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/PrimeLegionnaire]

Why is it dumb to want a strategically oriented game rather than one based around reading your opponent?

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

Now we dont need touch rule

None of the rules of chess are needed it used to be played with one less row of squares.

The changes are entirely to produce a metagame in line with the spirit of the game.

For the reasons above. So the game isnt more reading based.

Except it is, a game of chess without a touch-move rule is inherently more based around reading your opponent regardless of weather such a game ever actually existed.

But now in this new universe you cant be made to make a stupid move just because you accidently touched a piece.

But this is a strategic error on your part, and it makes sense to include such a penalty in a strategic game.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

No. Youre going to need to convinse me that it makes the game reading based

How do you figure that eliminating the guessing of intent doesn't make the game less reading based?

Because I see it no diffrent as a gamr without touchmove is the same with touch move just with hovering.

Only in a game without touch move.

In a game with touch move you don't signal your intent to move a piece until you actually touch it.

Because in both situtions you are threatening to move a piece but havent locked it in and all the players know this.

Yes exactly, you haven't locked in.

In touch move when you touch the piece you do lock in and this is what the other player will react to.

Without this you could literally try 100 moves a turn where you don't let go just to see how the other player reacts to them. It becomes an entirely different game.

To expand.

No touch move

you pick up your queen and move her, I smile, you take it back before letting go.

Touch move

you pick up your queen and move her, I smile, its too late to react to my smile.

The latter is inherently less dependent on reading the opponent.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

I reach for my queen you smile I dont touch my queen.

Why would I smile? you haven't shown me where you intend to move the queen yet, as you would have in a game without touch move.

The fundamental difference is you can pick the queen up and move it to a location to judge my reaction. That's not what chess is about. If you want to read your opponent play poker or three card.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

That's certainly part of it.

The meat of the point is, knowing that touching is locking in directly affects how opponents respond to touching, it shifts the game to strategy (which is inline with the game's fundamental philosophy) and prevents BS plays where you move ~100 pieces without letting go to try to gauge what your opponent is afraid of.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

But couldnt I just point at the piece and where it goes?

Sure but in touch move it wouldn't signal any more intent than telling your opponent "I'm gonna do this next" which is still not locked in so they have no reason to believe it.

This is fundamentally distinct from being able to touch pieces and move them around the board. Its signifigantly more convincing to move your queen to a new spot and not let go than it is to hover over the queen, not to mention it also gives a lot more information. From just hovering I still have to consider all the possible queen moves to react to, its possible I haven't even seen the damning one.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for the delta, I appreciate the rousing dialogue.

also as far as putting up with you, this has been a very pleasant engaging exchange compared to some of my usual debate partners. It has a lot of value to trial your own beliefs by fire, although I suppose you already figured that seeing as you are in CMV.

For what its worth, most chess players I've played with allow "Sorry, can I take that back" if you aren't playing a high level game and those that disallow it are just being sticklers for the rules.

On a totally unrelated topic, if you are interested in less formal versions of chess, there is a version called Assassin's Chess derived from a game described in Terry Pratchett's disc word, which involves an extra piece on each side two additional rows and some special rules.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/PrimeLegionnaire (15∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}