Answers.Body: <p>Article 4.3 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, <strong>with the intention of moving or capturing</strong>:
    ...</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>So if you touch the piece in such a way (for example pushing it with your pen or your little finger) that it is clear that you don't have the intention of moving or capturing it, it should be OK.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-07T23:34:02.983Z
Answers.Text: what about magnus vs nepo recently?
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-12-19T15:15:14.760Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-12-19T15:15:14.760Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: muclux
Answers.Body: <p>Article 4.3 of the FIDE Laws of Chess (the touch-move rule) also applies if the opponent is not present. But let's split your question up a bit:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Imagine this situation, the opponent is not present on the board (far
    away), you touch a piece and the opponent (or somebody else) claims
    that you have to move that piece, can you deny it?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p><strong>In dubio pro reo. (When in doubt, for the accused.)</strong></p>
  
  <p>Unless there is any other evidence (e. g. the arbiter or a spectator observing you), if you deny having touched a piece, the arbiter should declare that there is not enough evidence to support your opponent's claim (the burden of proof is on the claimant).</p>
  
  <p>Not admitting that you touched a piece when you have in fact touched it, however, <strong>is one of the most immoral things you can do in a game</strong> - exactly because of this issue.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>My idea is, while the opponent is not present on the board, it is OK to touch the pieces, but does the rule have anticipated this situation?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>I would suggest a different approach that avoids all confusion: <strong>Call the arbiter to your board</strong> and tell him you intend to correct the position of some pieces - that's what the arbiter is there for. If no arbiter is in sight, a more practical approach would be to say "I adjust" clearly while e. g. making eye contact with a neutral bystander to make sure you can prove you did not intend to move a piece.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-03T14:43:34.243Z
Answers.Text: Plus, if you're playing a game with such a duration that your opponent can leave, you have plenty of time to adjust when your opponent gets back.
Answers.UserDisplayName: corsiKa
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-03T17:08:22.283Z
Answers.Text: @corsiKa: If you are on move and pieces are placed in such distracting fashion as to make your concentration difficult, you should not have to wait for your opponent to return.  Consider that your opponent would be under no obligation to return until you punch the clock (and even then, the only penalty for failing to return promptly would be the loss of time on the opponent's clock).
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-03T21:40:41.860Z
Answers.Text: Saying that you didn't touch pieces when you did would be lying, but saying that you did not touch them *with the purpose of making a move* if your purpose was to center pieces within their squares would be 100% truthful.  If an opponent is present, saying "adjust" will avoid any ambiguity as to intention, but the touch-move rule is based upon intention rather than the act of saying "adjust".
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-07T21:52:54.773Z
Answers.Text: what about magnus vs nepo recently? chaosflaws and @supercat
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-07T21:53:23.897Z
Answers.Text: what about magnus vs nepo recently? @corsiKa
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-07T21:57:04.880Z
Answers.Text: I haven't been following, so I cannot comment. Is this similar to the Kasparov-Polgar incident?
Answers.UserDisplayName: chaosflaws
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-07T22:16:48.847Z
Answers.Text: see [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGPORAQ7yMA) and [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_GzAHK9Nk4). i find it extremely similar to kasparov polgar. in fact kasparov polgar is EXACTLY the 1st thing that came to mind
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-03T09:04:34.293Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-10-03T09:04:34.293Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: chaosflaws
Body: <p>According to the rules, if a player touches a piece, he/she has to move that piece (if it's possible), and so on...</p>
  <p>Imagine this situation, the opponent is not present on the board (far away), you touch a piece and the opponent (or somebody else) claims that you have to move that piece, can you deny it?</p>
  <p>One can claim that <em>I've said j'adoube</em> or <em>I adjust</em>, and the opponent weren't here to hear it.</p>
  <p>My idea is, while the opponent is not present on the board, it is OK to touch the pieces, but does the rule have anticipated this situation?</p>
  
Tags: <rules>
Title: Touch move rule when the opponent is not present on the board
ThreadText: # Touch move rule when the opponent is not present on the board
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-10-03)
  
  According to the rules, if a player touches a piece, he/she has to move that piece (if it's possible), and so on...
  
  Imagine this situation, the opponent is not present on the board (far away), you touch a piece and the opponent (or somebody else) claims that you have to move that piece, can you deny it?
  
  One can claim that *I've said j'adoube* or *I adjust*, and the opponent weren't here to hear it.
  
  My idea is, while the opponent is not present on the board, it is OK to touch the pieces, but does the rule have anticipated this situation?
  
  **Tags:** rules
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2017-10-03. Score: 14 | Accepted answer
  
  Article 4.3 of the FIDE Laws of Chess (the touch-move rule) also applies if the opponent is not present. But let's split your question up a bit:
  
  > Imagine this situation, the opponent is not present on the board (far
  > away), you touch a piece and the opponent (or somebody else) claims
  > that you have to move that piece, can you deny it?
  
  **In dubio pro reo. (When in doubt, for the accused.)**
  
  Unless there is any other evidence (e. g. the arbiter or a spectator observing you), if you deny having touched a piece, the arbiter should declare that there is not enough evidence to support your opponent's claim (the burden of proof is on the claimant).
  
  Not admitting that you touched a piece when you have in fact touched it, however, **is one of the most immoral things you can do in a game** - exactly because of this issue.
  
  > My idea is, while the opponent is not present on the board, it is OK to touch the pieces, but does the rule have anticipated this situation?
  
  I would suggest a different approach that avoids all confusion: **Call the arbiter to your board** and tell him you intend to correct the position of some pieces - that's what the arbiter is there for. If no arbiter is in sight, a more practical approach would be to say "I adjust" clearly while e. g. making eye contact with a neutral bystander to make sure you can prove you did not intend to move a piece.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: Plus, if you're playing a game with such a duration that your opponent can leave, you have plenty of time to adjust when your opponent gets back.  
  > **username_5**: @username_4: If you are on move and pieces are placed in such distracting fashion as to make your concentration difficult, you should not have to wait for your opponent to return.  Consider that your opponent would be under no obligation to return until you punch the clock (and even then, the only penalty for failing to return promptly would be the loss of time on the opponent's clock).  
  > **username_5**: Saying that you didn't touch pieces when you did would be lying, but saying that you did not touch them *with the purpose of making a move* if your purpose was to center pieces within their squares would be 100% truthful.  If an opponent is present, saying "adjust" will avoid any ambiguity as to intention, but the touch-move rule is based upon intention rather than the act of saying "adjust".  
  > **username_2**: what about magnus vs nepo recently? username_3 and @username_5  
  > **username_2**: what about magnus vs nepo recently? @username_4  
  > **username_3**: I haven't been following, so I cannot comment. Is this similar to the Kasparov-Polgar incident?  
  > **username_2**: see [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGPORAQ7yMA) and [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_GzAHK9Nk4). i find it extremely similar to kasparov polgar. in fact kasparov polgar is EXACTLY the 1st thing that came to mind  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2017-12-19. Score: 2
  
  Article 4.3 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states:
  
  > 4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, **with the intention of moving or capturing**:
  > ...
  
  So if you touch the piece in such a way (for example pushing it with your pen or your little finger) that it is clear that you don't have the intention of moving or capturing it, it should be OK.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: what about magnus vs nepo recently?  
  
  ---
  
  