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

Correction to all of this.  The reason that some people are assholes is simple.

THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST BEING AN ASSHOLE!!!

And, of course, you are living proof of the exception.

Ooh, the Pee-Wee Herman defense!

Let's see I vaguely remember how it goes, "...I know what you are, but what am I?..."

http://www.chess.com/coach/gabriel-alejandro

If your interested please send me an email at theactiveknight@gmail.com

I've forgotten more about chess than you'll ever know.

I've forgotten what the thread was about.

As Johnny Depp popularized in the movie, "Donnie Brasco", "...fugit aboutit..."

I can't even remember my own name sometimes. 

He cut you to the bone, huh?

This is all your fault, Yaroslavl. You trolled the OP on post 265, and by doing so, you encouraged me to tag along.

But no matter. All for the lulz, right, milord?

I doubt that day ever existed, but let's clarify something. You read that the topic of a thread is "I don't know why there's a rule against touch move" or whatever the exact verbiage is, and you say to yourself, "Hey I'm onboard with this topic it. It's well worth debatng, and I'm sure everyone will be serious and respectful because we all want to play chess like hyper 8 year olds."

Were you also among the group that wanted to abolish perpetual check? 

Actually, I came to answer the OP's question and be helpful, but I saw it had already been answered. I guess that's why you're here, though, if that's the sole reason someone would look at this thread. ;)

I'm a very strong supporter of touch-move, perpetual check, and just about every other rule on the books.  I say, don't change the rules of chess!  But when someone has a different opinion, I simply think that respectful human beings don't have to resort to name calling and such.  

1. The touch-move rule doesn't stop you from annoying your opponent; repeatedly hovering your hand on top of pieces is equally annoying.

2. It also doesn't stop you from placing a piece on a different square; you can just "accidentally" drop a piece and place it on a different square, if your opponent isn't paying close attention.

3. It also doesn't stop you from taking back a losing move; you can pick up your queen, for example, and place it on every legal square without letting it go, and then let it go on the best one.

There should have instead been a rule that stated, "If you place a piece on a square, you may not move it to another square for that turn if it's a legal move, regardless of letting it go or not." This stops you from taking back your move.

Another rule could be, "If you hover your hand on top of your pieces, you're obligated to make a move immediately, otherwise you automatically lose." This stops you from annoying your opponent.

I'm not saying these are necessarily true, it's just my oppinion.

Believe it or not, I'm not trolling 

I can see that on a license plate.

NE1410S

I selected this topic to resond to because it represents so many other silly topics that take up space that could be used for something more interesting. And I think most of the OP's are insincere. If you haven't figured out why there aren't more women among the top GM's, I don't thin yet another sexist tread will answer the question. Remember the great "gg" debate? Why can't black move first? Should some players e forced to resign? Great Ceasar's Ghost!

1) Any behavoure aimed at anoying or distracting your opponent is against the rules. Repeatingly hovering a hand over the pieces would count in the same group as singing. 

2-3) If I attack your queen and you grab it so that you can move it to a safer square, it does not matter that there is a safe square if blocking the threat with a minor piece is a better move. 

As long as you dont find an argument to why you should touch a piece, I see no reason why not keep the rule as it is 

Trolling in itself is a matter of opinion. I could only call myself a troll if other people around me have experienced butthurt while being in my presence, and they blame the butthurt they have experienced on me. They take their insecurities and inability to adjust their attitude for the situation on me. So in a sense, these people who become butthurt are allowing me to control how they feel, and thus they depend on me to say the things that makes them feel warm and fuzzy. But if I fail, then they are miserable because they are unable to think for themselves.

For example, if I called someone a cocksucking piece of shit, it us up to them to sense the butthurt...and when they do, it's all my fault. They can put on their grumpy pants and go out to experience road rage, cut the neighbor's tree down, respond to my post with death threats and so on and so forth,

or

They can think for themselves and look at the cocksucking piece of shit comment in a different way. They can ask me, "How can a motionless piece of fecal matter suck on a rooster?" or, "Does the cock suck on the piece of shit?" And by thinking for themselves, they avoided butthurt all together and therefor not think of me as a troll, but, as an opportunity for sarcasm, a chance to make grammar and spelling corrections, to countertroll, and so on.

So a troll is only a troll if the person feeling the butthurt had nothing to counter the comments with, and therfor calls that person a troll.