The Same Old Story

Yesterday I was the pairing director for a youth tournament with 51 players. 28 were playing in their first tournament. I've run pairings for at least 120 such events, but this one had the largest number and highest percentage of unrated players in my memory. Naturally, a fair amount of time was spent teaching some basic rules and elementary skills.

As with a much smaller event two weeks ago, there were unnecessary draws among players who have not yet learned basic checkmate skills (see "The Difference"). In one game, I counted moves for players who were not recording their game. The player with the advantage told me that she did not know how to checkmate with rook and king against king. I asked whether she thought she might do so accidentally. She said that was her hope. She came close.

After 45 moves, this position was reached.

Black to move

45...Re1+

After this move was played, Black was no longer able to force checkmate before the fiftieth move was reached. The fifty move rule states that a game is drawn when fifty moves are played without a capture or a pawn move. The last capture took place before I was at the side of the board and counting.

I declared the game a draw after my count reached fifty. Then I showed the players how Black could have won.

Had Black played 45...Kf3, White probably would have played 46.Kd1. A similar arrangement of the pieces had occurred several times prior as Black slowly managed to persuade White to retreat his king from the 6th rank to the first rank. That none of this retreat was forced highlights that some attention might be given to proper defensive play as well.

Black to move

Six of Black's possible moves lead to checkmate on the next move: Re3, Re4, Re5, Re6, Re7, and Re8. I showed the last one to the children. Then 47.Kc1 is forced and 47...Re1 is checkmate.

Had Black played 45...Kc3 from the initial diagram, White's best move would be 46.Kb1.

Black to move

Checkmate can be forced in three with ten different Black moves from this position. Black's rook can move anywhere on the e-file or anywhere to the right (left from Black's side of the board) on the second rank.

One possibility: 46...Re3 47.Ka2 Re1 48.Ka3 Ra1#.

It behooves chess teachers to teach these elementary checkmates to children.

See also "Lesson One" and "Teaching Elementary Checkmates".

En Passant

One of my students requested a lesson on en passant, so I created one. We did not need to go over the rule as he had shown that he understands that much. So, what was I to do? The first position that came to mind was the game that provides the position for the banner at the top of the page. This game was a 3 0 blitz game that finished in under two minutes. I played it on my iPad while waiting for my lunch in the Classic Cafe in Deer Park, Washington. I had spent a couple of hours in the morning teaching chess at a homeschool resource center and had another couple of hours teaching chess in classrooms at Deer Park Elementary. I recall showing the game to the students that afternoon because it illustrated en passant and checkmate, two vital rules beginners need to learn.

White to move

Black played 13...f5+. An en passant capture is White's only legal move. 14.exf6 and then the d-pawn advanced with checkmate. It was a memorable game with errors on both sides, but some interesting tactics that have instructive value.

I followed this position with a couple from Roman Pelts and Lev Alburt, Comprehensive Chess Course, vols. I and II (1986). Then some mates in one culled from several sources. The student blazed through these very quickly. We then spent a couple of minutes on his successful effort to find the moves that had to be played to reach this position, which appears both in Ilya Maizelis, The Soviet Chess Primer (2014) and in Pelts and Alburt.

Black to move

I found two short games in the Lichess forums that were composed in answer to the question: what is the shortest possible game that ends via checkmate with an en passant capture? Both White and Black are able to checkmate in this manner on the sixth move.

We finished with an endgame exercise and a mate in four that I composed an hour before the lesson.

White to move and win

White mates in four

Checkmate Challenge

My online chess camps this summer have been competing with one another in the checkmate challenge. The challenge consists of 30 minutes of solving as rapidly as possible checkmates in one move. I use a database of 101 exercises that I downloaded from the web so long ago that I no longer know where or when. I believe it may have been Gunther Ossimitz's now defunct chess site (see "Gunther Ossimitz PGN Files").

The first ten exercises are mate with a rook. Then there are ten with a bishop. These are followed in succession by mates with a knight, a queen, and then pawns. Three involving en passant captures usually slow the students down, and I often need to explain the rule.

White to move

Mate in one

Some pawn mates are the pawn delivering the final check. Often, the pawn promotes to a rook or queen. In one case, the pawn must become a knight.

After the en passant mates, there are some double checks mixed with other themes. The exercises grow slightly more difficult. I like the structure of the database, which resembles the structure at the heart of the work of Viktor Khenkin. See "Two Old Books (and one new)" for more about Khenkin.

Many of the exercises are composed, and the early ones have few pieces. Some are from familiar games, such as Morphy's Opera Game. 

My students have included a handful of strong youth players, but most are beginners. Some of them have been playing chess a week before camp begins. I ask the students to shout out answers or type them in the Zoom chat. Speed matters. Wrong answers are ignored if the right answer comes fast enough.

Many groups have solved 60-70 of the exercises in the 30 minutes. Three groups have solved all 101! Today, a group solved the whole set in 27 minutes. Last week, a group did so in 26 minutes. One group with some skilled players whipped through the entire set in 18 minutes.

These are some of those that slow the students in their quest. It is always White to move.

Capablanca -- Lasker, Game 5 (continued)

Part 10 of a series recognizing the Centennial of Capablanca -- Lasker, World Chess Championship, Havana 1921. Part 9 has the game up to the diagram position below.

On 30 March 1921, José Raúl Capablanca took his position across a historic table from Emanuel Lasker in a room of the Casino de la Playa. Lasker's sealed move from the previous night's play was revealed on the board and game resumed.

Capablanca,José Raúl -- Lasker,Emanuel [D63]
World Championship 12th Havana (5), 29.03.1921

Black to move

After 31.h4

31...gxh4

I have sequenced the comments to reveal the changing assessments of the sealed move over time.

"[A]pparently the best." (Janowski)

"This was not good. Better 31...Kg6 32.hxg5 Ne4 33.Qd3 Qg4+ 34.Rg2 Qh4 35.Qb1 Kg7. The g5 pawn falls and Black is secure." (Lasker)

In British Chess Magazine (July 1921), George A. Thomas mentioned Lasker's suggestion, adding, "threatening perpetual check" after 34...Qh4.

"This was Lasker's sealed move. It was not the best. His chance to draw was to play Kg6. Any other continuation should lose." (Capablanca)

Myers: "This move (Kg6), Capablanca and Lasker agree, is Black's best chance. Not so. It loses just as readily as the move played in the game, which plainly does not solve Black's problems either."

The ChessBase DVD: Master Class, vol. 04: José Raúl Capablanca (2015), my source for Myers' annotation, also has a question mark after Kg6. Myers, I believe, is NM Hugh Myers (1930-2008), who is best known for innovative opening analysis. The DVD is an excellent resource, but it lists the annotators only by surname, and nothing by Myers is listed in the bibliography.

Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1 (a book wholly lacking a bibliography) offers more:

It is usual to attach a question mark to [the text move--Kasparov then presents Lasker's analysis, and then:] At first sight here it is indeed impossible to convert the exchange advantage: the White king is exposed, and Black's queen and knight dominate. And yet White has a way to gain an advantage: 36.Qd1! Kg6 37.Qf3! (threatening Qf4) 37...Nxg5 38.Qg3 with good winning chances. So that 31...Kg6 was by no means better than the move in the game. (266)

32.Qxh4 Ng4 33.Qg5+ Kf8

White to move

34.Rf5

Capablanca and Lasker both stated in their books on the match that 34.Rd2 was strong: "quite strong" (Lasker) and "would have won" (Capablanca). Stockfish 13 prefers the text until it has longer to think, when it finds both moves equally strong.

34...h5

"Making use of the slight respite, Black unexpectedly creates counterplay." (Kasparov)

Not 34...Qxe3 35.Qxe3 Nxe3 36.Rf2 and 37.Re2 and White wins. (Lasker)

I. Linder and V. Linder, José Raúl Capablanca: 3rd World Chess Champion add the explanation that the rook, "would cut off the Black king from the queenside and help advance his own king towards the center" (82).

35.Qd8+ Kg7 36.Qg5+ Kf8 37.Qd8+ Kg7 38.Qg5+ Kf8

The triple occurrence of position would be a draw by today's rules. Linder and Linder state, "Black could have claimed a draw". I am not certain that he could. What was the rule in 1921? You will not find the rule in the FIDE Handbook. FIDE was created three years later. 

The rules for the London International Tournament of 1883 specified three-fold repetition of moves, and after the event, it was suggested to modify this to three-fold repetition of position (the modern rule). However, the Fifth American Chess Congress (1889) mentioned six-fold repetition, and William Steinitz's is not explicit about a draw by repetition in The Modern Chess Instructor, published that year. He mentions both perpetual check and repetition of moves.

Edward Winter, "Repetition of Position or Moves in Chess", Chess Notes (updated 30 July 2020) offers some of the critical detail concerning development of the rule, including references to rules governing other World Championship Matches that reference the German Handbuch. The rules for the match in Havana do not reference the Handbuch, nor any other set of general rules.

White to move

39.b3

Stronger was 39.Qxh5 (Kasparov).

The theme of Kasparov's annotations on this game is that Capablanca failed to put forth enough effort to make "detailed calculation of 'dangerous' variations", and that "slight inaccuracies harboured the germ" of his defeat by Alekhine (267).  

39...Qd6 40.Qf4 Qd1+ 41.Qf1 Qd7

White to move

Due to a notation error in Linder and Linder (they have 41...Qd2), they see a mate in nine that Capablanca overlooked. Capablanca's game score in his book on the match has 41...Q-Q2, which matches Lasker's Dd1-d7. 41...Qd7, that is.

42.Rxh5 Nxe3 43.Qf3 Qd4 44.Qa8+ Ke7 45.Qb7+

Black to move

45...Kf8??

What was the status of Lasker's clock?

Capablanca: "A blunder, which loses what would otherwise have been a drawn game. It will be noticed that it was Dr Lasker's forty-fifth move. He had very little time to think and, furthermore, by his own admission, he entirely misjudged the value of the position, believing that he had chances of winning, when, in fact, all he could hope for was a draw."

Lasker: "A terrible mistake. The assumption has been made on various occasions that my gross mistake was the result of a lack of time. But that was by no means the case. I had fifteen minutes to think about it, but I was unable to."

46.Qb8+ 1-0

Following this game, the Cuban Tourism Commission sweetened the prize fund for the match by 5,000 pesos (equal to $5,000 because President Mario García Menocal set the exchange rate of dollars to pesos at 1:1). This detail courtesy of the additional source that arrived in yesterday's mail. Miguel A. Sánchez, José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2015), 247.

Knights before Bishops

Most chess players have heard the rule that one should deploy a knight towards the center before moving a bishop. The standard move order in the Spanish opening is a good example--for White, a center pawn, the king's knight, and then the king's bishop. The Italian opening follows the same sequence. Likewise, in many lines of the Queen's Gambit, White will deploy both knights before moving a bishop. In other lines one knight comes out and one bishop a move or two later, while the other minor pieces await developments that reveal their best square.

However, in the London System, White plays the queen's bishop on the second move, and may bring out both bishops before a knight moves. Likewise, Black's first minor piece to come out in the Caro-Kann is a bishop.

Erik Kislik states that knights before bishops, "is not a very useful rule" (27) in Applying Logic in Chess (2018). This rule is the first of ten that Kislik quotes from the work of some unnamed grandmaster, presented as rules for beginners. He makes an important point:

Rules in chess assume 'all else is equal',but all else rarely is equal, so we need to judge ideas based on specific circumstances. Most of the time, advice given to amateurs is in the form of rules. Chess is a concrete game though, and more often than not, this advice is too stereotypical to be of much applicable value.
Kislik, Applying Logic in Chess, 26.

Kislik runs through each of the ten rules, offering his views of how each develops principles in certain circumstances but falls short in others. His analysis is almost completely verbal, with few diagrams and analysis of specific positions.

The Review

John Hartmann sold me Kislik's book through his review in Chess Life ("Logical Ambition," CL, September 2018, 20-21). Hartmann calls Kislik's book "one of the most interesting titles to appear in recent years, ... also one of the most maddening" (20). Hartmann notes that the cover, with a flowchart for making decisions in chess, is "misleading": "There is nothing in the text that resembles a flowchart for thought" (21). Kislik's view of logic and reason is more modest.

Another book on my shelf offers flowcharts, Paata Gaprindashvili, Imagination in Chess: How to Think Creatively and Avoid Foolish Mistakes (2004). I reviewed it here on Chess Skills in February 2017. The core of that book is found in the quality and difficulty of the exercises. I have found the flowcharts marginally useful.

Hartmann's comments took me back forty years when some fellow undergraduates were taking a course on logic and making the efforts to systemize thought in terms like, "if p, then q". I did not find such an approach to logic any more useful for learning to think than studying semiotics for learning to read and write. The notion that seemed to represent this more modest view of logic, which Hartmann quotes from later in Kislik's book, that chess errors always can be explained clearly, was enough to interest me in the book.

Hartmann also notes that, "there are multi-page stretches unsullied by diagrams or analysis" (21).

Kislik's Assessment

After declaring the rule "not ... useful", Kislik highlights both its merits and shortcomings. He starts out noting that the corollary to the rules that, "developing bishops early on is suboptimal ... is definitely not true" (27). What matters, he suggests, are the reasons. Kislik highlights piece coordination, the principle of improving the worst-placed piece, and flexibility. The last is where the rule's merits become evident. The knight on g1 usually finds itself well-placed on f3 early in the game, but the optimal placement of the bishops is less certain.

His views on this rule and those that follow are thought provoking and worthy of attention. Nonetheless, his discussion seems incomplete. He laments the instruction methods for beginners that proclaim these rules without, "making sense of the principle or idea, or understanding where it came from" (26). My way of thinking about "where it came from" drives me towards historical explanations. Kislik does not offer any history of these rules.

In Common Sense in Chess (1917), Emanuel Lasker offers the text of lectures that he presented in London in 1895. In the first of these lectures, he develops four rules--including knights before bishops--through concrete analysis of several short model games. Five years ago, these rules and games, as well as a few others that I selected, comprised the core of my lessons for youth players over several sessions (see Lasker's Rules).

Rule Independence

Erik Kislik is not original in his suggestion that concrete analysis of specific positions should take precedence over abstract and universal rules. This idea was well-expressed in John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch (1998). Even so, strong Grandmasters who teach young players still promulgate these rules with the understanding that their pupils will need to learn how and when to violate them. I recall during a tournament broadcast a few years ago, hearing Peter Svidler discuss his struggle with both promoting and resisting the teaching of such rules. These rules have a purpose even though in the long-run they can retard development.

Consider the very common position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

White to move

Many youth players will not reach this position because they would have played 3.Nc3. While this move is not inherently bad, young players will make it by rote, often oblivious to the moves played by Black. They will often play it without thinking. Kislik's underlying notion, it seems to me, is that even at this early stage of the game, it is critical that reasoning must be part of every move. Whether one plays 3.Nc3, 3.Bc4, 3.Bb5, 3.d4, or some other move, it must be rooted in understanding.

From the diagram, most of the youth games that I have witnessed continue 4.Nc3. Master games, on the other hand, more often proceed with 4.d3 or 4.c3 (which violates one of Lasker's rules). In my play, I favor 4.c3 as more dynamic, and I usually will follow it with 5.d4. However, as more and more opponents fail to exhibit the greed that leads to disaster in the Greco Gambit, I am shifting towards 5.d3.

In my play and in my teaching, I teach students that it is okay to play 4.Nc3 (or 3.Nc3), even though I think there are stronger moves. What is critical, I urge is that these moves are made with thought and understanding, not simply played by rote. In the end, that's the point of these rules for development: they are guidelines that assist our thinking, not rules that direct our play. I think Kislik agrees.

The Drawn Game

Chess games do not always end with a winner. In fact, as players become stronger, draws become more likely. In the World Championship match that is taking place right now in New York City, the first three games ended in a draw. Game four began about the time that this post was published.* Game three was a hard-fought battle with small mistakes by both players. The World Champion had good chances to win, but these were not easy to find and his opponent, the challenger, proved resilient in defense.

The most common ways that a chess game might be drawn is the lesson of the week for my beginning students. Examples from practical play are provided as well.

In a chess tournament, players get one point for a win and zero for a loss. When the game ends in a draw, the players split the point for the game: each gets ½ point.

How do games end in a draw?

There are several ways that a game can end in a draw. These are the most common.

1. Agreement

Players may agree to a draw, usually because they realize that neither has a reasonable chance of winning. Draw by agreement is rare among scholastic players, as it should be.

2. Stalemate

When the player on move is not in check and has no legal move, the game ends in stalemate.

Black is in stalemate in this position from a scholastic tournament.

Black to move

Note that if it were White's move, Qg6# is checkmate. This sort of stalemate is far too common in youth events when children do not know possess elementary checkmate skills (see "Cutting Off" for one important aspect of these skills that contains links to other useful posts).

A game that I played this morning had the possibility of ending in stalemate, but ended drawn by agreement instead.

White to move

Black has just promoted a pawn to a new queen, but White gets rids of the queen quickly.

58.Nc3+ Kb2 59.Nxb1 Kxb1 60.Kc3 Ka2

Had Black played 60...a4, I would have played 61.Kb4 and taken the pawn on the next move. That would result in a draw by insufficient material (see below).

61.Kc2 a4 62.Kc1 Ka1 63.Kc2 a3 64.Kc1 Ka2 65.Kc2

I offered a draw here, which my opponent accepted. Had Black played 65...a2, Kc2 would leave Black with no legal moves.

A common error that beginners make is thinking it is stalemate because a king cannot move without considering the other pieces on the board. For stalemate to occur, a player must have no legal moves. Sometimes the only way to win a position is to deprive the enemy king of movement in order to force another piece to move.

In the next position from Barcza – Rethy, 1953, it is not stalemate. The Black king has no legal moves, but the Black pawn does.

Black to move

Black must play 1...c2. White then responds 2.Nc6. Then Black must play 2...c1 and promote the pawn. Because White's last move shield the king from check should Black choose a queen or rook, 3.Nb6# is possible.

3. Repetition

When the same position (all the pieces on the board) has occurred three times with the same player to move each time, a draw may be claimed.

In the example from my game this morning above, my opponent and I could have shuffled our kings back and forth until we had reached the same position three times, then either would have been able to claim a draw.

4. 50-move Rule

When 50 moves have passed with neither a capture nor a pawn move, the player on move may claim a draw. White and Black move = one move.

"Max Judd's Draw Claim" describes an entertaining game where a draw was claimed by this rule, but was ultimately rejected. The rule has changed a little bit over the years, and it was somewhat confusing at the time this game was played.

5. Insufficient Material

If neither player possesses enough material to deliver checkmate, the game is drawn. Two lone kings, or a lone king against a king and minor piece (bishop or knight) are insufficient material.


Learning from the Championship Match

The advanced students played chess while also watching game 5 of the World Chess Championship on the demo board. As the game concluded while we had still ten minutes remaining, we quickly examined why the final position forces a draw.

White to move

An opposite colored bishop endgame results from the forced trade of rooks. As Black's bishop guards the promotion square for White's passed pawn, neither side has any reasonable hopes of progress.

*Game four also was drawn after 94 moves.

Learn to Castle

Lesson of the Week

For my beginning students this week, I wrote three rules for castling on the whiteboard. When these three conditions are met, it is legal to castle. Castling moves two pieces--king and rook. It is the only way a king can move more than one square, and is the only time that more than one piece may be moved on a player's turn. In most games, it is a necessary precaution to decrease the vulnerability of the king. Castling has the added benefit of bringing a rook closer to the center, the usual scene of the battle in chess.

1) It must be the first move for both the king and the rook.
2) There must be no pieces between the king and the rook.
3) The king may not castle out of check, through check, or into check.

To illustrate the benefits of castling, I presented the following miniature from Greco. It was published in Francis Beale, The Royall Game of Chesse-Play (London, 1656). I take it from that source. Beale's version of this game differs at Black's move 18 from the one published in the more widely known Professor Hoffman [Angelo Lewis], The Games of Greco (London, 1900). Hoffman's version is the one found in David Levy, and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol. 1 1485-1866 (Oxford, 1981) and in databases.

Gambett VI (Greco) [C54]
1656

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4

White to move

8.0–0

White meets all three conditions listed above. This notation means that White's king moves two squares towards the rook, and then (or at the same time), the rook moves to the square that the king moved over (see next diagram).

8...Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3 10.Qb3

Black to move

10...Bxa1

Black's last chance to survive was 10...d5.

After the greedy rook grab, Black is materially ahead a rook and two pawns, but is completely lost due to the king's vulnerability and White's well-coordinated pieces. White may be down material on the whole board, but in the battle White has a substantial and decisive material advantage.

11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bg5 Ne7 13.Ne5 Bxd4 14.Bg6 d5 15.Qf3+ Bf5 16.Bxf5 Bxe5 17.Be6+ Bf6 18.Bxf6 gxf6

Hoffman and database have 18...Ke8 19.Bxg7 1-0

I also showed the students a possible variation beginning with 18...Qd6. In this line, there is no immediate checkmate, but White wins back all of the sacrificed material and more, reaching an easily winning endgame.

19.Qxf6+ Ke8 20.Qf7# 1–0


My advanced students worked in pairs on a worksheet that I created last spring for a chess camp. It is elsewhere on this blog: "Incomplete Miniatures".

Max Judd's Draw Claim

Mikhail Chigorin threatened to leave the tournament. Max Judd had demanded, seemingly within the rules, that Chigorin checkmate him within fifty moves. Fifty moves had transpired and Judd had claimed the draw. Along the way, Chigorin had missed a simple win and Judd had missed a line offering stronger prospects for equality.

At the end of the fifty moves, Judd's position was clearly worse. The umpire ordered Judd to continue, but he refused. The game was adjourned while the umpire considered his decision.

The umpire initially ruled in favor of Judd, then the decision went to a jury for reconsideration. The jury confirmed the umpire's decision, but Chigorin then appealed to a panel of judges. During this battle Chigorin lost a game to James Mason on time for refusing to appear at the board during the day's second playing session. On appeal, the judges reversed the umpire's position and ordered the game with Judd continue. The whole process took several days.

William Steinitz offers a synopsis of the final result in The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress (1891).

Mr. Judd stated afterward that he played the greater part of this ending in reliance on his having the legal right of claiming a draw if he could only extend the game to fifty moves after he had claimed the count without being mated. Having accomplished his object he refused to go on with the game, which he might have done under protest without damaging his rights. But his interpretation of the rule was not sustained on appeal, and Mr. Judd was also adjudged to have forfeited the game on the ground that he did not abide by the decision of the umpire to proceed with the same. (33)

The best account of the full controversy that I have been able to locate is in Stephen Davies, Samuel Lipschutz: A Life in Chess (2015). Lipschutz was one of the players at the Sixth American Chess Congress in New York in 1889. Davies, who tells the story based upon the tournament book, the New York Times, and The Sun, offers specifics. The game was played on Saturday, 30 March 1889. The umpire's decision on behalf of Judd and the jury's confirmation of this decision took place on Monday. According to Davies, the judges were reported as overturning the decision on Thursday, 4 April. The game resumed on 13 April. Both players refused to play, but Judd's clock was started. When his time expired, Chigorin was awarded the win.

Two versions of the Fifty Move Rule existed in the 1880s. The Sixth American Chess Congress employed the rule as printed in the Book of the Fifth American Chess Congress (1881). Following the Chigorin -- Judd dispute, according to Davies, the judges and players agreed that the rule observed in the London 1883 tournament would be enforced for the balance of the event. The London rule, which is the precursor to the rule today, resets the count with each pawn move or capture.

In The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress, Steinitz also points out Chigorin's easy win and Judd's missteps.

After 46.a4, Judd requested the fifty move count begin.

Black to move

46...b6 47.b3 a5

Steinitz observes:

Black impetuously throws away a sure win in a short number of moves. He could easily gain the opposition and throw the onus of moving on the opponent by 47...Kf4 48.Kh3 Kg5 49.Kh2 Kg4 White's pawn moves on other wing could then be easily exhausted, and Black's King would gain entrance at g3, followed by ...h4-h3, winning easily. (33)

His analysis baffles me. Why 47...Kf4? Why not the immediate 47...Kg4?

48.bxa5 bxa5

White to move

49.b4!

Steinitz speculates that Chigorin had overlooked this move. Black still has an advantage, but White's drawing prospects have improved dramatically after Chigorin missed 47...Kg4, or even Steinitz's suggestion to the same effect.

49...axb4 50.a5 b3 51.a6 b2 52.a7 b1Q 53.a8Q

Black to move

Black can win if the c-pawn successfully advances or if the queens can be swapped. To accomplish either, the Black king needs refuge from checks.

53...Qb5

Chigorin guards the c-pawn with the intention of walking his king over to the queenside where it may employ the pawn as a guard, and perhaps walk together towards c1.

Steinitz suggested that 53...Qg6 was "better adapted to keep everything safe and to lead the King over to the queenside" (33). My engines, including one running with tablebase support, find 53...Ke4 best, but otherwise concur with Steinitz.

I tried playing this position against Stockfish 7 beginning with 53...Qg6 and was not successful at avoiding a draw. It is one thing to play such a position correctly when you can see more than four million positions per second and quite another to work it out as a human. Of course, two humans facing one another are equally ill-equipped.

54.Qg8+ Kf4 55.Qd8 Kg4 56.Qd7+ Kg5 57.Qg7+

Steinitz asserts that 57.Qd8+ was better, but Stockfish 7 sees no difference between this move and the text.

57...Kf5 58.Qf7+ Ke4 59.Qf3+ Kd4 60.Qf2+ Kc3

White to move

61.Qe1+

Steinitz suggests:

Simply capturing the h-pawn that hampered the advance of his King, gave him much better prospects of drawing, as Black's c-pawn could not advance far without giving White again many checking opportunities that would have impeded its progress. (33)

However, the engines find Judd's move best. Capturing the h-pawn changes the evaluation to nearly -2.00, but playing out the suggested engine moves leads to repetition once the c-pawn begins to advance.

Even the engines do not find it a simple matter to deliver a win with Black.

61...Kb2 62.Qd2+ Ka3

White to move

63.Qe3+

As a rule in such positions, the closer to the adverse King the checks are given the more effective they are. 63.Qc3+ was the right play, and whatever Black might do either the checks would continue or the adverse Queen could only interpose in a manner that left his c-pawn unprotected, which gave additional chances of a draw for White. (Steinitz, 33)

This principle is worth remembering.

63...Ka4 64.Qd4+ Qb4 65.Qa7+ Kb3 66.Qe3+ Qc3 67.Qb6+ Kc2 68.Qf2+ Kd3 69.Qf3+ Kd2 70.Qf4+ Kd1 71.Qf1+ 

71.Qxh4 is no good. 71...Qe5+ 72.Kh3 c5 and with the pawn one square further towards promotion, White's drawing prospects diminish.

71...Kd2 72.Qf4+ Ke2 73.Qe4+ Kd1 74.Qf3+

Black to move

74...Kc2

As Steinitz notes, Black's king is now out of position for exchanging queens. The resulting pawn race would give both players queens once again, but this time with an easy draw.

75.Qf2+ Kc1 76.Qf1+ Kb2 77.Qf2+ Qc2 78.Qb6+ Ka3 79.Qa5+ Qa4 80.Qc5+ Kb3 81.Qe3+ Kb4 82.Qd2+ Kb5 83.Qb2+ Qb4 84.Qe2+ Kb6

White to move

85.Qe3+?

85.Qe5 was White's best chance, according to the engines. Now, matters are finally beginning to return to a clear advantage for Chigorin. After 85.Qe5, 85...c5 would concede the draw.

85...c5!

The pawn can now advance. Black's queen and king are now well coordinated to assist the pawn with an advance of one square every half dozen moves or so.

86.Qe6+ Ka5

A necessary finesse. The point is to move the king to b5 when the White queen cannot check from the rear.

87.Qa2+ Kb5 88.Qd5 Qf4+

The queen's mobility along the fourth rank is a critical element.

89.Kh1 Kb4

White to move 

Now, White can again check from the rear, but these checks only delay the pawn's advance. They can no longer prevent it.

90.Qb7+ Kc3 91.Qg7+ Qd4 92.Qe7 c4 93.Qa3+ Kd2 94.Qb4+ 

Black to move

94...Ke2

94...Kc1 leads to a quicker win. 95.Qa3+ Qb2

95.Qb5 Kd2 96.Qb4+ Qc3 0–1

At this point, Judd's fifty move count having been reached, he refused to go on. The dispute began. When he originally asked for a draw, his position was lost. However, Chigorin missed an easy win and overlooked White's resource on the queenside. In the ensuing maneuvering, Judd made a couple small inaccuracies.


The Rules

The Rule from the Fifth American Chess Congress

If, at any period during a game, either player persist in repeating a particular check, or series of ckecks, or persist in repeating any particular line of play which does not advance the game; or if "a game ending" be of doubtful character as to its being a win or a draw, or if a win be possible, but the skill to force the game questionable, then either player may demand judgement of the Umpire as to its being a proper game to be determined as drawn at the end of fifty additional moves, on each side; or the question: "Is, or is not the game a draw?" may be, by mutual consent of the players, submitted to the Umpire at any time. The decision of the Umpire, in either case, to be final. 

And whenever fifty moves are demanded and accorded, the party demanding it may, when the fifty moves have been made, claim the right to go on with the game, and thereupon the other party may claim the fifty move rule, at the end of which, unless mate be effected, the game shall be decided a draw.
Charles A. Gilberg, The Fifth American Chess Congress (New York: Brentano's Literary Emporium, 1881), 167-168.

Judd would seem to have staked his claim on the language: "if 'a game ending' be of doubtful character as to its being a win or a draw."

The British Chess Association Rule printed in the book of the London International Chess Tournament 1883

A player may, at any time, call upon his adversary to mate him within fifty moves (move and reply being counted as one). If, by the expiration of such fifty moves, no piece or pawn has been captured, nor pawn moved, nor mate given, a draw can then be claimed.

A Teacher's Angst

You'd better not kno so much than know so many things that ain't so.
Josh Billings

One of those dreaded phone calls began with the caller going on at length how much he appreciates my work teaching chess in his grandchild's school. His anguish came through in his words of gratitude. Something in his tone or the way he started the conversation caused me to hear "but" at the end of every statement of praise. Every compliment was the lead up to an unspoken criticism that I knew was coming.

My memory of the conversation is hazy because it was a dream, a bad dream.

The man had taught his grandchild to play chess. Then, the child learned the game from me at school. Now the grandfather was conflicted. The child is telling him that he has some of the rules wrong.

He is not certain why I think my way is the correct one. He has played chess all of his life, and he had never heard of some of the things his grandchild learned in school. The man had been his school's champion sixty years ago.

I woke up before the conversation got into specifics. Even so, I knew what was coming. Children frequently tell me their father, grandfather, uncle taught them a way of chess that differs on some point or another from what I am teaching. I am careful not to tell them that an older relative is wrong. Kids often think they hear one thing, when something else was said. I do emphasize, however, the correct rule.

In the dream, I was preparing my defense: listing my tournament successes, describing the global culture of competitive chess play--email chess with opponents from South Africa to Poland to Iceland, websites where I have played opponents in every country, the FIDE Laws of Chess.

For some casual players to whom chess is just a game, the scope of chess in global culture comes as a surprise.

Many of the things they get wrong have a long history. Some were rules in another era.

"You forgot to say check, so I can ignore it."
"En passant is an optional rule."
"The king always stands to the right of the queen."
"A pawn can only be promoted to a piece that has been lost."
"When you castle, the king and rook swap places."
"Castling is not allowed if the king was ever in check."

Chess books of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries began with lists of rules that attempted to account for regional variations--whether en passant was permitted, whether stalemate was a win, a half-win, or a draw, the peculiarities of castling in Italy. Some leading players made efforts through their clubs to standardize the rules. Most of the rules we use today were in place and accepted by the time that Howard Staunton organized the London International Chess Tournament of 1851.

Some old ideas from earlier eras persist, however. Sometimes they are reinvented by those who did not quite learn the rules before they started teaching others. Millions of chess players compete online in formal and informal competition through websites, mobile devices, and face-to-face. Far more people play the game casually with family and friends.

Touch Move Rule

“Touch a piece, move a piece” 

The touch-move rule is simple but is subject to abuse and misunderstanding. Most complaints and inappropriate implementations stem from confusion between deliberate toching and accidental. In youth chess tournaments, especially, players will call the touch-move rule on their opponent after an accidental bump of one piece while reaching for another. Short arms do not always navigate regulation chess boards easily.

The USCF Rule is simple:

“[except when adjusting pieces in their squares after saying ‘I adjust’ (Rule 10A)]… a player on move who deliberately touches one or more pieces, in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as the
beginning of a move, must move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured.”
USCF Rule 10B

Accidental touches are covered as well:

“A director who believes a player touched a piece by accident should not require the player to move that piece.”
USCF Rule 10E

In international competition and many countries, FIDE laws apply. The FIDE rules (Article 4) also employ the term "deliberately".

Logic of En Passant

Philidor's Fable

François-André Danican Philidor (1726-1795) was ahead of his time in positional understanding. He also had strong views concerning the rules of chess at a time while there were still local variations. In parts of Germany, for instance, Philidor reports that the en passant capture was not observed. He expressed his outrage with a clear statement concerning the necessity for the en passant rule once pawns were given the power of advancing two squares on their initial move.

[T]hey give a pawn leave to pass beyond taking by Pawns; which not only makes quite a different Game from the original one, but also takes off a great deal of its Beauty; because by this means a Pawn may pass before two others, who with much Dexterity and Industry have reached within three Squares of becoming Queens, and are there stopt by the King, or the Adversary's Bishop; while this single Pawn will either go and make a Queen, or oblige you to abandon all your advanced Pawns and come attack this Wretch, who during the whole Game has done nothing. This certainly is quite opposite to the Rules of war, where Merit only can advance a Soldier's Fortune.
Philidor, Chess Analysed (London, 1750), vi-vii.

It would be much better to let one of the worthy pawns who has labored throughout the course of the battle to strike down the lazy upstart. For this reason, Philidor seems to say, we permit capturing a pawn en passant. It is a good rule that ought to be observed everywhere.

Rules of Chess: Castling

Lesson of the Week

Note: The main lesson for all students this week concerned a rules violation. In addition, some of the advanced students received instruction in pawn endgames. See "Opposition and Outflanking."

This position was reached in a recent scholastic tournament that I directed. Players at these tournaments range in skill from those who compete with success against strong club players (over 1400 USCF) on the one hand, to players just beginning the game and sometimes unfamiliar with such rules as castling and en passant.

Black to move

 
The player recording the moves wrote 11...O-O (castle kingside), which is an illegal move. The FIDE Laws of Chess explain the rule clearly.

There are two different ways of moving the king:
by moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces or by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.

The right to castle has been lost: if the king has already moved, or with a rook that has already moved.Castling is prevented temporarily: if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, or if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.
FIDE Handbook

In this youth game, neither the king nor rook has moved. The king is not in check, nor is moving into check. But, the square the king crosses over (f8) is attacked by the bishop on d6. Castling is not permitted.

In this case, the player recording the moves knew about castling, and even knew how to write the move in chess notation. However, this player either did not know one key element of the rule, or failed to see that it was violated in this instance.

Perpetual Check

I often hear it stated that one of the ways the rules of chess facilitate a draw, or result with no winner is perpetual check. In fact, there is nothing in the rules about this option. Rather, the rules of chess provide for a draw by repetition.

9.2 The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
FIDE Handbook, http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.htm

US Chess Federation Rules, under which I play, are similar.

Perpetual check is not a rule, but a means to draw by repetition. When a player is unable to avoid endless checks, he or she has no way to avoid draw by repetition.

In one of the variations given in Judit Polgar's annotations to her brilliant win against Levan Pantsulaia in the eighth round of the European Individual Championship, she offered this position after an oversight by Black. See yesterday's "King Safety" for the game.

In the game, Polgar played 31...e3. This position arises after the alternative 31...Qa4+ 32.Nb3, and then instead of the necessary 32...e3, the blunder 32...cxb3.

White to move

White can endlessly check the Black king from f5 and c8. A beautiful attack ran aground because the Black king, too, was vulnerable.

En Passant: History and Illustration

When chess was invented some 1500 years ago somewhere in India, or possibly China, pawns could move one square. As chess spread, a few variations on the rules developed. It is known from a manuscript that dates to 1283 that pawns could move two squares on the first move. Los Libros de Acedrez, Dados E Tablas was produced for Alfonso X of Castile (1221-1284), and describes the play of chess, dice, and backgammon.* According to James Murray, A History of Chess (1913), there were some conditions upon the pawn's double move. In any case, the en passant capture is not mentioned in the Alfonso MS. Two centuries later, however, the en passant capture is described (see Murray, 461).

We might conclude that the rule came into common practice some five centuries ago, roughly during the period when the queen acquired her powers. Our current rules regarding castling were still in flux in the late fifteenth century, and even in the sixteenth, so the en passant capture is not the newest rule change. Nevertheless, it remains the most difficult one for beginners to grasp.

I had a rare opportunity to execute an en passant capture yesterday. After two days of play and 24 moves, my opponent and I reached this position with him on move.

White to move

He played 25.c4, advancing a pawn two squares. The pawn passed over a square where it might have been captured by my d-pawn if it had moved one square.

Black to move

The green arrow shows the path taken by the white pawn. The yellow arrow indicates the path the black pawn will take in order to capture en passant (in passing).

I played 25...dxc3.

White to move

After the en passant capture, the pawn on c4 has disappeared from the board. My pawn sits on c3. The tactical point of my capture was that now my rook is attacking the white queen: an en passant capture that creates a discovered attack. How often does something like that come up?


*A complete English translation and detailed analysis of Libros de Acedrez is available in the 2007 dissertation "Los libros de acedrex dados e tablas: Historical, Artistic and Metaphysical Dimensions of Alfonso X’s Book of Games" by Sonja Musser Golladay.

Teaching the Rules of Chess

A Beginner's Confusion

At a youth tournament yesterday, I was called in by a judge to deal with a case where one player insisted that he had checkmated his opponent. The checkmated player did not understand that he was in checkmate. I had taught him to play when I taught the game in his first or second grade classroom. As a second grader, he was part of an in-school chess club that I run. Now in third grade, he is part of an after-school club. I continue to teach the basic rules in these clubs. Some of these children do not play chess at home.

The diagram below shows the essentials of the position. There were perhaps another dozen pieces on the board, more white than black.

Black to move

I asked him to show me where his king could legally move. The youth's argument was thus: if I move to f7 and he leaves his queen there, I can capture the queen on the next move. Can the queen capture your king, I asked. "No, you're not allowed to capture the king," he replied. But, I told him, you're not allowed to move your king where it may be captured. Is there any square where your king can move that it cannot be captured? We went a few rounds with this conversation before he acknowledged that he was indeed in checkmate.


Teaching the Rules

How does one explain the king's movement, check, and checkmate to young children? Do many chess teachers say that a player cannot capture the king? I've heard chess coaches tell children, "you cannot capture the king, you must checkmate him." I have expressed the basic rules in terms of a paradox: the object is to capture the king, but the king cannot be captured.

FIDE Rule 1.2 supports this notion:

Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also "capturing" the opponent’s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.
FIDE Handbook, http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook

How does this prohibition against capturing the opponent's king function? If it is possible to capture the king, what must be done? If the king is in checkmate, the game is over. But, what do we do if the players failed to notice the check? What may be done if the player moved into check?

FIDE Rules, Article 7 addresses irregularities, including illegal moves.

If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. (7.4.a)

After the action taken under Article 7.4.a, for the first two illegal moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. (7.4.b)

The position prior to the illegal move must be restored, and the game recommence by a legal move. In classrooms, I teach the children to politely request that their opponent recognize the check, take back the illegal move, and make a move that does not leave the king in check.

Sometimes the children learn these rules incompletely.

Databases and Their Discontents

Ever since the dawn of civilization, humans have sought help in games of chess that did not conclude in a single sitting. Such help takes many forms. Sometimes the help is actively encouraged. Other times it is forbidden.

When I was young, top level chess tournaments and world championship matches were characterized by adjournments. After many hours of play, a competitor would seal a move, eat a small meal, and go to sleep. While he slept, teams of seconds would labor through the night, analyzing the likely continuations. After a night of sleep and a hearty breakfast, the player would spend the morning with his seconds learning the results of overnight research. He returned to the game fully prepared for the next stages.

When I started playing correspondence chess, I began to value another sort of assistance: reference books. While playing my games, I would pore through every chess book within reach looking for comparable positions. Playing better correspondence chess became a principal motive for acquiring certain books. The benefits of this research spilled over into my non-aided games. More often I found myself playing openings that I had studied in great detail with practical application to some game in progress.

The emergence of database software sped up the research process. While it once took many hours to find all of Alekhine's games against the Nimzo-Indian, now they could be located in seconds. Going through the games to glean the necessary insights still required much labor, but it was no longer necessary to set up a chess board. Games in the database could be played through on-screen.


The Rules

In correspondence chess, help is openly encouraged and forbidden depending on the venue and the nature of the help. Some chess organizations conclude that help from books, databases, and even engines is undetectable and make no efforts to prevent assistance. Others distinguish between allowable help and banned: most often books and databases are permitted, but engine use is not.

The United States Chess Federation rules are typical:

You may consult chess books and periodicals but not other players. You cannot use a computer or computer program (chessplaying algorithms) to evaluate a game, but you may use computers for record keeping and databases.
"Your Responsibilities as a Player," http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7521/393/

Countless hours might be spent gathering evidence against suspected violators so they might be disciplined.

In the past ten years a growing number of chess sites have added another dimension. Correspondence chess games are much faster, there is less record keeping, and far less expense. Moreover, thousands of players who never mailed a postcard are engaged as adversaries. These chess sites have offered a new vocabulary to describe an old practice: turn-based chess, online correspondence, correspondence-style, online chess, net-chess.

The terms and conditions of these sites explain acceptable and unacceptable help:

"Immoral and unfair External assistance"
1) Using computer engines to generate your moves
2) Getting someone else (who may be much stronger) to play ones moves
3) Getting your opponent to artificially resign by pre-agreement

"Moral and fair External assistance"
It is however acceptable and encouraged to use conventional resources which are in the spirit of correspondence chess, such as referencing Opening books (which could be electronic), etc. The use of such resources is considered "research" which has always been an attraction of correspondence chess.
"ChessWorld Terms and Conditions," http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/termsandconditions.asp

The sort of databases that are permitted is specified in some cases:

While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party. Endgame tablebases may not be consulted during play but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.
"Red Hot Pawn Terms of Service," http://www.redhotpawn.com/myhome/termsofservice.php

Fritz's infamous rook lift against Vladimir Kramnik must be excised from the database if a player intends to use that collection of games for help during play, and massive databases of games from the Playchess engine room are clearly out of the question. In a forum post on Chess.com, Gonnosuke took issue with the distinction made in RHP's TOS, but in reference to something similar at Chess.com:

If you're going to argue against databases, I think you should be arguing against all databases. To allow some but not others is extremely inconsistent when, for all intents and purposes, there's no difference between looking at a high level GM game and an engine game.
Gonnosuke, "Databases -- What is Allowed?" http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/databases---what-is-allowed?

Chess.com recognizes opening databases as allowable computer assistance.

You can NEVER use chess programs (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unless specifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, etc). The only type of computer assistance allowed is games databases for opening lines in Turn-based Chess and Vote Chess. You cannot receive ANY outside assistance on Live Chess games.
"Chess.com Terms of Service," http://www.chess.com/legal.html#termsofservice

These sites offering web based chess at correspondence time controls have not only brought in minions of newbies, they host chess forums where players and other interested chess scholars can debate whether databases should be used, how they might be used effectively, and whether such online play resembles correspondence chess or something entirely different. Many of these debates begin with a question posed by someone who neglected to peruse the terms of membership prior to registration.


Opposition to Database Use

Many players express the view that use of databases is distinct from putting thought into the game. A chess enthusiast calling herself ChessMom raised this issue stridently on the Red Hot Pawn forums in a thread called "How to learn and not cheat," "you're supposed to play out of your own brain, not somebody else's brain." The thoughtlessness of database use cropped up again in "Nagging Question: Are you for or against the use of Databases, and why?" on Chess.com. Peedee suggested, "[u]sing someone elses [sic] brain for the first 20 moves completely invalidates ANY contest. In fact, getting outside help AT ALL is just nonsense."

Several posters in these threads offer their views that research requires skill.

Every chess player should strive to improve him/herself, and that includes reading and analysing. Correspondence chess gives players a concrete game to study and learn about while playing it. They have the opportunity to play the very best moves they can find by using research techniques.
Fezzik, "Nagging Question"

To what extent are research techniques an element of chess skill? A player calling himself richie_and_oprah brushed aside the relevance of research skills in "Databases -- what is allowed?"

[I]f things come down to who has the better database OR who is the better researcher, how is this a measure of who is better at playing chess?
richie_and_oprah, "Databases"

Another player responded directly that chess players are librarians.

Postal chess is library chess. It's not OTB chess. Moves are researched... in the old days people went to their libraries and periodicals to research moves... and would go to their homecooked prepared lines when they could. So yes, it was in part about who was the better librarian... that's certainly part of the fun of cc. Sadly IMO ICCF rules allow engines, so modern CC is less librarian than ever before, more software engineer.
JG27Pyth, "Databases"

Chess games are compared to math exams where calculators might be permitted, or to open book exams in history class.

The purpose of such exams is to determine what you can infer from the texts, not your ability to memorise them. Correspondence and online chess are similar: we accept that, not being grandmasters, we have not the time to devote to memorising all the games and positions we would like, so we allow databases.
NickYoung5, "Nagging Question"

When I see these threads, I usually offer my view that database use remains one of the principal attractions of correspondence chess. Nevertheless, vocal players continue to insist that such helps seems like cheating, or that it becomes a crutch. Players relying upon outside help are cheating themselves, it is argued.

I would prefer to discuss how effective use of databases might enhance correspondence play. How can research-oriented competition expand enjoyment of the game, personal chess knowledge, and perhaps even make the database user a stronger player in OTB (over the board) play?

Postscript 29 March 2011

The thread "Nagging Question" on Chess.com has been deleted by an administrator. Although there was a bit of personal abuse, there were many excellent comments that also went away as a result of this rash act.

Touch Move: It's the Rule

My game with David Griffin ended badly. He won.

I had Black in this position.

White to move


White has many ways to win, but he chose one of the few moves that let me back into the game. 39.Ke1??

White gives it away.

39...Na4+ 40.Ke2 a1Q 41.Ra6+



I had been looking at the board while my opponent contemplated his move, thinking that I could play Nc3+ if the rook remained on the a-file with a discovered attack on the rook. I had been losing a difficult game and now had an elementary win. This rapid turn of affairs calls for calm reorientation. I needed to spend some time looking at the board. At least long enogh to notice that I needed to move my king.

Instead, I reached out almost instantly and played 41...Nc3+.

This move is illegal: my opponent pointed out that I was in check, and could not play Nc3. But having touched the knight, I could play Nb6 and thus was required to do so. He apologized for telling me this.


“Touch a piece, move a piece”

A few years ago, I created a flyer for a scholastic tournament. It had a photo of a hand moving a chess piece, and the headline: “Touch a piece, move a piece,” followed by this text:

“[except when adjusting pieces in their squares after saying ‘I adjust’ (Rule 10A)]…a player on move who deliberately touches one or more pieces, in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move, must move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured.”
USCF Rule 10B

“A director who believes a player touched a piece by accident should not require the player to move that piece.”
USCF Rule 10E

It's the Rule!

I printed the flyer on red paper and scattered copies around the tournament site--on tables, on walls, a small pile at the check-in table.

I assured my opponent that there was no reason to apologize. We are both tournament directors. We know the rules, and we enforce the rules.

I resigned the game.