Touch-Move Rule Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Touch-Move Rule Question

    Originally posted by Alvah Mayo View Post
    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 Alvah, thanks for your post, where you do a better job than I did, in describing the rationale behind the decision. Perhaps another reason to support this approach is what I call, for lack of a better term, the poker angle. In my opinion, if we allowed players to deliberately touch pieces with pieces, they could use that to gauge reaction of the opponent, much like poker players who fake pushing their chips in, which is frowned upon. In any case, allowing any extra deliberate touching is just plain annoying and disconcerting to the opponent. Therefore, I remain in agreement with Alvah and Geurt.

    Alvah, on a completely unrelated note, did you know that Jeremy Silman has included one of your games in his latest How to Reassess Your Chess?! That is just awesome! :)

    Finally, Alvah, when convenient, would you send me an email about another matter?

    Thanks and regards, Aris (arismarghetis at rogers dot com)

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Touch-Move Rule Question

      Originally posted by Jonathan Berry View Post
      No, Aris, we agree about the facts.

      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.
      Picture you're playing a opponent who is moving his queen. He touches your piece and it moves but he continues his motion and places the piece. Do you think his intention was to capture your piece or move to the square where he put his piece?

      Now picture the same player moving his queen and touching your piece. He stops and starts looking for a place to put his queen. Often that placing is not in any line with his original motion. Would your perception of his intention be the same or different?

      If someone held you to touch move in the second case would you complain about it?
      Gary Ruben
      CC - IA and SIM

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Touch-Move Rule Question

        Originally posted by Gary Ruben View Post
        If someone held you to touch move in the second case would you complain about it?
        As I understand - touch move is one of the rules (moments) when an arbiter should interfere without a player's request.
        Last edited by Egidijus Zeromskis; Wednesday, 25th April, 2012, 11:47 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Touch-Move Rule Question

          Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
          As I understand - touch move is one of the rules (moments) when an arbiter should interfere without a player's request.
          I'm a correspondence chess IA and not an over the board IA. I'll leave a reply to that to one of the OTB IA's.

          Basically, in CC, any situation not covered by a specific rule, or not in the guidelines for interpreting the rules, is left to the discretion of the TD.

          I have a few IA tournament directors in whose events I will not play. I consider a couple to be incompetent and generally favour the players from their own nation. Not all IA's are created equal.
          Gary Ruben
          CC - IA and SIM

          Comment

          Working...
          X