Talk:Touch-move rule

message: The article currently states
"This is a rule of chess that is enforced in all games played in over-the-board competitions."
This just can't be true (unless "over-the-board" or "competition" is a technical term, in which case it should be a link).  It might be true if "under FIDE rules" or something were inserted.  I actually came here looking for the proportion of touch-move and clock-move competitions, so this is not just pedantry.
I can't find an official link to a clock-move tournament, but I found this quote
here:
"The root of the problem is the 'clock-move rule' popular in many blitz tournaments in the U.S. According to this rule, a move is not considered completed until you press the clock. Even the official commentator GM Yasser Seirawan was confused what rule was used in the Ultimate Blitz Challenge."
Adam1729 (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all competition that is under FIDE, a national chess organization, or a subsidiary of a national organization (such as a state) should obey the rules.  If it is an informal local club, they may not follow the rules.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO You're right and I'm right.  You gave a clear answer, but the article should also give a clear answer.  The quote I gave shows that even a GM can be confused on this point. Adam1729 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if a GM is confused about the rules, the rules are the rules.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

text: [The wikipedia convention is that new sections should be added to the bottom of talk pages.] I think that's a good reference.  The article could mention that rule is violated at times, even by GMs, and that this might happen more often in fast chess.  The clock-move rule could be mentioned as well as an alternative rule used in some blitz events.  Quale (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good.  [And I'll abide by that convention in future.  Thank you.] Adam1729 (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  All?? 

message: I am against merging this into chess terminology.  The entries there are a lot shorter than this article.  This article (and several others in chess terminolory) deserve their own article.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge into chess terminology

message: The article is short, nevertheless exhausting its subject. I remove "Stub". -- €pa 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub?? 

message: Shouldn't it be J'adoube instead of J'Adoube? Recury 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully. -- €pa 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: When is the start of the requirement to say J'adoube? Is it required before the first move is played? Perhaps there is no rule on this, but it's of slight interest as many times adjusting pieces on or just before the first move is common. ChessCreator (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "J'adoube" is required before touching pieces to adjuest them.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question refers to before the game is started.  This isn't an authoritative answer, just my guess, but I suspect that once the clock is started the game is officially begun and the touch-move rule applies.  Before that you should be able to make adjustments without penalty. Quale (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, yes, before the game starts either player can adjust the pieces without saying anything.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting

message: I took the "J'adoube" article, added more information to it about the touch-move rule, and renamed it.  And it has been updated in list of chess topics, list of chess terms, rules of chess, and elsewhere. Bubba73 (talk), 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: Touch-move rule works slightly differently for blind players... GregorB (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blind players

message: The "I adjust" exception is mentioned in detail almost identically at least 3 different places in this article. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That redundancy isn't needed, and I removed one of them.  That probably resulted from the fact that j'doube once had its own article, and I merged them.  It is still in there twice, once in the lead section and then in its own section.  I think it should stay there because the WP:LEAD section should summarize the rest of the article, and then the details are given later.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  J'adoube 

message: We should probably add something about the controversial episode at Linares around 10 years ago, when Kasparov placed his knight on a losing square against Judit Polgar, then moved the knight to a different square. Polgar wasn't sure if Kasparov had let go of the knight, said nothing, and lost. As it happens, a camera crew had been filming the game, and their tape later showed (too late to do anything) that Kasparov's hand had left the knight for about a 1/16th of a second. Krakatoa (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the end of the discussion in the "examples" section just above.  I think that should be somewhere.  I've read about it but I don't remember where, so I don't know the source.  However, this is a violation of the rule about your move being completed when you take your hand off, not a violation of touch/move.  So I think rules of chess is a better place for it.  (It may already be over there.)  Bubba73 (talk), 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, I see that (as you say) you already mentioned the incident in the prior section of this page. I've always thought of the "If you take your hand off it, the move stands" rule as being an aspect of the touch-move rule, but maybe that's incorrect. Krakatoa (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article 4.1 says to make moves with one hand only.  Article 4.2 through 4.6 deal with touch/move and article 4.7 says that a move is completed when you take your hand off.  I think the Kasparov/Polgar incident would be good for rules of chess.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the clarification on the rules. When I get a chance, I will see what I can dredge up on the incident for rules of chess. Krakatoa (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kasparov-J. Polgar controversy

message: The Oxford Companion specifically says that it is cheating.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of misuse 

message: In The Fireside Book of Chess (Simon and Schuster, 1949), Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld give a simpler example.  
Tarrasch-Alapin, Breslau, 1889.
1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. N-KB3, N-KB3; 3. NxP, P-Q3; 4. N-KB3, NxP; 5. P-Q3.
Alapin had been expecting 5. P-Q4 and by the time he looked at the positon he had already touched his king bishop, intending to answer 5. P-Q4 with ... B-K2.  Now compelled to move the bishop, he would lose the knight, and so resigned at that point.  (Sorry about the old notation, but I didn't want to risk a mistranslation.  We can update it if others find this gamelet worth using.) WHPratt (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have that book too. I think that is a good example. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Also agree (what a heart-breaker).  Used to have the book but won't be able to put my finger on it, could somebody update the isbn ref, thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked through the book but I didn't find the game to give a page number (there is no index).  But I did put a link to the game.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! Thx for tightening it up. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Chernev, Irving and Reinfeld, Fred.  The Fireside Book of Chess.  New York: Simon and Schuster, 1949, 1966.  Page 111 (Chapter: "Remarkable Games and Their Stories"). WHPratt (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Examples 

message: From what the wikipedia article says, the touch-move rule was apparently introduced in the middle ages because of money...I can hardly see why this rule needs to persist in modern competitions, professional or non-serious alike. Especially if it forced someone to play 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3. Ke2?? Qe4#...I understand that rule is no longer valid (to move the king because of an accidental illegal move), but if one such rule can be changed, so can the main one - touch-move. I would understand if the move was already played and the opponent is about to move, but imo sometimes people can make honest mistakes accidentally; seems a bit unfair. Cornelius (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll bet that the rule resulted from someone's abuse of the situation.  Some crafty player probably got used to touching several pieces and observing his opponent's subtle reaction before deciding upon which move to make.  That would get annoying rather quickly.  WHPratt (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, good point, that's very possible. Perhaps this and other reasons exist for the rule to still be around :) . Maybe there can be excused intentional touches due to habits and other accidental moves like the 1889 Tarrasch-Alapin game mentioned in the article. Cornelius (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

text: There are also people who skirt the rule by constantly fiddling with the pieces and repetedly saying adjust. Sometimes saying it quieter and quieter until they don't say it at all but claiming they did. 98.164.86.116 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definitely one way. And now that I think about it, one doesn't even need to technically touch the piece to evoke a psychological response. And such shenanigans would be immediately detected, just as much as if he would touch it. I think they should just do it on a case-by-case basis. but they probably have it because it's less embarrassing this way. I suppose if you're playing in a championship, you should think twice about what piece you touch without making excuses. Cornelius (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst Rule in Chess imo 

message: A player who intends to castle but touches the rook first would be committed to make a rook move, and thus will not be permitted to castle.
You have to move the first piece you touch, if the piece can be legally moved. This is also the case with castling. If you touch the rook first, you have to move the rook.
The player's mind may change during the entire castling maneuver. 
https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/JjXCxHW8a.png
Sunny3113 (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern USCF rules do not penalize a player for first moving the rook if an illegal castling was attempted. If the castling was legal, then the move can't be retracted, and if not, the player is not obliged to move the rook. See Castling#Tournament rules.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: FIDE rules do require a player to move a rook if it is touched before the king, if USCF laws are different then they are out of step with the rest of the world. See FIDE laws of chess, sections 4.3.a and 4.4.b. By the way in Sunny's scenario, Black should play ....Rxe6 quickly before the arbiter intervenes, thereby renouncing any claim to a violation of the touch-move rule per rule 4.8. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Actually what I said wasn't quite right. If White has released the rook, then the move Rf1 must stand (section 4.7). Making a subsequent illegal castling manoeuvre by putting the king on g1 doesn't alter this. So I don't think a sneaky Kg1 to allow a different rook move would work. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

text: 4.7B doesn't apply, only 4.7. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  There is nothing left to discuss, the FIDE rules are very clear. Rf1 must stand. Request  &  around this entire thread by an uninvolved editor per WP:NOTFORUM. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

text: But the point has been made that by releasing the rook, the "mandatory move with the rook" has already been made. (After that, moving the K to g1 was just an unauthorized hand on the board messing w/ the K.) --IHTS (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

text: No. After the rook was released, the move was complete. If an arbiter intervenes after that, the only issue, is messing around touching & moving the K. (For whatever reason the arbiter was summoned, at the point the arbiter learns the rook was released, ballgame over: Rf1 is the move, the K is returned to e1, and warning/punishment for messing w/ the K.) --IHTS (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

text: What you're missing, is that the player not only *touched* the R, she moved it (moved & released it). (Relocating the K to g1 may have been completion of a castling move, proper or improper, in the eye of the player doing it. But not in the eye of the rules or of the arbiter. What the player was *thinking* she was doing is irrelevant.) --IHTS (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Okay I read it. Your answer is in cols 4-5, Int'l Arbiter Geurt Gijssen was consulted, gave example, saying: "[...] no doubt I would have considered ...Rd8 as the actual move. For a move is completed when the piece has been released." (Exactly what you've been told here on Talk. The other arbiter's ruling, to permit another R move, isn't consistent w/ FIDE rules. So if those were in effect, the arbiter simply made a bad ruling.) --IHTS (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Well, Gijssen's assessment is consistent w/ current FIDE rules. And your long-held belief is inconsistent w/ current FIDE rules. --IHTS (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loophole 

message: What if you touch a figure that has no legal moves? I think the article should address this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpfang (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It sort of does: '... it must be moved if it has a legal move. "  You can't be forced to make an illegal move with it, but if it has no legal move, the rule doesn't apply.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once upon a time, if you touched a piece with no legal move, or touched an opponent piece you couldn't legally take, you had to move the king (if there was a valid king move). This is mentioned hereabove a few sections up. But that "king move" rule has been canceled since then, and nowadays if you touch an own piece with no valid move, or an opponent's piece you cannot take, there is no penalty, other than perhaps a warning by the arbiter, especially if such "unsporting" behaviour happens repetitively. — Tonymec (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No legal move? 

message: I just noticed that the article explain the rules regarding a touched "piece," but fails to mention that the rule also applies to pawns. I.e., that here we are using the more general definition for "piece." This should probably be fixed before someone gets confused and argues that pawns are exempt from the rule. I'm not suggesting that it read "piece or pawn" at every turn, but rather that the first reference make it clear that the use of "piece" covers all of the chessmen. (Yes, application of the rules to pawns turns up later in the article, but the reader shouldn't have to go that deep to fully understand the scope of the rule.) This is probably true for many chess articles, so however this is usually handled should suffice. WHPratt (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this? --IHTS (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to take care of it.  Thanks! WHPratt (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it. Surely WP:COMMONSENSE applies? The distinction chess writers make between a "piece" and a "pawn" is chess jargon related to chess strategy rather than part of the rules of the game. When discussing the rules of chess rather than strategy, it should be obvious that the term "piece" refers to all pieces and doesn't exclude pawns. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, it's a distinction in the official rules, and one that is respected in most of the chess articles here. I think it's okay to use 'piece' in the broader sense throughout, but only if you state so at the outset. WHPratt (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . The only part where they make the distinction between a "piece" and a "pawn" is in their description of algebraic notation, which is a supplement to the actual rules of the game. I'm going to revert because it read much better before. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In the FIDE rules, 2.2 defines "piece" (to include pawns). WP articles lack that same up-front context, so I can see the need for clarification to readers. --IHTS (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a simple footnote on word 'piece' listing the six pieces !? (The current text wikilinks 'piece', which could confuse a reader, since that article describes different meanings depending on context.) --IHTS (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

text: I think a parenthetical would be better, but I could live with this. WHPratt (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Go for it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe that this is the first time (re chess terminology) that we've dealt with this issue. Nor the last, so we might as well work out a solution. WHPratt (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprised, really?! (Because most articles are in ... "crap status".) --IHTS (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just glad the kid in the photograph is touching a knight instead of a pawn, else we'd have to edit the caption as well.  ;)  Also, the pawns in the pic look kinda like bishops, so they're trying to have it both ways. WHPratt (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the little knobby thing to grab onto.  If  (derived from "chessmen") were used instead of piece it w/ work better to circumvent ambiguity; but man is less common & doesn't mirror the FIDE booklet, a presumed desirable. --IHTS (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pawn oversight 

message: My only quibble is that the phrase  is circular (using same term when defining itself). (How about: ?) --IHTS (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe that this is the first time (re chess terminology) that we've dealt with this issue. Nor the last, so we might as well work out a solution. WHPratt (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprised, really?! (Because most articles are in ... "crap status".) --IHTS (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just glad the kid in the photograph is touching a knight instead of a pawn, else we'd have to edit the caption as well.  ;)  Also, the pawns in the pic look kinda like bishops, so they're trying to have it both ways. WHPratt (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the little knobby thing to grab onto.  If  (derived from "chessmen") were used instead of piece it w/ work better to circumvent ambiguity; but man is less common & doesn't mirror the FIDE booklet, a presumed desirable. --IHTS (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote text

message: Hi, thanks for the great scholarship here. The article doesn't describe when and how the 1848? & 1862 rules were superseded, ending up in the modern version. This is "important" to know because I am trying to understand the intent of various historical joke chess compositions which relied upon the touch-move rule. If you are able to cover this, I would be very grateful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gresach (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote part of that, but I don't know anymore than what is there.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  When & how were 1848? & 1862 rules superseded? 

message: There are games played "touch-move" and some are played "clock-move", which is a fact that simply cannot but also should not be denied or hidden in a serious encyclopedia. Currently the word "clock" does not even appear once in the entire article. I think the alternate rule "clock-move" should at least be mentioned in this article, probably more than only once: I'd say unless it has a page on its own and a link to there, it should require a short section explaining where this rule is common. I guess in the majority of all chess games played, and in more than 2/3 of all youtube videos featuring live chess games this is the case, in particular in some famous series published by the very famous and renowned St Louis Chess Club, the rule is indeed "clock move". I don't deny that in serious tournaments (FIDE, USCF...) the "touch-move" rule is the standard, but the "clock move" rule does exist and is very (maybe more) commonly used and therefore must be mentioned. — MFH:Talk 02:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "clock move" ? An alternate rule where you may touch any or all of your pieces and the opponent's without pressing the clock button (and without having to say "j'adoube" or equivalent), as long as when you do press it the result is a valid move ? AFAIK such a rule may apply in some variants of fast chess or blitz chess, possibly depending on the clock rate, but in chess played at normal speed (let's say 40 moves in the first 2 hours then 20 moves per hour, or slower) or a fortiori when playing an amateurs' game without a clock, if you touch one of your own pieces you must play it (if possible), if you touch the rook before the king you must play the rook (if possible) and not castle, and if you touch an opponent's piece you must capture it (if possible). Maybe there should be a link from this article to an article, if there is one, about the special rules for some variants of fast chess where (IIRC) this touch-move rule is not in effect; but let us not forget that the present article is about the touch-move rule itself, which is rather universal in chess, and about what it implies. — Tonymec (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what a "clock move" is either, unless he is referring to the time control rule.    Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure non-enforcement of touch-move is only found in casual games. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed: when that happens in serious games, it's a story. Like this game (see David Bronstein, 200 Open Games, p. 9). Double sharp (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "clock-move" should at least be mentioned