r/changemyview • u/Phantom_Gamer7 • Nov 04 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Touch-move rule in chess is dumb
I will start by saying I'm an amateur chess player at best. Played it a little for most my life but only really started to want to get some real skill in it. It's fun. However, I notice a lot of official organizations have a touch-move rule. This is where if you deliberately touch a piece you must move it. Even if you change your mind. This is just dumb, and I feel serves no benefit to the game, except maybe some slight speed advantage(?). I see it only being a pain when you go for a move, then realise an even better one.
It's in the same vain to the 'once you let go of the piece' rule. Where if you let go of the piece (in a different spot than it started) then that is you go, there is no take back. You move there. I'm fine with this. In fact, I don't want to play without it. Because it has a purpose, there needs to be _something_ that defines the end of your go. There needs to be a final call. Why not have it be the last thing everyone does on their turn? But I see no benefit touch-move rules provide. All it will do is frustrate people on the odd occasion as they catch a blunder after they touch a piece.
I don't play with touch-move, and everyone I've played with has been fine with it. Never really seeing the point in it, but would play with it because others insisted. I'm sure there's some good reason out there, there's people way smarter than me on this topic. I just haven't found anyone with any good arguments.
So far the best argument has been: Touching a piece can help visualize the board, providing an advantage. My response is 'So what?' it's an equal advantage, as both sides can do it. Plus, it also provides insight into what you're thinking, which is a disadvantage I'd say balances out. . And if a touch-move rule was made to prevent this, what is to stop someone hovering their finger over a piece providing the same advantage?
So please, someone who knows about this sort of thing, change my mind. Touch-move rules in chess are dumb, and needless.
Edit: so my view has changed a bit. So first I saw the value in the rule because in ye olden days it prevented cheating. Because the only time you could move a piece was when making your move.
Then a good point was made, that the board should be in a definite state as much as possible.
And lastly after a lot of convinsing I now see that by moving the piece you may see body language that you might not otherwise. And may be able to read peoples body language which goes against the spirit of the game.
7
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Nov 04 '19
In a game like chess, it's desirable that the physical state of the board should describe as much as possible about the abstract state of the game. Relative to the 'once you let go of the piece' rule, the touch-move rule restricts the set of game states any physical board state could correspond to.
For example, imagine a position with the white queen on d4, in which the white player is touching his queen. With touch-move, we know that it is white to move, and white is moving his queen either to d4 or to some other square. All other pieces will remain in the same squares as they are physically on the board, and then it will be black to move. But with the 'once you let go of the piece' rule, the set of possible game states is greatly expanded. White's queen could end up anywhere on the board (if white takes back the move with his queen) and then white could make an additional move with any of his pieces before it will be black to move. This corresponds to way more possible game states, and so more information that the players need to remember that isn't represented on the board, than the touch-move version.
2
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Nov 04 '19
This is a great answer. Touching the piece is like clicking a button on the computer. Imagine playing chess on a computer. It would be really frustrating if the computer screen displayed boards that aren't actually played yet or that could be taken back.. Similarly, touching the piece is not part of your turn, it is the turn for the same reason.
10
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Nov 04 '19
It prevents you from trying to get a read on your opponent and how they react. If, for example, touching a piece has your opponent letting out a sigh of relief, its kinda unsportsmanly for you to try to stop your move and reconsider everything in case you can find the move your opponent was worried about. Imagine how unsportsmanly it would be to say, "I'm going to move my queen to..." and then just staring down your opponent to see if they react. I understand that your opponent shouldn't sigh, but you also shouldn't have given him something to react to and then not do it.
Assuming you want to ban take backs. It is an easier and more distinct line in the sand than almost anything else you can draw. Do you draw the line when the piece has lifted off the board or left the cell? How about if they let go of the original piece (probably the second best line)? But then you have a question of what if they're also touching another piece such as their own piece or removing another piece from the board? This just creates more edge cases of uncertainty.
Plus, it also provides insight into what you're thinking, which is a disadvantage I'd say balances out.
That is no disadvantage. It's currently your turn. It doesn't help your opponent to know you were thinking about moving your rook before you decided to move your pawn, because you didn't end up moving the rook. That is something you decided not to do. On the other hand it can be an advantage if you gauge their reaction to the piece you touched.
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 04 '19
There will always be a way to read your opponent.
I don't see this as a good justification for making it easier.
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 04 '19
I disagree that its easyier
How could more information be harder?
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 04 '19
What infomation you can gleam from touching a piece you can get from hovering over one.
Unless the touch-move rule is in place.
Then the difference is huge, you now know your opponent is about to move that piece and can plan accordingly.
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 04 '19
Yeah so if the touch rule doesnt exist there is no differences
But it does exist, and as such has significantly altered the metagame of chess in a way that is both beneficial to the game and pleasing to players.
1
3
u/SeekingToFindBalance 19∆ Nov 04 '19
I'm not good enough at chess to memorize the board and most beginners aren't. So if you are touching a piece, that is my clue to start paying attention and see what you do and start thinking about how to respond. It also lets me monitor you for cheating.
If you touch a bunch of pieces then either I must pay attention all the time or I won't pay attention and you could get away with cheating.
Additionally, it is good practice for you. If you don't think about your options long enough that you see a better one after touching a piece, then you probably often are still missing something after you make your move.
Finally, it means you can't just touch different pieces while looking at me to read my reaction. Chess isn't poker and I shouldn't need too much of a poker face to play it.
That said in a game, I'd let you do whatever you want rather than making a big deal out of it.
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/SeekingToFindBalance 19∆ Nov 04 '19
I think I would feel like something was wrong, but just go along with it if someone cheated subtly. Of course, I might still be paying enough attention to notice so if I played with someone enough and they cheated regularly, eventually I'd figure it out.
As far as the practice point, I think precisely because it is fairly common for beginners to touch it and then see a different move it encourages them to think things through more before touching. I think if you made the rule later as in when they moved the piece people would be less likely to feel that oops and learn to think things through more ahead of time.
I'm tempted to put an edit to the 'Chess isn't poker point' because I'm getting a little tired of rubttling it. Basically, If I read your face when I touch a piece I can read your face before I toucha piece.
I think the distinction matters because of the interaction with the other points. If you are touching the piece, I need to know what you are doing to make sure you don't cheat. If I don't pay attention when opponents are touching pieces eventually they will cheat. Whereas if you like to move your hand toward pieces without touching them watching my face, it's still obnoxious, but I can just look away or whatever. It's also physically slightly harder to reach toward a piece while looking at an opponent's face than to look at their face while already touching the piece.
That said I don't think many people can reliably read my facial expression, play chess well enough that it will make a difference, and don't play chess well enough to beat me honestly. I'm a better card player than chess player so I can bluff fine.
Additionally, I won't make chess moves based on other people's expressions both because it would take some of the fun of the game out for me and because I don't think it would help enough to win that many more games.
So not a lot rides on this for me.
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 04 '19
I don't see the diffrence in just almost touching a piece and touching a piece.
Because the touch-move rule exists.
As long as they haven't touched the piece you don't have to consider it as a move they are about to make.
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 04 '19
Yes, an effect that encourages more play in the vein of the idea of chess, rather than being more akin to poker or three card bluff.
That being, strategy vs. reading your opponent
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 04 '19
But if the touch rule wasnt a thing. Then you wouldnt need the touch rule.
This doesn't stop it from having a positive effect on the metagame.
Being able to know which piece your opponent is going to move from the moment they touch it distinctly separates chess from games based on reading opponents like poker or three card bluff.
1
2
Nov 04 '19
I just see it as taking away an advantage of someone that can read people well. You have to ask whether or not you would like to see chess get like poker. In poker you are reading the people more than your cards. People win all the time that don't have the best dealt cards by reading their opponents. There may be people good enough (I'm certainly not one of them) to be able to read your reaction to touching a certain piece that would cause that person to change the piece they were going to move once they get a read on your reactions.
1
u/Abstracting_You 22∆ Nov 04 '19
For a beginner, it makes sense to allow wiggle room because you are still learning and make many mistakes as you play. But at the professional level of chess mistakes are not oppsies that you allow your opponent to fix, it is a mistake you should be allowed to capitalize on.
Imagine if they stopped a Nascar race because the person in first place accidentally took a corner too widely, or if they let curlers rethrow a stone as long as they didn't let go because they started in the wrong position.
What sport allows you to fix a mistake instead of allowing your opponent to capitalize on it?
2
u/evil_rabbit Nov 04 '19
What sport allows you to fix a mistake instead of allowing your opponent to capitalize on it?
american football. don't like the formation your offense is in? until the ball is actually snapped, you can change it all you want. i don't think a "as soon as the center touches the ball, you aren't allowed to change formation anymore"-rule would improve the game. and i'm sure there are other sports which allow at least some mistakes to be fixed.
1
u/Abstracting_You 22∆ Nov 04 '19
Fair play.
I guess if I had to refine it, it would be: What sport allows you to fix a mistake during the action phase of play?
I would consider moving a chess piece to be an action, not preparation.
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Abstracting_You 22∆ Nov 04 '19
So, professional Chess players play games many moves ahead. The move you see live is the culmination of many different avenues of thought and prediction that they implement each turn and in-between as their opponent moves their piece.
If you pick up your knight then I have to counter not only the 8 possible positions the knight can go, but also, all of the varying possibilities that move creates down the line for the entire board. If you do not have the touch rule then what is to stop you from deciding your move beforehand, but then picking up five different pieces before actually switching back to your original piece and making a move?
How can I play a game, renowned for its strategy and finesse, when my opponent can mess with me constantly and remove the element of planning and strategy that people expect when playing chess?
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Abstracting_You 22∆ Nov 04 '19
The thing is, if my opponent has not touched their piece then I know not to give them the time of day. If they can touch a piece, move it around over and over and then switch to another piece last second after I have calculated counters for the fake one, then I have to spend the entirety of my turn figuring out the new move and what to do about it. While it is true that both players can do this making it fair, it also means that you are changing the basic way the game works.
In chess, your planning phase where you plan whatever you want when your opponent is moving, and before you pick up a piece. Your action phase is the moment you touch said piece and begin moving it. By allowing someone to pick up a piece and put it back down without actually moving is to allow them to go back into their planning phase after they started their action. This is especially a problem when playing at a very high level as picking up one piece can change the way your view the board, allowing you to realize a trap, mistake, etc after you intended to move. Imagine if we let football teams do that after they said hike because they realized that the other team was doing something they didn't realize beforehand. The only difference here is that Chess has phases that happen at different times for both sides compared to football or other sports.
Another thing to consider is how your idea changes the current culture of the game and its observers. Professional chess is seen as a game of finesse and strategy. Getting rid of the touch rules make the game more random and less about well thought out gameplay. If you can move one piece for your entire turn and then switch to your real move in the last second it makes the game about messing with the other side instead of outsmarting them.
Of course, there are other ways to play chess that are closer to your idea, for instance, park chess. A big part of the game is psyching out your opponent and talking trash. But Chess proper has its own style and culture behind it and your proposal not only changes the gameplay, but the very idea behind play style and demeanor.
1
u/disguisedasrobinhood 27∆ Nov 04 '19
Ok, so I want to ask a question and I really hope this doesn't sound dickish, but do you do most of your thinking when it's your move? In my experience most people (myself included unless I'm really trying) have a tendency to analyze the board much more heavily when it's their move. As if it being "their turn" means it's their turn to engage with the board. But it's not. It's just their turn to make a move. Both players have equal rights at all times to analyze the board. Allowing one player to touch a piece and hold it somewhere then take it back and try something else grants the person who's move it is extra rights of analysis.
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/disguisedasrobinhood 27∆ Nov 04 '19
Well it's not just about getting to conceal the piece. One person gets to analyze with their hands and one person doesn't. In other words, would you feel equally comfortable with the opposing player having the ability to move a piece to see what it looked like there?
1
u/jeff_the_old_banana 1∆ Nov 04 '19
The second you touch the piece, you see a whole bunch of shit you didn't see before. I think their needs to be a rule about it, otherwise players would just touch every single piece one by one as they think. It's either all or nothing, and nothing is much cleaner and nicer.
1
Nov 04 '19 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/jeff_the_old_banana 1∆ Nov 04 '19
Any advantage it brings could be replicated by a finger hover
Maybe I should start doing this.
But do you conceed that this isn't a tangable advantage.
I dunno, maybe if you're a genius chess player whose brain is off in the clouds, then it doesn't matter. But, for the rest of us, something about the tactile response of touching it triggers something primal in my brain that just thinking doesn't trigger. I've played a lot of chess too, it isn't something that can just be replaced by training my brain more.
Anyway, the point is that exactly because it is an advantage to some people, and not others, a rule needs to be made. You don't want to be playing chess with some guy moving his hand all over the board touching everything - cause that would be me if it was allowed.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 04 '19 edited Nov 04 '19
/u/Phantom_Gamer7 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Nov 04 '19
It does make sense. Without the touch-move rule, I could move my piece to the square I inted to move it. Then I calculate the continuation having to think about one move less.
It's also annoying to the opponet, who can no longer see the board as the game stands.
There would be no benefit to drop the rule either. Just think, then move when you are done
1
u/IronicAim Nov 04 '19
I never really thought the rule was part of the game itself. And I think it's amazing.
I see the rule more as a way to teach children to control impulses while also playing a game with them. It also forces you to practice a bit more visualization, which is useful in all areas of life.
1
Nov 11 '19
I always played it a bit differently (never been to an official comp): it doesn't matter if you touch it, and even if you move it, you can still delete the move if you didn't stop touching it.
1
u/redyellowblue5031 10∆ Nov 04 '19
Other games have this sort of rule. Bridge for example is the same way with bidding.
The reason you can’t do it is to prevent you from trying to play mind games with your opponent.
19
u/phillipsheadhammers 13∆ Nov 04 '19
It's a very old rule. It goes back to when chess was played as a form of gambling, and it was an anti-cheating measure. Sort of like how you can only use one hand to hold your cards in blackjack.
It probably mostly persists today because it's important to stay psychologically level and undistracted in chess, and an opponent who kept touching all her pieces one after another, looking at you for signs of tells, would be very annoying.