Talk:Touch-move rule

All??

The article currently states "This is a rule of chess that is enforced in all games played in over-the-board competitions." This just can't be true (unless "over-the-board" or "competition" is a technical term, in which case it should be a link). It might be true if "under FIDE rules" or something were inserted. I actually came here looking for the proportion of touch-move and clock-move competitions, so this is not just pedantry. I can't find an official link to a clock-move tournament, but I found this quote here:

"The root of the problem is the 'clock-move rule' popular in many blitz tournaments in the U.S. According to this rule, a move is not considered completed until you press the clock. Even the official commentator GM Yasser Seirawan was confused what rule was used in the Ultimate Blitz Challenge."

Adam1729 (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, all competition that is under FIDE, a national chess organization, or a subsidiary of a national organization (such as a state) should obey the rules. If it is an informal local club, they may not follow the rules. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

IMHO You're right and I'm right. You gave a clear answer, but the article should also give a clear answer. The quote I gave shows that even a GM can be confused on this point. Adam1729 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Even if a GM is confused about the rules, the rules are the rules. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

[The wikipedia convention is that new sections should be added to the bottom of talk pages.] I think that's a good reference. The article could mention that rule is violated at times, even by GMs, and that this might happen more often in fast chess. The clock-move rule could be mentioned as well as an alternative rule used in some blitz events. Quale (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. [And I'll abide by that convention in future. Thank you.] Adam1729 (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge into chess terminology

I am against merging this into chess terminology. The entries there are a lot shorter than this article. This article (and several others in chess terminolory) deserve their own article. Bubba73 (talk), 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I agree.

Removing tag and linking terminology here!

Stub??

The article is short, nevertheless exhausting its subject. I remove "Stub". -- €pa 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't it be J'adoube instead of J'Adoube? Recury 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully. -- €pa 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Starting

When is the start of the requirement to say J'adoube? Is it required before the first move is played? Perhaps there is no rule on this, but it's of slight interest as many times adjusting pieces on or just before the first move is common. ChessCreator (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"J'adoube" is required before touching pieces to adjuest them. Bubba73 (talk), 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the question refers to before the game is started. This isn't an authoritative answer, just my guess, but I suspect that once the clock is started the game is officially begun and the touch-move rule applies. Before that you should be able to make adjustments without penalty. Quale (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, before the game starts either player can adjust the pieces without saying anything. Bubba73 (talk), 05:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved

I took the "J'adoube" article, added more information to it about the touch-move rule, and renamed it. And it has been updated in list of chess topics, list of chess terms, rules of chess, and elsewhere. Bubba73 (talk), 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blind players

Touch-move rule works slightly differently for blind players... GregorB (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

J'adoube

The "I adjust" exception is mentioned in detail almost identically at least 3 different places in this article. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That redundancy isn't needed, and I removed one of them. That probably resulted from the fact that j'doube once had its own article, and I merged them. It is still in there twice, once in the lead section and then in its own section. I think it should stay there because the WP:LEAD section should summarize the rest of the article, and then the details are given later. Bubba73 (talk), 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples request

The examples are all cases where the toucher is aghast and loses disastrously. While that is a plausible outcome, there could be examples where:

• the consequences are less severe; say, giving away advantage and having to settle for a draw
• the mistake is not even noticed till the player admits it after the match: "actually, that's not how I meant to play it at all"
• the mistake offers the toucher an opportunity to showcase his brilliance by improvising a recovery and snatching victory, or at least a draw, from the jaws of defeat.
• the toucher says "j'adoube" and is challenged for the blatant lie: has anyone been seriously penalized for this? jnestorius^(talk) 03:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

These would be interesting. jnestorius^(talk) 03:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I added most of the examples. These were ones I ran across. I haven't seen any collection of these.

1: There is at least one of these: Fischer-Donner (the first under "examples"), converting a win to a draw. And Unzicker-Fischer also converts an even position to a loss

2: I don't know of any like this, and after the game is over (actually after the opponent makes his next move), it is too late to apply the rule

Maybe I wasn't clear. Suppose

• a player picks up a piece, then realises his intended move is a blunder, and that a better move would be of another piece.
• Or reaches for one piece, but absentmindedly picks up a different one.

If he doesn't do a Matulović, he won't need the opponent to invoke the rule: he'll apply it to himself and choose the best move with the touched piece. If the difference in strength between the preferred and actual moves is small enough, and the player's hesitation is minimal, the actual move might be interpreted as fully intentional. jnestorius^(talk) 07:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any of these. Bubba73 (talk), 12:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

3: I don't know of any of these

4: other than what is discussed in the article, I don't know of any of these. Bubba73 (talk), 05:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The closest I know of to this is a game between Kasparov and (I believe) Judith Polgar, but it was different. Kasparov moved a piece and took his hand off it and then changed the move. (This is a different rule, though, the move can't be changed after you take your hand off.) Kasparov insisted that he didn't take his hand off the piece and he was allowed to change the move. Later video revealed that he did relinquish touching it for a fraction of a second. The time period was so short that he may not have been aware that he did it, because it was considered too short to make a conscious decision to touch the piece again. Bubba73 (talk), 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The old rule, involving a king move as a penalty, could be exploited. In any situation where you wanted to (or had to) move your king anyway, you could first attempt an illegal move, one that gave you an advantage (or at least added complications to a losing position). If the illegal move were subtle enough, the opponent may be tempted to let it stand. If not, the worst thing that would happen is your being required to make the legal king move anyway. Perhaps that's why the rule was eventually changed. WHPratt (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a story about this actually happening. in a game of Rubinstein's. JudahH (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I believe I did read that (or something similar) about a nothing-to-lose scenario having happened. I have a CD with old Chess Life & Review issues -- I'll try to find the rest of the story.WHPratt (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is on page 502 of the September 1976 issue. I don't have that issue, so I was going to request it through the library, but if you can reference it, I would appreciate it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Heck! My CL&R archive stops with 1975! WHPratt (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I got a copy of that page. It is not an example of someone accidentally sealing an illegal move. He did it intentionally. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Kasparov-J. Polgar controversy

We should probably add something about the controversial episode at Linares around 10 years ago, when Kasparov placed his knight on a losing square against Judit Polgar, then moved the knight to a different square. Polgar wasn't sure if Kasparov had let go of the knight, said nothing, and lost. As it happens, a camera crew had been filming the game, and their tape later showed (too late to do anything) that Kasparov's hand had left the knight for about a 1/16th of a second. Krakatoa (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See the end of the discussion in the "examples" section just above. I think that should be somewhere. I've read about it but I don't remember where, so I don't know the source. However, this is a violation of the rule about your move being completed when you take your hand off, not a violation of touch/move. So I think rules of chess is a better place for it. (It may already be over there.) Bubba73 (talk), 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see that (as you say) you already mentioned the incident in the prior section of this page. I've always thought of the "If you take your hand off it, the move stands" rule as being an aspect of the touch-move rule, but maybe that's incorrect. Krakatoa (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article 4.1 says to make moves with one hand only. Article 4.2 through 4.6 deal with touch/move and article 4.7 says that a move is completed when you take your hand off. I think the Kasparov/Polgar incident would be good for rules of chess. Bubba73 (talk), 14:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the rules. When I get a chance, I will see what I can dredge up on the incident for rules of chess. Krakatoa (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The other trouble with this example is that there was no injured party. Kasporav changing his mind couldn't have disrupted Polgar's game. If Polgar had seen that Kaspovarov had let go for a fraction of a section, he could have gained an advantage, that is, he could have legally disrupted Kasporav's game, but he didn't see it. The game played out the way it should have, which is unremarkable. TheScotch (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Example of misuse

The Oxford Companion specifically says that it is cheating. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Examples

In The Fireside Book of Chess (Simon and Schuster, 1949), Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld give a simpler example.

Tarrasch-Alapin, Breslau, 1889. 1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. N-KB3, N-KB3; 3. NxP, P-Q3; 4. N-KB3, NxP; 5. P-Q3. Alapin had been expecting 5. P-Q4 and by the time he looked at the positon he had already touched his king bishop, intending to answer 5. P-Q4 with ... B-K2. Now compelled to move the bishop, he would lose the knight, and so resigned at that point. (Sorry about the old notation, but I didn't want to risk a mistranslation. We can update it if others find this gamelet worth using.) WHPratt (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have that book too. I think that is a good example. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Also agree (what a heart-breaker).  Done Used to have the book but won't be able to put my finger on it, could somebody update the isbn ref, thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the book but I didn't find the game to give a page number (there is no index). But I did put a link to the game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's great! Thx for tightening it up. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Chernev, Irving and Reinfeld, Fred. The Fireside Book of Chess. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1949, 1966. Page 111 (Chapter: "Remarkable Games and Their Stories"). WHPratt (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Worst Rule in Chess imo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

From what the wikipedia article says, the touch-move rule was apparently introduced in the middle ages because of money...I can hardly see why this rule needs to persist in modern competitions, professional or non-serious alike. Especially if it forced someone to play 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3. Ke2?? Qe4#...I understand that rule is no longer valid (to move the king because of an accidental illegal move), but if one such rule can be changed, so can the main one - touch-move. I would understand if the move was already played and the opponent is about to move, but imo sometimes people can make honest mistakes accidentally; seems a bit unfair. Cornelius (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll bet that the rule resulted from someone's abuse of the situation. Some crafty player probably got used to touching several pieces and observing his opponent's subtle reaction before deciding upon which move to make. That would get annoying rather quickly. WHPratt (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, good point, that's very possible. Perhaps this and other reasons exist for the rule to still be around :) . Maybe there can be excused intentional touches due to habits and other accidental moves like the 1889 Tarrasch-Alapin game mentioned in the article. Cornelius (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There are also people who skirt the rule by constantly fiddling with the pieces and repetedly saying adjust. Sometimes saying it quieter and quieter until they don't say it at all but claiming they did. 98.164.86.116 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's definitely one way. And now that I think about it, one doesn't even need to technically touch the piece to evoke a psychological response. And such shenanigans would be immediately detected, just as much as if he would touch it. I think they should just do it on a case-by-case basis. but they probably have it because it's less embarrassing this way. I suppose if you're playing in a championship, you should think twice about what piece you touch without making excuses. Cornelius (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Loophole

A player who intends to castle but touches the rook first would be committed to make a rook move, and thus will not be permitted to castle.

You have to move the first piece you touch, if the piece can be legally moved. This is also the case with castling. If you touch the rook first, you have to move the rook.

The player's mind may change during the entire castling maneuver.

https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/JjXCxHW8a.png

Sunny3113 (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sunny3113: Modern USCF rules do not penalize a player for first moving the rook if an illegal castling was attempted. If the castling was legal, then the move can't be retracted, and if not, the player is not obliged to move the rook. See Castling#Tournament rules.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

FIDE rules do require a player to move a rook if it is touched before the king, if USCF laws are different then they are out of step with the rest of the world. See FIDE laws of chess, sections 4.3.a and 4.4.b. By the way in Sunny's scenario, Black should play ....Rxe6 quickly before the arbiter intervenes, thereby renouncing any claim to a violation of the touch-move rule per rule 4.8. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As per 4.4B and 4.3A, there is no restriction for the rook, i.e it can more horizontally or vertically in such scenarios. Allowing white a second try, in such a way 1. Rh8 mate. Of course only if the arbiter intervene.

https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/JCScmnztu.png

Sunny3113 (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually what I said wasn't quite right. If White has released the rook, then the move Rf1 must stand (section 4.7). Making a subsequent illegal castling manoeuvre by putting the king on g1 doesn't alter this. So I don't think a sneaky Kg1 to allow a different rook move would work. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

4.7B only mentions king first castling, not the other way around.

Sunny3113 (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

4.7B doesn't apply, only 4.7. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Then 4.4B and 4.3A applies if the king is tossed over the rook (clock pressed).

Sunny3113 (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing left to discuss, the FIDE rules are very clear. Rf1 must stand. Request {{Discussion top}} & {{Discussion bottom}} around this entire thread by an uninvolved editor per WP:NOTFORUM. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

FIDE rules demands white to make a mandatory move with the rook, nothing more, nothing less, simply as that.

Sunny3113 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

But the point has been made that by releasing the rook, the "mandatory move with the rook" has already been made. (After that, moving the K to g1 was just an unauthorized hand on the board messing w/ the K.) --IHTS (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. It is only after the arbiter intervened and punished him for toching the rook first, that demands white to make a compulsory move with the rook, vertically or horizontally.

Sunny3113 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No. After the rook was released, the move was complete. If an arbiter intervenes after that, the only issue, is messing around touching & moving the K. (For whatever reason the arbiter was summoned, at the point the arbiter learns the rook was released, ballgame over: Rf1 is the move, the K is returned to e1, and warning/punishment for messing w/ the K.) --IHTS (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What you're missing, is that the player not only *touched* the R, she moved it (moved & released it). (Relocating the K to g1 may have been completion of a castling move, proper or improper, in the eye of the player doing it. But not in the eye of the rules or of the arbiter. What the player was *thinking* she was doing is irrelevant.) --IHTS (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Read here: https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/JCScmnztu.png

Chernin, unaware of any harm, quietly castled by moving his rook to f1 first and subsequently placed his king on g1. It was hard luck on him that at that moment the arbiter happened to make his round. He intervened immediately and punished Chernin, as the rules ordain, by forcing him to make a move with his rook. As a matter of fact, after serious thought Rg1 was chosen. That game could have been that loophole situation discusses.

In Chernin's case ♙h2 restricted him vertically.

Sunny3113 (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay I read it. Your answer is in cols 4-5, Int'l Arbiter Geurt Gijssen was consulted, gave example, saying: "[...] no doubt I would have considered ...Rd8 as the actual move. For a move is completed when the piece has been released." (Exactly what you've been told here on Talk. The other arbiter's ruling, to permit another R move, isn't consistent w/ FIDE rules. So if those were in effect, the arbiter simply made a bad ruling.) --IHTS (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The book is from 1997. So undoubtedly new rules since publication date.

I have always believed that faulty execution of castling ends up with an mandatory move with the rook, 1.♖f1 is not tied.

Sunny3113 (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, Gijssen's assessment is consistent w/ current FIDE rules. And your long-held belief is inconsistent w/ current FIDE rules. --IHTS (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No legal move?

What if you touch a figure that has no legal moves? I think the article should address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpfang (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It sort of does: '... it must be moved if it has a legal move. " You can't be forced to make an illegal move with it, but if it has no legal move, the rule doesn't apply. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Once upon a time, if you touched a piece with no legal move, or touched an opponent piece you couldn't legally take, you had to move the king (if there was a valid king move). This is mentioned hereabove a few sections up. But that "king move" rule has been canceled since then, and nowadays if you touch an own piece with no valid move, or an opponent's piece you cannot take, there is no penalty, other than perhaps a warning by the arbiter, especially if such "unsporting" behaviour happens repetitively. — Tonymec (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Pawn oversight

I just noticed that the article explain the rules regarding a touched "piece," but fails to mention that the rule also applies to pawns. I.e., that here we are using the more general definition for "piece." This should probably be fixed before someone gets confused and argues that pawns are exempt from the rule. I'm not suggesting that it read "piece or pawn" at every turn, but rather that the first reference make it clear that the use of "piece" covers all of the chessmen. (Yes, application of the rules to pawns turns up later in the article, but the reader shouldn't have to go that deep to fully understand the scope of the rule.) This is probably true for many chess articles, so however this is usually handled should suffice. WHPratt (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

How's this? --IHTS (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That would seem to take care of it. Thanks! WHPratt (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't like it. Surely WP:COMMONSENSE applies? The distinction chess writers make between a "piece" and a "pawn" is chess jargon related to chess strategy rather than part of the rules of the game. When discussing the rules of chess rather than strategy, it should be obvious that the term "piece" refers to all pieces and doesn't exclude pawns. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Alas, it's a distinction in the official rules, and one that is respected in most of the chess articles here. I think it's okay to use 'piece' in the broader sense throughout, but only if you state so at the outset. WHPratt (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

[1]. The only part where they make the distinction between a "piece" and a "pawn" is in their description of algebraic notation, which is a supplement to the actual rules of the game. I'm going to revert because it read much better before. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

In the FIDE rules, 2.2 defines "piece" (to include pawns). WP articles lack that same up-front context, so I can see the need for clarification to readers. --IHTS (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple footnote on word 'piece' listing the six pieces [2]!? (The current text wikilinks 'piece', which could confuse a reader, since that article describes different meanings depending on context.) --IHTS (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a parenthetical would be better, but I could live with this. WHPratt (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Footnote text

My only quibble is that the phrase "piece" refers to all pieces is circular (using same term when defining itself). (How about: In the context of the rules of chess, "piece" refers to all six piece types, including pawns.?) --IHTS (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe that this is the first time (re chess terminology) that we've dealt with this issue. Nor the last, so we might as well work out a solution. WHPratt (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Surprised, really?! (Because most articles are in ... "crap status".) --IHTS (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm just glad the kid in the photograph is touching a knight instead of a pawn, else we'd have to edit the caption as well.  ;) Also, the pawns in the pic look kinda like bishops, so they're trying to have it both ways. WHPratt (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the little knobby thing to grab onto. If man (derived from "chessmen") were used instead of piece it w/ work better to circumvent ambiguity; but man is less common & doesn't mirror the FIDE booklet, a presumed desirable. --IHTS (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

When & how were 1848? & 1862 rules superseded?

Hi, thanks for the great scholarship here. The article doesn't describe when and how the 1848? & 1862 rules were superseded, ending up in the modern version. This is "important" to know because I am trying to understand the intent of various historical joke chess compositions which relied upon the touch-move rule. If you are able to cover this, I would be very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gresach (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I wrote part of that, but I don't know anymore than what is there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"according to the case"?

Since this article discusses the history of the illegal move rule, I wish it were more clear, as I’m using it as the basis of a puzzle story I’m writing and want to be as historically accurate as possible.

As I read it, prior to 1862 in the UK, the opponent could choose the penalty for an illegal move from 3 options:

1 the move stands

2 the piece must make a legal move

3 the king must move

As of 1862, the 1st and 3rd options are removed, and replaced with these:

4 the captured piece must be properly captured

5 make any other legal move (presumably not involving the illegally moved or captured pieces)

What puzzles me is in the revised rule, the penalty is chosen by the opponent “and according to the case.” This wording would not be included unless it somehow affects the choices of the opponent. But how? Anybody have an idea? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure since when, but the current international (FIDE) rules are as follows:

• Every move must be made using one hand only
• A player touching one of his own pieces without saying "j'adoube" must move that piece, if possible
• A player touching an opponent's piece must take that piece, if possible
• "J'adoube" does not apply to opponent's pieces; if necessary, the player may request that the opponent adjust his pieces
• if an illegal move, other than a capture, was made, it must be taken back and a legal move must be made with the same piece, if possible; if the illegal move was a king's move, and castling is legal, then this legal move may be a castling move
• if an illegal capture was made, the player must take it back then (on his own time) move or capture the first piece which was touched to make this illegal move, if possible, or if not, capture or move the other piece, if possible
• if none of the above is possible, there is no penalty, except of course that if no legal move is possible at all, then if the king is in check it is checkmate (and the game is lost), and if it isn't, then it is stalemate (and the game is drawn).
• Castling is a king's move: if a rook was moved next to the king, a rook's move was completed, and it is forbidden to make the king jump over the rook
• after moving the king by two squares toward the rook, the move is not yet finished, but it must be completed by castling on that side, if legal; similarly, releasing a pawn on the last rank after moving it does not complete a move but no other move can be made than promoting this pawn to a queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same color. If the desired piece is not available, the arbiter must be called.

The choice, when there is one, belongs to the player having made the illegal move. — Tonymec (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am asking about the 1862 rule, where it is the opponent's choice...and what the phrase "and according to the case" means. I am thinking perhaps it meant that if, for example, the original illegal move were a capture, and a legal way to capture that piece were available, the opponent could not choose a non-capture move, since the capture is what is referred to by "the case." 71.162.113.226 (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"clock-move" should at least be mentioned

There are games played "touch-move" and some are played "clock-move", which is a fact that simply cannot but also should not be denied or hidden in a serious encyclopedia. Currently the word "clock" does not even appear once in the entire article. I think the alternate rule "clock-move" should at least be mentioned in this article, probably more than only once: I'd say unless it has a page on its own and a link to there, it should require a short section explaining where this rule is common. I guess in the majority of all chess games played, and in more than 2/3 of all youtube videos featuring live chess games this is the case, in particular in some famous series published by the very famous and renowned St Louis Chess Club, the rule is indeed "clock move". I don't deny that in serious tournaments (FIDE, USCF...) the "touch-move" rule is the standard, but the "clock move" rule does exist and is very (maybe more) commonly used and therefore must be mentioned. — MFH:Talk 02:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "clock move" ? An alternate rule where you may touch any or all of your pieces and the opponent's without pressing the clock button (and without having to say "j'adoube" or equivalent), as long as when you do press it the result is a valid move ? AFAIK such a rule may apply in some variants of fast chess or blitz chess, possibly depending on the clock rate, but in chess played at normal speed (let's say 40 moves in the first 2 hours then 20 moves per hour, or slower) or a fortiori when playing an amateurs' game without a clock, if you touch one of your own pieces you must play it (if possible), if you touch the rook before the king you must play the rook (if possible) and not castle, and if you touch an opponent's piece you must capture it (if possible). Maybe there should be a link from this article to an article, if there is one, about the special rules for some variants of fast chess where (IIRC) this touch-move rule is not in effect; but let us not forget that the present article is about the touch-move rule itself, which is rather universal in chess, and about what it implies. — Tonymec (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what a "clock move" is either, unless he is referring to the time control rule. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure non-enforcement of touch-move is only found in casual games. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed: when that happens in serious games, it's a story. Like this game (see David Bronstein, 200 Open Games, p. 9). Double sharp (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)