If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Player A moves his Queen and touches the opponent's pawn with the Queen, but not with his hand. Is he obligated to capture the pawn with the Queen? I have always been under the impression that he must capture but cannot find it explicitly in the rules. Does anyone know a resource that contains information about this. Thanks.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Player A moves his Queen and touches the opponent's pawn with the Queen, but not with his hand. Is he obligated to capture the pawn with the Queen? I have always been under the impression that he must capture but cannot find it explicitly in the rules. Does anyone know a resource that contains information about this. Thanks.
CMA has it own rules anyway. :D
What would be important to know is whether he deliberately touched the opponent's pawn or not.
FIDE rules say that if a player touches another piece, then he must capture it. They don't say if you need to touch it with your hand or with a piece... Common sense would make us think that since the capture was deliberated, the player should not be able to make another move. I guess it is one of these cases where we have to trust the arbiter judgment.
Maybe an experienced arbiter could tell us what is usually done in tournaments.
This was covered by Geurt Gijssen in one of his Chess Cafe columns. The piece is considered to be an extension of the player's hand, and touch-move rules apply.
Last edited by John Coleman; Tuesday, 24th April, 2012, 01:11 AM.
The piece is considered to be an extension of the player's hand, and touch-move rules apply.
What about a pen? The players thinks about his move with a pencil in his hand, and he starts to bang with it over the king's crown. Would it be a violation of the touch-move? (It is a non-real situation as I know.)
What about a pen? The players thinks about his move with a pencil in his hand, and he starts to bang with it over the king's crown. Would it be a violation of the touch-move? (It is a non-real situation as I know.)
Geurt Gijssen was perhaps the top arbiter in the world for a decade or longer, and he was co-author of the FIDE Rules of Chess, but he is not God. The Rules may be his children, but like all children they have their own life now. I'd like to see the exact reference, or the number of the Arbiter's Notebook in question.
As for me, I'd be willing to entertain other interpretations.
First, I'd like to state something that you won't find in the rules, a kind of cautionary principle. When the consequences of enforcing a rule could be drastic, I'd have a tendency to consider the rule in greatest strictness, to give the narrowest interpretation to the rule. I have read only some of what Mr. Gijssen has written, but I do not think that he shares this approach.
So "touch" might generally be "touch with the fingers", which is the normal way to make a move.
It's all very well to say that the piece is an extension of the hand, but let's look at some other cases. If a player in leaning over the table, touches a piece with his chin, touch move does not apply. If a player in going to grab a bishop, instead grabs the queen, he might say that he intended to grab the bishop, but in all likelihood, the arbiter is going to rule touch move on the queen grabbed. It is difficult to divine what was intended from what the player said. Should weight be given to a player's testimony, yea or nay, about what his intentions were? Only to condemn him?
I'm not sure what I would rule, but instead of a touch move determination, I might rule that the player who knocked one piece with another disturbed his opponent and apply a time penalty. But I'm open to be convinced otherwise.
LOL ! There's my question ... he may not be God, but he is a useful sounding board. The irony of his answer is that, AFAIR, the incident took place in the last round, so his sanction would affect only the prize awarded to the guilty party, if that.
Back to Tom's original question, I discussed it with him, who discussed it with the player himself, who admitted that he deliberately picked up one of his pieces, which he used to make contact with an opponent's piece, en route to capturing it, but changed his mind before his hand actually contacted the opponent's piece. I believe this is a touch-move violation, and the capture, if legal, should stand. I can appreciate Jonathan's philosophy to not enforce something drastic, but on the other hand, except for during one's own move, either adjusting (j'adoube) or making a move, I offhand cannot think of, during normal play (no accident, etc.), of any reason to touch a piece (hand, pen, whatever) under any other circumstance? Of course, I am discounting all non-deliberate contact.
Back to Tom's original question, I discussed it with him, who discussed it with the player himself, who admitted that he deliberately picked up one of his pieces, which he used to make contact with an opponent's piece, en route to capturing it, but changed his mind before his hand actually contacted the opponent's piece. I believe this is a touch-move violation, and the capture, if legal, should stand. I can appreciate Jonathan's philosophy to not enforce something drastic, but on the other hand, except for during one's own move, either adjusting (j'adoube) or making a move, I offhand cannot think of, during normal play (no accident, etc.), of any reason to touch a piece (hand, pen, whatever) under any other circumstance? Of course, I am discounting all non-deliberate contact.
A player reaches out to capture a piece, but just in time changes his mind, and is able to make a different move because the hand never touched the piece he wanted to capture. That is what happened, unless you want touch to transmit.
The curse of Midas did not transmit, still he needed the help of Dionysius to save him from death by dehydration. But if you prefer a conga line of causality, you are in good company.
A lot does depend on the philosophy of the arbiter with regard to deciding the game, interventionist or lax. I tend to be lax, except when called to be otherwise, e.g., calling the flag in a full time control game. LOL, I'm still in the pre-digital dreamtime. I know that lax isn't fashionable, as shown most of all by enforcement of the abominable (MHO) zero forfeit rule.
A player reaches out to capture a piece, but just in time changes his mind, and is able to make a different move because the hand never touched the piece he wanted to capture. That is what happened, unless you want touch to transmit.
The curse of Midas did not transmit, still he needed the help of Dionysius to save him from death by dehydration. But if you prefer a conga line of causality, you are in good company.
A lot does depend on the philosophy of the arbiter with regard to deciding the game, interventionist or lax. I tend to be lax, except when called to be otherwise, e.g., calling the flag in a full time control game. LOL, I'm still in the pre-digital dreamtime. I know that lax isn't fashionable, as shown most of all by enforcement of the abominable (MHO) zero forfeit rule.
Hi Jonathan, it seems then that we are disagreeing about the initial incident, of piece touching piece. Do you know of an interpretation supporting your view over mine? If yes, I don't mind changing my position, but I can't find either view officially supported.
There is an existing Canadian precedent covering this situation. In the 1996 Atlantic Closed (a Zonal qualifying event), the tiebreak game between Howarth and Horton was decided when Howarth grabbed his rook in a winning position and touched Horton's pawn to capture it. Unfortunately, the capture of the pawn would be stalemate.
I was the director for the event and ruled that the rook must be moved. Since the rook was used to deliberately touch the pawn, I also ruled the capture stood; in this case, the rook was an extension of the hand.
I'd have no problem ruling similarly for any other implement (e.g. pen) so long as it was being DELIBERATELY used to touch a piece.
Hi Jonathan, it seems then that we are disagreeing about the initial incident, of piece touching piece.
No, Aris, we agree about the facts.
Do you know of an interpretation supporting your view over mine? If yes, I don't mind changing my position, but I can't find either view officially supported.
Best regards, Aris.
According to an earlier post, Geurt Gijssen agrees with you, and according to a later one, so does Alvah Mayo. Once again I stand alone, though I too could be convinced to change my mind, as indicated in post #9.
Tweet
Thanks.
Comment