I Don't See the Point of the Touch-Move Rule

At this point, all threads are redundant.  I haven't seen an original thought in here in years.

What annoys me is a player who moves his piece to a chosen square and keeps his finger on it as he surveys the board. Then he moves the piece back to it's original square if he changes his mind. Evidently the move is not completed until the piece is released. 

It is not, however once he picks it up at least he's obligated to move that peice somewhere.

my brother does this. I let him get away with it more often than not, I also let him take back moves if he scream "no" quick enough :) Once he start beating me I might change, but for now it works ok 

They should make another rule which would forbid you from taking your move back when you intentionally land your piece on a square, regardless of letting it go or not.

Why stop there.  There should be a think move rule.  The first move you envision is the one you're you're obligated to make.

+1

I love it. Ok. So imagine you're in some tournament. You're thinking about 3. Qxf7+. But then you realize that the Queen sacrifice that early in the game won't accomplish much for you. So instead, you develop a Knight.

Your opponent, who is FURIOUS, calls the arbitrator over and informs him that you were THINKING about a Queen sacrifice but instead played another move and DEMANDS you take your last move back.

Upon seeing the blank look on the arbitrator's face, I would more than likely LOL.

Heartbreaker.

Why dont you read the title again? That way you can see that the the title is "I dont see the point of the touch move rule", not "there is no point tuch rule". 

I dont see the point of male nipples, that dont mean I dont think they excist. 

I could go on for some time, but hopfully you get the point :)

Yes that may be but you are forgetting one minor detail.

In Soviet Russia, official rules of chess read YOU.

Where else would you put the clamps?

<<Moving the rook first is also a complete move as soon as you remove your hand from the piece.>>

No it isn't, because you can't hop the rook over the king unless you castle, which you would do if you castle. Therefore the rule to move the king first is illogical. 

It's a piece of silly pedantry that has no bearing on the game.

But If I castle on the queenside I wont need to pass the king

Guys its not a rook move.  Castling is a king maneuver.  You cant move 2 pieces.  The rook is just dragged over by the board state, same as a piece dying is removed.

So? Both sides have this disadvantage.

That's an illegal position. How did the queen and the bishop got there with no pawns moved?

Isn't that called "bullet chess"?

PS: the typonazi club informs you that underlining is not an acceptable form of emphasis in typed writing when bold or italics are possible.