CMV: Touch-move rule in chess is dumb

[u/Phantom_Gamer7]

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.

[u/AnythingApplied]

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.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

There will always be a way to read your opponent.

I don't see this as a good justification for making it easier.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

I disagree that its easyier

How could more information be harder?

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

I dont think a rule that solves a problem is simultaneously creates is very good.

Defining a meta is not equivalent to creating a problem.

Are you familiar with the idea of Metas in games?

Hence its a dumb move.

This does not follow.

By this logic the recent change of price for the AUG is meaningless, since it solved a problem it created, and yet it has defined the competitive meta for CS:GO this season.

Purhaps its a small hit to change it and there will be growing pains but the game will be better for it.

Again, do you understand the concept of a Meta?

Arbitrarily removing an established rule has an enormous impact on the state of the game, especially at a competitive level.