Garbage Games in the Database ???

I've come across at least 2 games in the database that have to be bogus - games with random moves that beginners would not make. Case in point: http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=1139819 

Anyone have a similar experience ? 

Not sure what was going on there, 2nd round of the European Junior Championships?

The White player is now rated around 2540, very odd...

My most recent online win is due to one of them.

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=4415342

I don't know how a 2200+ player can miss a piece and an IM not take it.

13. ... Nh5??

Yeah that is strange. Here is the one I was referencing.

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=268252

And my game:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=74054280#

The first game is also in the 365chess and chesstempo databases.

The game in DB may contain a piece-touche mistake. Black wanted to play 4. ... d5, but he touched his d8 queen instead d7 pawn and had to play 4. ... Qe7. He played random moves then, because he knew the game was lost. White thought perhaps opponent was joking, resigned and walked away - he didn't bother about the result. Or maybe the result is written wrong, it should have been 1-0.

That's not how the touch move works.

If you touched a piece by mistake (with no intention to move it) then you're not obliged to move it. It's stated clearly in the FIDE rules of chess.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/database.html

The link above offers a bit of historical perspective.

As for the database on chess.com: it is too limited for my purposes. Without cleaning out such errors, it omits many important games.

There are also some prearranged games that weren't checked very carefully, especially in presoftware times. A well known case is Anand copying a Petroff game of Miles, and having to resign in a small number of moves.

I blundered; Wrong move order in an opening I know well. Winawer. OK, so after I make the blunder and know its a blunder, I hit explore. Wow! It turns out I'm in good company. Boris Spassky made the same blunder according to this Explore database. But his opponent didn't catch the error. So, I guess it's a just an error in the data entry task. I hope they are correcting these problems. Is there a reporting link ? 

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=388038 

A yes, like that game where Short beated Kasparov with the King's Gambit. A stupid move (3...b5) was forced on Kaspy and he was so unhappy about it that he considered resigning at move 3.

I don't get what you're talking about, I played the poisoned pawn just like that until move 14.

Where's the blunder?

Wrong, it is not. Having not said "j'adoube" (or equivalent term in another language) before touching the piece, you must move that piece if possible.

http://www.chess.com/chessopedia/view/touch-piece

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=4403163

No, plutonia is right. The touch move rule doesn't apply for accidental contacts with the pieces (for example, if you accidentally touch the king while you were plainly trying to grab the queen you're not forced to move the king; of course this leaves some room for interpretation and may occasionally lead to some trouble for the arbiters).

If i remember correctly a similar episode involving Navara happened in the penultimate world cup. In a winning position he accidentally touched his king (moving it would have walked into mate in 1) and the opponent complained, but immediataly took the complaint back recognising that Navara did nothing wrong since the touch was clearly accidental. Still Navara was so upset that he played on almost until mate and then offered a draw (non wanting to win after a controversial episode), which was accepted. At first most people tought this was an example of good sportmanship from both players, but after reading the rules carefully it appears that navara's opponent was to be blamed, since he had no right to complain in the first place: the fide rules state clearly that accidental contacts with the pieces are not sanctioned.

I can't find anything to support your and Plutonia's claim in real FIDE rules. Perhaps you both fail to understand the rules. Touch cannot be "accidental", it is ALWAYS considered deliberate unless announced beforehand. A player must play with the piece he touched first if opponent insists on it.

Your Navara's example is not correct. Navara touched the piece he wanted to move (bishop) deliberately and his king unintentionally roughly at the same time and it wasn't clear which piece was actually touched first. If he had touched his king clearly first, he would have had to move his king (and lose).

You're right about navara, I didn't remember the details correctly (anyway according to most articles he touched the king first and then the bishop).

I can't find a basis for your claim that "Touch cannot be "accidental", it is ALWAYS considered deliberate unless announced beforehand" anywhere on the rules. This thing about accidental touching pieces has been told me by an arbiter; looking at the fide rules, i can't find it, but according to paragraph 4:

Player's hand moved by that player is considered deliberate.

The exception could be only nudge from bystander or some other violation of player's will caused from outside.

Not according to what i've been told (and according to what happened in navara's case; moisenko claimed navara touched the king and then the bishop, not that he touched both pieces. Navara tought he touched the two pieces together but wasn't sure himself, therefore he offered the draw).

Moiseenko's own words on the episode:"Navara on the 35th move first touched the King. I told him: the King moves. However, I realized that my opponent accidentally made this mistake, it is not possible that he could so easily blunder the piece. This is the reason I did not insist on his move with the King.