B makes a move and releases the piece on a legal square then A may not have realized that the clock had never been touched and may honestly believe that both A and B completed their moves normally with A’s clock now running (even if B did not start reaching to the press the clock A may have focused on the board and assumed the clock was pressed). After moving a piece it is difficult for B to make a claim that touch move didn’t apply unless A agrees the clock was not pressed or there is an unbiased witness or there can be absolute certainty that this was the move that a clock press was missed (when a TD comes to resolve the issue the evidence is that B played a move and A’s clock is running.

[Allen]

@dennisk

@kbachler

Dear Mr. - we can only do exactly what the rulebook says …

I have never said that we can only do what the rulebook says. I have no problem with a TD using his best judgment in cases (such as the one I was referring to) where the rulebook is silent or ambiguous. That’s what TDs are for. But when the rulebook gives clear and explicit rules and procedures, and they apply to the situation in question, we follow the rules. This is not “checking boxes” – it’s just following the rules. That’s what rules are for. Why bother having rules at all if you’re going to ignore them and just do whatever you think “feels” right?

Other than that – since you don’t seem to have any interest in actual discussion, and just seem to want to dismiss anything and everything I say (because you are the great genius Kevin Bachler, smartest person who has ever lived, who can never be wrong about anything, and who am I to question you?), I’m not going to bother trying to communicate with you anymore. I don’t like wasting my time. Take your arrogance and superior attitude and stuff 'em where the sun don’t shine.

+1

[brennanprice]

I can’t believe I am saying this, but the result that Kevin Bachler advocates is, in my view, the correct result.

It also cannot be the result under US Chess rules as currently drafted for reasons others discuss above.

The FIDE Laws of Chess (Law 1.1) says that a player has the move once the opponent’s move has been made. Law 6.7 indicates that a move is made before it is completed by the clock press. Touch move obligations apply to a player who has the move (Law 4.3).

This is case number 75,296 where the FIDE Laws of Chess are superior to US Chess rules.

[kevin_bachler]

@dennisk

@kbachler

Dear Mr. - we can only do exactly what the rulebook says …

I have never said that we can only do what the rulebook says. I have no problem with a TD using his best judgment in cases (such as the one I was referring to) where the rulebook is silent or ambiguous. That’s what TDs are for. But when the rulebook gives clear and explicit rules and procedures, and they apply to the situation in question, we follow the rules. This is not “checking boxes” – it’s just following the rules. That’s what rules are for. Why bother having rules at all if you’re going to ignore them and just do whatever you think “feels” right?

Other than that – since you don’t seem to have any interest in actual discussion, and just seem to want to dismiss anything and everything I say (because you are the great genius Kevin Bachler, smartest person who has ever lived, who can never be wrong about anything, and who am I to question you?), I’m not going to bother trying to communicate with you anymore. I don’t like wasting my time. Take your arrogance and superior attitude and stuff 'em where the sun don’t shine.

I’ve had actual discussion. You refused to read it, and then over and over made incorrect arguments because you didn’t understand the argument because you didn’t read it.

After not reading the argument, and blaming me for it - you now insult me with a bunch of exaggerations that have nothing to do with the actual discussion.

What part of your behavior is representative of a good TD?

EVERYONE should know that rules are important and to be followed - and with great care they should be tested and questioned.

Yes, the attitude of following rules no matter what is checking boxes. One needs to question. US Chess rules allow the ability of TDs to do this to make fair rulings.

TDs should understand the history well enough to think this through. That fact that I’m right on this is no reason for you to throw insults.