Bill Gletsos is behaving like a dictator!

[HydraTED]

There is nothing new in the wall of text above

In fact there was quite a deal of new information. But there was nothing new in your latest ranting apart from new ways of being stupid, so I don't see why you should expect any different. For instance:

1-abuse

Oh dear. Poor little sookgoat dishes out abuse, swearing and false accusations of lying then complains because he is called on what he is.

2- self delusion

This coming from someone who continues to delude himself he has proven points he can't prove, that are in fact false.

6- non disclosure

What do you think should be disclosed to a frothy loon on the internet like you? You whinge about BBs being used for official information then complain if a really poor BB like this one which scarcely anyone reads is not used to tell you how to cross the road, the meaning of life and at what particular millisecond the CO emailed Bill.

KB is of the opinion that the ACF did nothing wrong and handled the case perfectly.

You have failed massively to show otherwise.

Lessons learnt

1-All Fide registered arbiters within Australia are now under the authority of the Chesschat BB
2-All Fide registered arbiters within Australia should understand they have no voice on the subject.

Paranoid wibble. Arbiters can speak out whenever they like.

Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether Bonham is a suitable public representative for the ACF

I am not representing the ACF on this matter, except for one post I made on CC.

[HydraTED]

[FONT=Georgia]That's not the point! The point is that Bill Gletsos is acting very arbitrarily.

Not the case, as you would understand if you knew what "arbitrarily" meant. If he made decisions for no reason against random tournaments you might have a point.

What he should have done is raised the matter with the entire ACF council, and got their feedback and input.

No, the ACF has clear standards about Bill's autonomy to reject tournaments that were already discussed. Had Bill raised the matter with Council, some people might not have been able to respond at this time anyway, but the decision would have been the same, only slower. A slow decision would have deprived the arbiters both of the ability to appeal and of the natural body to appeal to. As it turns out they do not contest the facts and have not yet appealled.

[Firegoat7]

No, the ACF has clear standards about Bill's autonomy to reject tournaments that were already discussed.

Confirmation that the ACf is a dictatorship.Gletsos now decides if the laws of chess were applied, not the officially registered arbiters. Gletsos is the ratings officer, he has no qualification that suggests he understands the rules of chess better then registered arbiters.

Had Bill raised the matter with Council, some people might not have been able to respond at this time anyway, but the decision would have been the same, only slower.

Bonham continues to pre-determine the outcome of the rules of chess without any review from recognised authorities. One possible reasoning might be because he enjoys a free junket paid by the ACF every Olympiad to vote on rule changes. But even if the ACF continues to waste money sending Bonham overseas to vote on rule changes it still doesn't mean he has any authority over Internationally recognised arbiters in relation to the laws of chess, and neither does Gletsos.

A slow decision would have deprived the arbiters both of the ability to appeal and of the natural body to appeal to.

Bonham is claiming that the solution provided by Gletsos and himself ensure that an arbiter can appeal? Does Bonham really believe that this line of reasoning is not dictatorial? If Gletsos and Bonham have no official qualifications that allow them to over rule Internationally accredited arbiters on the rules of chess, then they are dictators. In normal process, wouldn't the authority who rejected Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmures signing off on the tournament have to justify why they believe the laws of chess were not followed? It should be obvious, that it is not the arbiters who should be appealing a Gletsos decision. Why should any arbiter have to justify any decision on the laws of chess to somebody who is not qualified to understand them. If Gletsos is concerned a rule has been broken, he should be lodging an appeal, which if successful would prevent the tournament from being rated. At the moment, it appears that the ACF is comfortable, based on Bonhams accounts, with Gletsos having the power to dictate how arbiters interpret the laws of chess, despite him having no official qualification. It is specialist accredited Arbiters, not the National Rating Officer who enforce the rules of chess and they should have complete confidence in a system that supports them, regardless of whether they make a mistake or not. Gletsos and Bonham are dictators who abuse their power and overplay their role for the National authority by vetoing accredited democratic specialisation.

As it turns out they do not contest the facts and have not yet appealled.

Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure should never ever have to appeal their own decision making. Following a professional democratic process it would be Gletsos who would have to appeal, not the other way around. Gletsos is a dictator

[HydraTED]

Confirmation that the ACf is a dictatorship.

An idiotic claim even by your standards. A democratically-elected body (the Council) delegates authority and you claim this is a dictatorship.

Gletsos now decides if the laws of chess were applied, not the officially registered arbiters.

The officially registered arbiters can hardly decide if the Laws of Chess were applied in their own tournament. It should be obvious even to you that that would be a conflict of interest.

Gletsos is the ratings officer, he has no qualification that suggests he understands the rules of chess better then registered arbiters.

Unfortunately FIDE's any-knight-can-make-a-knight arbiter title system provides no guarantee that even the highest-titled arbiters will understand the Laws and apply them correctly in all cases - with the exception of an exam which only needs to be passed once no matter how many times a person fails it (and which some title-holders are exempt from), the only test is being arbiter in a bunch of events and having people say you did a good job. Bill is an experienced arbiter whose factual finding that the Laws were not followed has been backed up by other experienced arbiters including at least two IAs (one of whom was on the FIDE Rules Commission until being dismissed for not sucking up to Kirsan enough), and challenged by nobody with any significant level of arbiting experience - not even the arbiters for the event!

Something in general you need to understand is that the supreme authority on the Laws of Chess is in fact the Rules Commission, not the arbiter titles system. And the Rules Commission has discussed this question of moving before your opponent presses the clock and confirmed it is allowed several times.

Bonham continues to pre-determine the outcome of the rules of chess without any review from recognised authorities. One possible reasoning might be because he enjoys a free junket paid by the ACF every Olympiad to vote on rule changes.

If you had any clue you'd realise you are shooting yourself in the foot here. Going on those trips (which have never actually been "free") means I get to attend Rules meetings and engage with several of the best arbiters in the world about developments in and the meaning of the Laws and the basis for FIDE decisions. This certainly increases my ability to comment in an informed manner.

But even if the ACF continues to waste money sending Bonham overseas to vote on rule changes it still doesn't mean he has any authority over Internationally recognised arbiters in relation to the laws of chess, and neither does Gletsos.

We will exercise authority over the rating of events and norms when it is absolutely clear that "internationally recognised" arbiters have stuffed up. This is such a case. Frankly it is an unbelievable error by the CA, except for the stressing factors I referred to earlier. The organising committee should have pulled the matter into line, but the CA is also the President of the organising body, so it's conflicts of interest all the way down. The CA in question has an extremely poor understanding of conflict of interest, alas.

Bonham is claiming that the solution provided by Gletsos and himself ensure that an arbiter can appeal? Does Bonham really believe that this line of reasoning is not dictatorial?

More than that, I know it isn't and I know that calling it dictatorial is idiotic.

If Gletsos and Bonham have no official qualifications that allow them to over rule Internationally accredited arbiters on the rules of chess, then they are dictators.

Whatever you think of the process it has nothing to do with dictatorship so quit your extremist misuse of big political words and try to focus on a remotely legitimate critique. People like you make the most brainwashed Resistance members look politically subtle. And do try to focus on the issue of the Laws themselves instead of engaging in pointless arguments from authority in a situation where the FIDE system of authority has already clearly failed as an indicator of understanding.

In normal process, wouldn't the authority who rejected Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmures signing off on the tournament have to justify why they believe the laws of chess were not followed?

Wake up bozo and read the Chesschat thread. Bill has justified this at length.

It should be obvious, that it is not the arbiters who should be appealing a Gletsos decision. Why should any arbiter have to justify any decision on the laws of chess to somebody who is not qualified to understand them.

The fact is that this episode of incompetence by titled arbiters shows exactly why the FIDE arbiter qualification system is so unreliable.

If Gletsos is concerned a rule has been broken, he should be lodging an appeal, which if successful would prevent the tournament from being rated.

Complete nonsense. Bill was not a player in the event so had no ability to appeal during the tournament. Moreover the organisers did not even allow for a properly conducted appeal as the Morris vs Smirnov episode showed. Once the arbiters have made their decisions and the tournament is over, appeals can no longer occur within the structure of the tournament. In the context of ACF officebearer decisions the structure is simple and sensible. An officebearer makes a decision and affected parties can appeal to full Council which is the supreme authority.

At the moment, it appears that the ACF is comfortable, based on Bonhams accounts, with Gletsos having the power to dictate how arbiters interpret the laws of chess, despite him having no official qualification. It is specialist accredited Arbiters, not the National Rating Officer who enforce the rules of chess and they should have complete confidence in a system that supports them, regardless of whether they make a mistake or not.

Actually the qualification for enforcing the Laws of Chess in a FIDE-rated tournament is not an IA or FA title - it is being a FIDE-licensed arbiter approved as such by FIDE and one's national federation. Bill is a FIDE-licensed arbiter, as am I. The CO demonstrated complete confidence in Bill's judgement by stating he entirely understood if Bill chose not to rate it.

Gletsos and Bonham are dictators who abuse their power and overplay their role for the National authority by vetoing accredited democratic specialisation.

What nonsensical word salad, did you vomit that up after eating or more likely drinking too much yesterday? Bill has been granted oversight of the rating of events by democratic authority.

Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure should never ever have to appeal their own decision making.

And no-one is proposing they should so put that strawman away before you hurt yourself with it.

Gletsos is a dictator

Keep telling yourself as desperately as you like but it doesn't make it true. You however really are an idiot.

[Firegoat7]

The officially registered arbiters can hardly decide if the Laws of Chess were applied in their own tournament.
It should be obvious even to you that that would be a conflict of interest.

It should be obvious that they ARE employed (paid normally) to police the Laws of Chess on the day.

Something in general you need to understand is that the supreme authority on the Laws of Chess is in fact the Rules Commission, not the arbiter titles system. And the Rules Commission has discussed this question of moving before your opponent presses the clock and confirmed it is allowed several times.

Something in general you need to understand is that the Chesschat BB is not the Rules Commission regardless of who posts on there.

If you had any clue you'd realise you are shooting yourself in the foot here. Going on those trips (which have never actually been "free") means I get to attend Rules meetings and engage with several of the best arbiters in the world about developments in and the meaning of the Laws and the basis for FIDE decisions. This certainly increases my ability to comment in an informed manner

No it doesn't. Both Gletsos and yourself relied on the Checchat BB as a source of information.

We will exercise authority over the rating of events and norms when it is absolutely clear that "internationally recognised" arbiters have stuffed up. This is such a case. Frankly it is an unbelievable error by the CA, except for the stressing factors I referred to earlier. The organising committee should have pulled the matter into line, but the CA is also the President of the organising body, so it's conflicts of interest all the way down. The CA in question has an extremely poor understanding of conflict of interest, alas.

Whom is this "We", Bonham claims to represent? The Chesschat BB community? Bill Gletsos and him? The ACF? None of what Bonham claims makes any sense. Lets turn to a historical encounter that is well known in the history of chess. Please forgive me for using ordinary Internet sources, but the real story is documented in print and it appears it really did happen.

"...At the 1942 U.S. Championship, my relations with Sammy hit a snag because of the funniest and most devastating game that we ever played. We met in round six, when my score stood at 4 1/2 - 1/2. Our game was crucial. In the position below, I played 45...Rb4.

Not only can I draw easily with lateral checks, Sammy's flag had fallen. At least 40 to 50 spectators saw it drop. Whereupon, tournament director, L.Walter Stephens rushed to our table, picked up the clock from behind, and turned it around so that Sammy's clock was now on my side. He instantly declared me forfeited. I appealed to Sammy, who would only say that he was not the tournament director. Then, along with several spectators, I appealed to Stephens. But to no avail. He announced archly, "Does Kenesaw Mountain Landis ever reverse himself?" The reference was to Judge Mountain Landis, the commissioner of baseball installed after the White/Black Sox scandal of 1919, who was renowned for ruling with an iron fist."

Points of order
1- An arbiter makes a mistake
2- The decision is not overturned
3- The game is rated
4- There is no trial on the Chesschat BB
5- The National Rating officer at the time does not suggest he will not rate the game
6- Nobody with the personality of Bonham gets to historically claim self righteousness on the matter.

There is something wrong about an organisation like the ACF not backing its arbiters when they make a mistake.

[Firegoat7]

Another point taken from a random Fide FAQ file on the internet.
Clearly not a definitive source, but definitely interesting to consider.

Q. 11.10. What are the powers of the Appeal Committee?

A. Quite considerable. They may go against the strict letter of the Laws if they think the result will otherwise be unfair. Their decision is final, but may be subject to a ‘judicial review’ in some countries.

Apparently, according to our source Bonham. Gletsos and the Chesschat BB have "judicial review" powers in Australia-whatever that may mean in the context of the laws of chess. Gletsos is a dictator!

[HydraTED]

It should be obvious that they ARE employed (paid normally) to police the Laws of Chess on the day.

So? Irrelevant to the question of how to determine whether they have got it wrong. And it would be quite concerning if they were paid in this case because of the conflict of interest issues that would arise if the CV President was paid by CV to run tournaments. Fortunately I have no evidence that this was the case.

Something in general you need to understand is that the Chesschat BB is not the Rules Commission regardless of who posts on there.

It doesn't matter to the point, which was to refute your doomed attempt to make the FIDE arbiter title system a paramount indicator of understanding of the Laws of Chess.

No it doesn't. Both Gletsos and yourself relied on the Checchat [sic] BB as a source of information.

Now you are just confusing yourself again. Material posted on CC was relevant )though not exclusively so) to determining the facts of the matter, but not the question of whether those facts demonstrated breaches of the Laws.

Whom is this "We", Bonham claims to represent?

If you cannot work that out from the context of your comment and my reply to it where I employed the term, then you are an even more absolutely hopeless case than normal.

Lets turn to a historical encounter that is well known in the history of chess.

[..]

Points of order
1- An arbiter makes a mistake
2- The decision is not overturned
3- The game is rated

Oh no it isn't you clueless tryhard goose. Your example is from 1942. There was no OTB rating system at the time.

If anything, the example is relevant in the reverse direction - it highlights the pitfalls of not having an adequate appeal system. There was also not an adequate appeal system in the Victorian blitz.

There is something wrong about an organisation like the ACF not backing its arbiters when they make a mistake.

There is something wrong with you. There are a lot of things wrong with you. You should get treatment for them.

You have done the arbiters in question no favours at all by starting this debate and thereby causing me to defend the ACF from your idiotic criticism. If you were interested in their welfare you would never have started this stupid thread. Your only motivation is hate and you couldn't care less about them.

[Firegoat7]

It is difficult to find information for the proper handling of Fide rated blitz tournaments on the Internet.

The 2014 handbook excludes blitz and I have not found a source where blitz is included, but it is still worth a look for discussion.




Reporting Procedures
9.1
The Chief Arbiter of a FIDE registered tournament has to provide the tournament report (TRF file) within 7 days after the end of the tournament to the Rating Officer of the federation where the tournament took place. The Rating Officer shall be responsible for uploading the TRF file to the FIDE Rating Server not later than 30 days after the end of the tournament.

(Comment- No mention is made about the Chief Rating Officer judging the integrity of the laws of the game and refusing to rate a registered event.This opposite to what Bonham claimed)
9.2
Results of all international tournaments must be submitted for rating unless the original invitations have made it clear the tournament was not to be FIDE rated. The Chief Arbiter must also announce this to the players before the tournament starts.

(Comment- Therefore it is automatically assumed that the tournament WILL be rated and it is actually FIDES decision to read the evidence produced by the Arbiters, not Gletsos' or Bonhams- again completely different to what Bonham claims is standard procedure.)

These rules may or may not apply in this situation. They seem much better then any of the "Worlds Best practices" viewpoints that Gletsos or Bonham subscribe towards.
Fide will actually give a legitimate ruling about the eligibility of the tournament to be rated.

[HydraTED]

Another point taken from a random Fide FAQ file on the internet.
Clearly not a definitive source, but definitely interesting to consider.

Q. 11.10. What are the powers of the Appeal Committee?

A. Quite considerable. They may go against the strict letter of the Laws if they think the result will otherwise be unfair. Their decision is final, but may be subject to a ‘judicial review’ in some countries.

Apparently, according to our source Bonham. Gletsos and the Chesschat BB have "judicial review" powers in Australia-whatever that may mean in the context of the laws of chess. Gletsos is a dictator!

No, you are being a clueless idiot again. No-one has sought to change the result of the one game ruled on by the so-called Appeals Committee. (That said, the Appeals Committee was incorrectly constituted so it could well be argued that it wasn't a valid Appeals Committee under the Competition Rules and therefore didn't have any powers at all.)

The issues: 1. what were the results of the games of the tournament? and 2. should the tournament be rated? are distinct. It is entirely possible to answer No to 2 without expressing any opinion on 1 - we are not reviewing the official game results; we are reviewing rateability. The ACF would only have any say on 1 if someone sought to conduct some kind of further appeal at CV level and then CV referred the question of the results of the event to the ACF for a decision.

[Firegoat7]

The issues: 1. what were the results of the games of the tournament? and 2. should the tournament be rated? are distinct. It is entirely possible to answer No to 2 without expressing any opinion on 1 - we are not reviewing the official game results; we are reviewing rateability. The ACF would only have any say on 1 if someone sought to conduct some kind of further appeal at CV level and then CV referred the question of the results of the event to the ACF for a decision.

I think it is you who misses the point. It is quite clear that the National Rating Officer is not responsible for determining whether a Fide rated tournament is rated or not

[HydraTED]

It is difficult to find information for the proper handling of Fide rated blitz tournaments on the Internet.

The 2014 handbook excludes blitz and I have not found a source where blitz is included, but it is still worth a look for discussion.




Reporting Procedures
9.1
The Chief Arbiter of a FIDE registered tournament has to provide the tournament report (TRF file) within 7 days after the end of the tournament to the Rating Officer of the federation where the tournament took place. The Rating Officer shall be responsible for uploading the TRF file to the FIDE Rating Server not later than 30 days after the end of the tournament.

(Comment- No mention is made about the Chief Rating Officer judging the integrity of the laws of the game and refusing to rate a registered event.This opposite to what Bonham claimed)
9.2
Results of all international tournaments must be submitted for rating unless the original invitations have made it clear the tournament was not to be FIDE rated. The Chief Arbiter must also announce this to the players before the tournament starts.

(Comment- Therefore it is automatically assumed that the tournament WILL be rated and it is actually FIDES decision to read the evidence produced by the Arbiters, not Gletsos' or Bonhams- again completely different to what Bonham claims is standard procedure.)

These rules may or may not apply in this situation. They seem much better then any of the "Worlds Best practices" viewpoints that Gletsos or Bonham subscribe towards.
Fide will actually give a legitimate ruling about the eligibility of the tournament to be rated.

You are ignoring:

0.
Introduction


A game played over the board will be rated by FIDE when it takes place in a FIDE registered tournament and meets all the following requirements.

[..]

2.
Laws to be followed


2.1
Play must take place according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.

This alone shows the event is not rateable under the FIDE rules and creates an exceptionally rare situation that is not well covered by the regulations. Perhaps when Bill attempts to have the registration deleted, FIDE will ask that the files be submitted and they will rate the thing anyway. If they want to break their own rules, that's up to them.

[HydraTED]

I think it is you who misses the point. It is quite clear that the National[sic] Rating Officer is not responsible for determining whether a Fide rated tournament is rated or not

I have said several times that FIDE could rate the thing themselves if they wanted to. The ACF just doesn't wish to submit it for rating. And I reckon it will not be ACF-rated anyway.

[Firegoat7]

Y

This alone shows the event is not rateable under the FIDE rules and creates an exceptionally rare situation that is not well covered by the regulations. Perhaps when Bill attempts to have the registration deleted, FIDE will ask that the files be submitted and they will rate the thing anyway. If they want to break their own rules, that's up to them.

You are mistaken yet again.

The proper procedure ought to look something like this

1- The Arbiters provide their reports
2- Objections (such as those raised by Stojic) are given in writing to a Rules Commission.
3-The Commission decides if the complaint has merit
4- The Arbiters are formally requested to address the complaints in writing if the claim has merit
5- The Rules Commission then resolves the situation with a written statement.

Now in Australia's case, because we lack basic professionalism, we do not have a Rules Commission, therefore correct procedure probably requires

1-The Arbiters report
2-Formal written Objections from Players or Observers
3-The Fide Rules Commission probably ought to address the situation
4- They will request a formal address by the arbiters if the claim has merit
5- The Fide Rules Commission will resolve the matter with suggested improvements.

In no scenario does Gletsos get to decide whether the tournament is rated or not. Gletsos is not the authority on the matter. This should be completely clear by now.
It would probably be wise for the ACF to appoint a formal Rules Commission at its next annual general meeting.

[Firegoat7]

Another very important aspect about the recent Victorian Blitz championship is the contested nature of the rule in dispute.


I must admit rulings on when a move is completed in blitz have always fascinated me and I have always attempted to follow the debate.
I have witnessed changes back on forth on King captures and when a move is legally completed etc

There used to be this wonderful open online arbiter resource where experienced arbiters like Reuben would talk about recent controversial incidents.
Unfortunately it doesn't appear to exist any more or maybe its in hiding somewhere on the net like the old pitsburgh.edu site
An article from 2008 shows that their is some doubt about whether the arbiters did break the laws of chess in the recent Victorian blitz championship.
In my opinion, the arbiters caused problems for themselves by introducing their strict interpretation of the completed move rule.
In this way I do agree with Gletsos on the matter, but its not really clear if they have actually made a mistake at all.

Arbiters are allowed to qualify their interpretation of the rules before the event which is what occurred.
Furthermore different arbiters do interpret completion of the move in blitz chess with much variation.
Even though I wouldn't make the same ruling, I certainly believe that the arbiters are allowed to qualify their interpretations before the event.
In this way, I believe Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure have done nothing wrong.
I am not going to address the official appeals tribunal because that is another matter.

This 2008 article I found on the Internet does contain some very interesting discussion about the rule in question.
http://www.uschess.org/content/view/8720/473
It is extremely important to note that there is no consensus amongst arbiters over the rule in 2008.
This does not mean that the rule might not have changed or been clarified since then , but it does show that it is not 100% proven the laws of chess have been broken in 2008.
Unless somebody can concretely prove the rules have been clarified in written text then the arbiters have no case to answer.

It is important to note that there is no agreement amongst the experts on the subject matter!

[HydraTED]

You are mistaken yet again.

Oh so firegoat who has virtually no knowledge of FIDE procedures has come up with another crackpot reinvention of the wheel so I'm "mistaken". That's a far more dictatorial attitude than that of anyone you're criticising.

I've been on the ACF Council since 2000. I believe this is the first time in all that time we have had a tournament that was so critically non-compliant with FIDE laws submitted for FIDE rating. So let's create a whole Commission for something that doesn't even happen once a decade!

I have witnessed changes back on forth on King captures and when a move is legally completed etc

The current treatment of a move as being completed when the clock is pressed dates from the 1997 Laws. There have only been very minor changes since.

There used to be this wonderful open online arbiter resource where experienced arbiters like Reuben would talk about recent controversial incidents.
Unfortunately it doesn't appear to exist any more or maybe its in hiding somewhere on the net like the old pitsburgh.edu site
An article from 2008 shows that their is some doubt about whether the arbiters did break the laws of chess in the recent Victorian blitz championship.

[..]

This 2008 article I found on the Internet does contain some very interesting discussion about the rule in question.
http://www.uschess.org/content/view/8720/473
It is extremely important to note that there is no consensus amongst arbiters over the rule in 2008.
This does not mean that the rule might not have changed or been clarified since then , but it does show that it is not 100% proven the laws of chess have been broken in 2008.
Unless somebody can concretely prove the rules have been clarified in written text then the arbiters have no case to answer.

The problem with this article is that it is a US article and there is confusion between the USCF and FIDE laws at many points through it. The USCF has different Laws, US arbiters are often not used to using the FIDE laws.

The article is simply incorrect where FIDE laws are concerned where it says "Now it is the opponent who is "on move"" only after the clock is pressed. "On move" is a construction from the US Laws. In the 1997 FIDE Laws there was "A player is said to 'have the move', when his opponent's move has been completed." In the 2001 Laws "completed" was changed to "made".

Arbiters are allowed to qualify their interpretation of the rules before the event which is what occurred.

Incompletely at best even if it was just a qualification. This was shown with the issue with GM Kasparov against Zelesco where one arbiter wanted to issue a warning under their claimed interpretation while the other believed it was an automatic loss. They hadn't thought it through.

A further point you ignore is this. Let's say that moving before your opponent has pressed their clock is an illegal move. Then it would be treated like other illegal moves - ie the move commenced on the opponent's time would become completed and illegal once the piece was moved and released and the clock was pressed by the player. There is no warrant on any interpretation of what is in the Laws for declaring a game lost by illegal move upon the mere touching of a piece out of "turn".