English Chess Forum

Quick question from today's junior event:

Player A intended to castle long. He correctly picked up the king first, but along the way dropped it on d1, picked it up again, placed it on the correct square c1, then moved the rook correctly and pressed the clock.
The opponent claimed that since he let go the king on a valid square, that is the move that must be enforced.

4.6 states that

When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move

Would seem straightforward, except that 4.6.b states

in the case of castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal

Am I correct in assuming that from a strictly Fide point of view, 4.6.b is not applicable here because there was no evidence that the player was in the middle of castling?

Wadih Khoury wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:38 pm

Am I correct in assuming that from a strictly Fide point of view, 4.6.b is not applicable here because there was no evidence that the player was in the middle of castling?

I would agree with that interpretation. 4.6.b seems to be designed to prevent someone changing from castling to moving the king only, rather than the other way round (i.e. changing from moving the king only, to making a castling move). Also, if you move the rook first, and release it, you are deemed to have moved the rook (and can't castle).

(If the king fell over after being dropped on d1, you could probably still get away with castling, but if it lands on d1 and stays upright, then yes, unfortunately that is a move.)

[In a sporting sense, if my opponent did this and apologised and said they had accidentally dropped the king and were trying to castle and hadn't pressed their clock, I would not object to the castling move being made, because that would be the right thing to do.]

FIDE Law 4.2.2 (2018) states:

4.2.2 Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.

This deals with contact, and as no FIDE Law deals with quitting the piece, it could be viewed as a lacuna, a missing part in the chain of FIDE Law.

However, in this case one follows the advice given in the Preface:

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws.

So, analogously with 4.2.2, the Arbiter must determine whether quitting the King on d1 was "clearly accidental" or not.

In arbiting my events, I tend to the view that the Arbiter's role is important in preserving the dignity of OTB tournament chess.

I would normally assume the event concerned isn't some idiotic bullet event in which the nimblest twelve year old will flag a Grandmaster who has an extra queen and rook, then challenge the GM to a ten round hyper-bullet match for the "World Championship", before calling them a "loser" and a "coward" when they politely decline.

So I would honestly consider whether the quitting of the king was accidental or not, using the experience of my forty plus years in the world of chess to determine the answer.

I would certainly consider age and health, amongst other factors, in that decision.

I am aware that Law 4.2.2 is much firmer in statement in the 2018 edition than in previous versions, and would bear in mind the intent that the very act is itself to be used as evidence. Nevertheless the Arbiter remains with a clear role, which is to determine whether or not quitting the piece was "clearly accidental" or not.

I agree completely with Paul McKeown. You apply the Preface and treat "clearly accidental loss of contact" in the same way as "clearly accidental contact".

That the player who dropped his King was in the process of castling is something of a red herring, except to the extent that it provides evidence that the loss of contact was indeed clearly accidental.

In my capacity as Chief Arbiter of the Grand Chess Tour, I was asked my opinion about a similar incident at a Tour playoff game at the 2018 Sinquefield Cup, between Fabiano Caruana and Wesley So. The winner qualified for the Grand Chess Tour Finals in London and would receive a minimum of US$40,000. The loser would receive nothing.

Chris Bird, the Event Chief Arbiter subsequently wrote to me as follows:

"If you replay the video, at about 2:21:30 you will see Wesley So pick up his rook on b7 and it accidentally slips out of his fingers, is released half way between b5 and c5 and then in the same motion he puts it on b4. Slow motion video is needed to see the fact that it was actually released in this process.

When things happened in realtime I couldn't be 100% certain of what happened, both players were very low on time and so I let it go. In hindsight I could have paused play and reviewed the video evidence."

The video can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRhrW_Q2TVM.

After speaking briefly to Alex McFarlane, I assured Chris Bird that his actions had been correct, on the grounds stated by Paul McKeown and by me above.

An additional consideration, not applicable to the junior game, Is Caruana's reaction. He shows no sign of having been perturbed and gets on with the game, which he subsequently won.

Suppose that the game had been stopped, the slow motion footage had been reviewed, and the footage had showed that So had not released the Rook. The game would have had to continue and Caruana could reasonably have claimed that his concentration had been disturbed.

So by analogy retraction of all mouseslips that are clearly mouseslips should be permitted?

(laughing - good analogy)

Adam, I suspect you take online chess a little more seriously than I do! And I respect the enormous effort you have put in to making online chess with real-world time controls as good as it perhaps can be.

But let me put forward a for-instance, to see your reaction.

A chess player with a severe physical condition which causes him or her to suffer from strong, frequent and uncontrollable spasms enters an over the board tournament you are organising (and I suspect that we both know of such cases). You anticipate difficulties, perhaps you offer them and their opponent an extra ten minutes each at the start of each game, you offer the player a "runner" to make their moves for them, but they prefer to make their own moves, so you situate an assistant arbiter by this player's board in each round to help out as needed. Most opponents would accept that touch move may not make much sense in such circumstances, but suppose that a notoriously overly competitive player immediately jumps in when the king ends up on f1 after the sequence 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5. The player of the White pieces, with the physical impairment, claims that they were attempting to castle, the overly competitive player demands the king stays there, bellowing "touch move" across the playing hall in defiance of anyone who would attempt to correct the move to "Ke1-g1 and Rh1-f1". What would you do?

I know what I would do, and it wouldn't be to see that the so-called touch move stayed.

I suspect that your judgement would be the same as myself.

And I suspect that if you were told of such an entrant before the start of an online tournament, you would try to set up the games in such a way that such obvious instances of non touch move could be corrected where necessary.

Or am I wrong in my assumption?

Adam Raoof wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:54 pm

So by analogy retraction of all mouseslips that are clearly mouseslips should be permitted?

No. In Online play you don't have the physical evidence.

Paul McKeown's example is something of a special case.

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:25 pm

Adam Raoof wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:54 pm

So by analogy retraction of all mouseslips that are clearly mouseslips should be permitted?

No. In Online play you don't have the physical evidence.

You may, though, with cameras.

In general, though, I agree with your view, and would suggest that the attempt to keep online chess as analogue with OTB chess might do more harm than good and leave all parties unsatisfied. I think mouse slips are such a case. Arbiters would be wise not to go out of their ways to create work and controversies for themselves!

Paul McKeown wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:28 pm

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:25 pm

Adam Raoof wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:54 pm

So by analogy retraction of all mouseslips that are clearly mouseslips should be permitted?

No. In Online play you don't have the physical evidence.

You may, though, with cameras.

I would suggest that that is doubtful. I make my share of mouseslips and I make plenty of one move blunders which are not mouseslips. I doubt whether the difference would be apparent even with photographic evidence.

So if I play Bc1 to f4, then to g5 and then press the clock, this is acceptable if the arbiter agrees with my explanation that I accidentally let go of the piece on f4, rather than intentionally playing Bf4?

Did the opponent accept the correction, or was the opponent outraged by the matter? Was the player concerned rated 2619 or 619? Was there a physical impediment? Was there a pool of spilled coffee all over the board and its vicinity? Was one of the players a known notorious tryer-oner? Lots of factors to weigh.

In general, I think players generally know what was a fumble and what was a deliberately played blunder.

Happily touch move incidents are infrequent between adults.

(Having said that I still recall an incident in the Eastman Cup years ago, in which I was the last player from my team still playing in an away match, and having won the match the rest of my team had went to a pre-arranged pub. My opponent blundered his rook, and a fraction of a second later un-blundered it. His team mates, man, jack and all, swore blind that nothing untoward had happened. Nothing to be done, I lost in bad humour. I have since fore-sworn ever playing against that away team again, but it still grates when the impudent fellow concerned occasionally hoves into sight. What do you do? Shrug.)

Adam Raoof wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:47 pm

So if I play Bc1 to f4, then to g5 and then press the clock, this is acceptable if the arbiter agrees with my explanation that I accidentally let go of the piece on f4, rather than intentionally playing Bf4?

Not at all. We are talking about clearly accidental loss of contact, as in the two cases described up thread. The arbiter should not find the situation acceptable in the circumstances which you describe. He should politely explain to you that he is not disputing your veracity, but that your claim is not objectively clear. The same would apply when a piece is touched; the contact has to be clearly accidental.

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:42 pm

I make my share of mouseslips and I make plenty of one move blunders which are not mouseslips. I doubt whether the difference would be apparent even with photographic evidence.

It has recently been suggested that Qxd7 was a mouse slip when in fact the person concerned meant to play Qd4.

If it's possible to argue that as an accident, a 'taking back mouse slips' rule would lead to a lot of work for the arbiters. A 5 minute game could take several hours to complete.

Exactly. This is why you need a rule which is easy to apply but leaves room for arbiters to use common sense. In my opinion in the event of a dispute if a player admits they left a piece on a square, accident or not, then my ruling is that they should leave it there and play on. Mouse slips should stand.

Otherwise arbiters should leave the players alone and not be second guessing what a player intended to play.

too much hassel is made about castling that can only be done once in a game.

nothing wrong with 2 handed castling and stuff like that.