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

Sort:
RonaldJosephCote

                 hahahahaha.   I REFUSE to have the last word.  Get Trysts over here. She'll make DAM sure I don't have the last word.   hahaha  "he puts his mind into it".    That's when he HAS a mind, on odd numbered days.  I use to put my BACK into these threads but after 2 back operations.

mrhjornevik
tubebender wrote:

OK. You are wondering about WHY such a rule. How about explaining why a baseball base runner has to "tag up" and wait for a fly ball to be caught before trying to advance to another base. Or why do they have "offsides" rules in ice hockey and soccer (international football) and perhaps other sports? Some fans of these sports think those rules should be eliminated--perhaps someday they will. I guess my main point is that one should just live with most rules in games. Some rule changes are done for safety; take a look at baseball and especially football. Some changes are done to make spectator friendly games more exciting to the observers. Imagine if there was no touch move rule in tournament Chess. This is simply a good common sense rule which should be promoted even in offhand games.

Well I am not the one wondering about it, I kind of understand and protect the rule. Still why it is there is a valid question, and I can see how it can be a annoying for new players who have problems vizualasing how the board will look after their move. When playing my brother for excample, I have to play a "once you drop the piece it stays" kind of game. Since he have no way of seeing if his piece is attacked on a square before its actualy there. Also he keeps lifting the white bishop to preforme a check, only to discover my king is on a black field.  Playing a touch-move game with him would be pointless, and not fun for any of us 

TheGrobe

Sorry, I shoud have said obvious, not simple.  Obvious is not always so obvious to the oblivious.

Here_Is_Plenty

Grobe, did you move south to the states?  You used to be so nice. :(

TheGrobe

Lies!

December_TwentyNine
Optimissed wrote:

<<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. 

I think I have a "bad-castling" habit. One friend always reminds me every time I do it, when I pick up the King then the Rook, then I set the Rook down, then the King. He tells me that is a Rook move? But he lets it slide because we play casual beer chess? It's the type of casual chess you play while drinking beer. But anyway he calls me out everytime I castle like that. Good thing I don't play in any tournaments. Would more than likely get very angry opponent who calls authority.

RonaldJosephCote

                    The next time you have a few beers, pick up the king, then the rook like you do. Put one in each hand, stick your hands out in front of him and say,  "which one?".Laughing

December_TwentyNine

HA! Excellent idea milord! Good thing I make these posts here. As I think about that, I imagine there would be some lulz.

You're such a nice, kind, RJC and I'm positive that the people here appreciate your posts as well.

Yaroslavl
MonsterRespawn wrote:

Hi,

I really don't see the point of the touch-move rule. What would be the problem with a player touching a piece without moving it, even if he intended to do so? It would only be unacceptable when he actually moves it, right? Can somebody explain this to me?

Thanks 

The point of  the  Touch-Move Rule is to keep jackasses like you from turning any rated serious  tournament game of chess into a free-for-all.

December_TwentyNine

Hmmmm....that's a good troll. But what do you think of this?

*WARNING! Language...and this post may get removed by a mod.*

The point of the Touch Move Rule is to ensure that pieces of shit like you concentrate on the fucking board and it also encourages calculating variations and looking for threats in your head. Don't touch the pieces you faggot until you are sure that you want to commit to that plan. Mmmm Kaaaay?

Additionally, it has been known to drive me nucking futs when we are NOT enforcing that rule, and I get an opponent that makes a move......... then he takes it back when I already had written his move down on my scoresheet!! Frown

Here_Is_Plenty

Dude, swear, fine - we are mostly adults.  Thats up to your judgment.  Try to keep the homophobic stuff out though - thats just distasteful.

electricpawn

When someone touches a piece, moves a piece and returns it to its orginal square or a different square, its always annoying and soetimes cheating. You, sir, are an annoying idiot and a cheater.

Admiral_Kirk

Golly, I miss the day when people communicated respectfully and could have a debate without resorting to name-calling.  I guess I'm just old-fashioned....

PearlFey
Admiral_Kirk wrote:

Golly, I miss the day when people communicated respectfully and could have a debate without resorting to name-calling.  I guess I'm just old-fashioned....

Wait, are you saying you want to go back to the age of slavery?

Admiral_Kirk

*edited to add: this is in response to kaynight, who was the last post visible when I posted.*

I'm assuming that is sarcasm. ;)

Nah, the problem is the internet.  People think that because they're anonymous, they're invincible.  In my experience, people are much more polite and proper in real life than on the internet.

Admiral_Kirk
PearlFey wrote:
Admiral_Kirk wrote:

Golly, I miss the day when people communicated respectfully and could have a debate without resorting to name-calling.  I guess I'm just old-fashioned....

Wait, are you saying you want to go back to the age of slavery?

No.

Irontiger
Admiral_Kirk wrote:

Nah, the problem is the internet.  People think that because they're anonymous, they're invincible.  In my experience, people are much more polite and proper in real life than on the internet.

Internet jerks are jerks in real life too, but you just don't communicate with them very often.

The internet did not create jerks. The rest of the world just became aware of their existence.

Admiral_Kirk
Irontiger wrote:
Admiral_Kirk wrote:

Nah, the problem is the internet.  People think that because they're anonymous, they're invincible.  In my experience, people are much more polite and proper in real life than on the internet.

Internet jerks are jerks in real life too, but you just don't communicate with them very often.

The internet did not create jerks. The rest of the world just became aware of their existence.

That is certainly true to an extent too.  

Bobbily

Lol these forum topics always get off topic eventually LOL

TheGrobe
Irontiger wrote:
Admiral_Kirk wrote:

Nah, the problem is the internet.  People think that because they're anonymous, they're invincible.  In my experience, people are much more polite and proper in real life than on the internet.

Internet jerks are jerks in real life too, but you just don't communicate with them very often.

The internet did not create jerks. The rest of the world just became aware of their existence.

Well, this is true, but there's another aspect at play here -- in real life being a jerk has potential consequences (like a punch in the nose) so they're more likley to check themselves.  With anonymity and no physical proximity there's nothing holding them back online.