| Louis Blair 2006-10-12, 7:43 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:41:55 GMT):
7 ... My first example, and a simple illustration was to move
7 a rooki, say from e1 to e6, and record eg: 33: Re6, then
7 move the piece to e6, but in doing so nudge a pawn on e7.
7
7 What I do not understand about the new rule, is:-
7
7 a) /who/ decides my intention to move Re1-e6?
_
As I understand it, initially the players themselves decide,
and, if the players themselves can not come to an
agreement, then the TD is called upon to make a ruling.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:41:55 GMT):
7 b) if it is an accident, then under the new rule, must I
7 still capture the e7 pawn?
_
As I understand and remember it, if the touching is
judged to be an accidental brushing of the pawn
while the hand moved across the board, then there
would be no requirement to capture the pawn.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:41:55 GMT):
7 c) if I claim that the pawn on e7 was touching the
7 edge of the square, therefore the accident is maybe
7 even inevitable, who can contradict that unless they
7 were watching the game all the time?
_
As I understand and remember it, if the touching is
judged to be an accidental brushing of the pawn
while the hand moved across the board, then there
would be no requirement to capture the pawn, and
it would not matter whether or not the e7 pawn was
touching the edge of the square.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:41:55 GMT):
7 d) the new rule ostensibly seeks to stop note-taking,
7 even though this was also illegal under the old rule;
7 and if I write one move which I don't change - who
7 exactly object to that?
_
Offhand, I do not know the names of the people who
object to that.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:41:55 GMT):
7 e) in creating the new rule it now seems impossible
7 to /prove/ intention, and therefore the worth of the game
7 score is actually reduced from its previous state
_
A person can change his intention after writing a move.
Also, people can make mistakes while recording moves.
Consequently, a written record was not, in any case, proof
of intention.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:41:55 GMT):
7 f) in resolving any conflicts, the new rule necessary
7 involves the TD, since no written proof is any longer
7 possible, and the TD has to guess. The previous
7 situation did not require either a TD or guessing.
_
A written record was not, in any case, proof of intention.
Then, as now, in the case of a disagreement between the
players, the TD had to do the best he could to make a
judgment. As I understand it, the policy essentially was
to deny touch move rule claims unless there was sufficient
evidence to indicate that the touch move rule should be
applied. I imagine that that policy will continue.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:41:55 GMT):
7 g) in modern tournament most TDs have to scan between
7 10 and 20 boards, so direct observation of all moves is
7 not possible, and since no other proofs are allowed, this
7 introduces the possibility of /falsely stating/ that one's
7 opponent played illegally - to which there is also no proof,
7 only the rhetorical prowess of each player to make
7 assertions.
_
This was true before the new rule change.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:41:55 GMT):
7 These are all problems! At a meta~ level, the greater
7 problem is that I can find no discussion on any of these
7 factors, either here or elsewhere - although they are
7 alluded to, I began this discussion with peoiple by
7 saying that not enough players and too many
7 administrators are deciding rules, and this is entirely
7 out of balance at every level of chess activity.
_
I have been discussing these points with Phil Innes here.
I understand that there was a lengthy discussion of the
new rule at the delegates meeting.
|