.
The lesson here is for us all to be petty, such as refusing to use a ready-to-go chess set just because one of the pieces is slightly damaged.
In the past you might have trusted the TD to interpret the rule book in the larger social context (here to include the gracious tolerance of the damaged piece), but this thread shows such trust is misplaced, or is childish.
Antonin Scalia would be pleased with the TDs here. We don’t need no stinkin’ context.
.
I think this is the gist of the whole discussion. If I were the opponent I probably would have allowed the player to move the queen, but as a TD I can’t force my idea of fair play onto the claimant.
good enuf fer me 
It is not the TD’s job to inform a player that he thinks claiming touch move is unethical, and could be withdrawn. By doing so, the TD is looking for problems. First, any player after only a few games, knows that calling touch move is not required. “Informing” the player of this accomplishes nothing. It may create hard feelings on the part of his opponent. It may cause the claimant to feel guilty about making the claim. It may cause the claimant to be distracted by causing him to think about what the TD said instead of the position on the board. It may effect the remainder of the game including the result, if this causes the claimant to withdraw his claim.
It is never the TD’s responsibility to effect the result of a game by taking on the role of ethical advisor when the players are following the rules. There are behaviors covered in the rule book which are unethical and the book deals with the ways to handle them. This is not one of those behaviors.
This is not a matter of a TD having higher standards. This is not a matter of “the TD’s concept of proper conduct and sportsmanship”. Saying nothing about the ethics shows that this is a TD who understands that he is to refrain from getting involved in dispensing unsolicited ethical advice during a game.
If the TD informs the player after the game that he finds making a touch move claim “repugnant”, and he makes it clear that he is not speaking in his role of TD, his “informing” would be acceptable.
I have one question no one has asked. We know that a draw offer can not be withdrawn. Can a touch move claim be withdrawn? If not, then this entire discussion is moot. I could find nothing in the rule book covering it.
Absent any rule to the contrary, I would think that once the TD has been asked for a ruling on any claim, he becomes involved, and must investigate and make a determination.
Was it a rated game, or just a casual game? In a casual game, I generally will allow an opponent to move a different piece if he clearly made a mistake. Of couse, at my level, its more common for someone to misread the board and do something totally messed up.
But in a rated game, you can’t really say someone is showing bad sportsmanship by sticking to the rules.
I have seen some broken chess pieces at USCF rated games - (often owned by youngsters). One of the most common breaks is a king with the top emblem or cross broken off.
In some sets, the broken King and the Queen do look quite similar.
If I was confronted by such a set owned by the player of the black pieces, I would request permission from the TD to use my own set which was in better condition, and, of course, give the TD the reason.
In a time scramble, even the owner of such a defective King might confuse it with the Queen.
I also believe such as set with a broken King does not meet the rule about a standard Staunton set and a player is within his/her rights to refuse to use it.
However as a TD, must I wait for a player to complain to me about the broken set before asking that a good set be used - or if I see it, should I take action?
As I understand it, the players agree on what set is to be used. If you don’t bring a set, then you forfeit the right to object to your opponent’s set. A way to look at it is that the TD will rule, if there are two non-standard sets, which is the least non-standard, and anything is more standard than nothing. A way to look at it is that if we’re paired, and you don’t want to use my Civil War chess set, you must supply one that is more standard. I generally prefer to use my opponent’s equipment, but I can’t play on a blue and white board, so I always have a green and white board available, just in case. I’m mindful of a tournament I played in with a WIM who didn’t bring her own equipment, and was playing a game with her opponent’s set that he had spray painted blue and green. The disgust on her face was palpable.
Many (most?) TDs don’t carry around spare sets in case the players don’t bring one.
Alex Relyea
Longstanding tradition, and perhaps the rule, has been that Black has the option of using his equipment if it meets the standards. White can object to nonstandard sets or boards or unapproved timepieces, but only to the extent he can offer “more standard” equipment for substitution.
Current rules may well also allow White to use his own or a borrowed clock with time delay if Black’s does not have this feature.
Black has the choice of set and board provided that 1) Black is present at the start of the round, and 2) the set and board are “standard.” There are some specs on this in the Rulebook, but in 99% of cases “standardness” is obvious on inspection. If White is present at the start of the round and Black is not, White has the choice. If neither player is present, the first one to arrive with equipment has the choice. Clocks are a different matter, but there have been plenty of threads on that already.