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

I still think it's the Heinz ketchup theory. What does that stinkin' Wikipedia know?

The touch move rule is there simply to make you a better player.  You won't make (as many) impetuous moves because of it.

I do often adjust my pieces at the start of the game, especially if I didn't set them up. You say "j'adoube", or "I adjust" once, get on with it, then make your move. No big deal, no big production, no silliness. Just play the game. 

It's based on castling being a King's move. If you make a mistake and fail to notice that castling would be moving through check (for example), you would still be forced to move the king, unless you were playing by USCF rules and touched the rook first. 

If you look at the definition of the move, castling is the only time the King can move two squares. It's an artefact from a version of the game that allowed the king to flee two squares once a game, and it modernized the game by allowing the king to flee the center once the B and Q became the powerful pieces they are today.

The rule is logical.

Magnus did the same against the Chess Queen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeyXKTVYenA

around 6:29.

"Chess queen"

Well, have to give her credit. She managed to flaunt being female in something that's completely gender neutral.  

Magnus accepted the loss. That's not exactly the same thing, is it?

Actually the 0-0 is a king move.  Computers list it like e1-g1.  Just sayin.

That's because e1-g1 is the shortest notation that implies castling. Also, you touch the king first for touch move purposes. As SmyslovFan said, the illegality of castling is based on the king being in check. Also, if castling is illegal, you should be bound to move the king, as Rh1-f1 wasn't illegal, it was the king's journey to g1 that was against the rules.

I always thought you tuched the king first to signal there is more to the move? If you move the king two squars its casteling, if you move Rf8 its a ordenary move?

MrHjornevik, you were taught the "right" way.

Whether you play USCF or FIDE rules, it's better to move the King first. Spain follows FIDE rules anyway, so in a tournament in Spain, you could be penalized for moving the Rook first. Again, I doubt any IA would actually punish an amateur the first time he did it in a tournament anyway.

You have to touch the King first if you have to castle. As touching the rook first have the possibility to move beside king's square. 

I used to touch many pieces at the same time before I move time and say to my opponent that I will only adjust it. I see him distracted and a little bit annoyed. I don't get disqualified either. 

in short, it is so you cannot base your moves on your opponent's reaction to touching the piece.

Moving the rook first is also a complete move as soon as you remove your hand from the piece.  Moving the king first requires that you move the king more than one square, something that's only possible in when castling.  Requiring that the king be moved first when castling is the only way to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the context of "touch move".

The comment above about your opponent's reaction is also spot on when it comes to the touch move rule itself.

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.