If touch-move wasn't a rule

Suppose the touch-move rule wasn't enforced, but instead, players could were allowed to touch any piece move it to any legal square, and then put the piece back, so long as the their fingers don't let go of the piece: would this affect Grandmaster games?

I ask, because this is the rule most casual games normal social settings are played; typically, the unwritten rule is, if you let a piece go after moving it, that's a move. I wonder how this would affect the outcome of tournament-level or professional chess games.

The players with karate knowledge would have had considerable advantage.

Originally posted by vivify
Suppose the touch-move rule wasn't enforced, but instead, players could were allowed to touch any piece move it to any legal square, and then put the piece back, so long as the their fingers don't let go of the piece: would this affect Grandmaster games?

I ask, because this is the rule most casual games normal social settings are played; typically, the un ...[text shortened]... ove. I wonder how this would affect the outcome of tournament-level or professional chess games.

Isn't it already the case that a move is not made until you let go of the piece (and press the clock) ? By touching a piece, you are obliged to move that piece to any available legal square, and can change among such squares until you let it go there.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Isn't it already the case that a move is not made until you let go of the piece (and press the clock) ? By touching a piece, you are obliged to move that piece to any available legal square, and can change among such squares until you let it go there.

I've seen very often during casual play, that the rule is you can change your mind on which piece to move, as long as you don't let go of a piece after moving it.

Example: if you move a king to a different square, hold on to it, then change your mind and put it back, you can now move your queen, so long as you didn't let go of the king when it was moved to a different square.

I just wonder how (if at all) this would affect GM games if this was the case.

Originally posted by vivify
I've seen very often during casual play, that the rule is you can change your mind on which piece to move, as long as you don't let go of a piece after moving it.

Example: if you move a king to a different square, hold on to it, then change your mind and put it back, you can now move your queen, so long as you didn't let go of the king when it was moved ...[text shortened]... rent square.

I just wonder how (if at all) this would affect GM games if this was the case.

I suspect the rule was put into place because there is a small subset of players who felt compelled to handle the pieces every move, and it annoyed other players to the point that a rule was made to correct it.

Absent the rule, the annoyance factor would reappear.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I suspect the rule was put into place because there is a small subset of players who felt compelled to handle the pieces every move, and it annoyed other players to the point that a rule was made to correct it.

Absent the rule, the annoyance factor would reappear.

Choosing to not move a piece after touching it is a common house rule for many casual players. I've never played in a tourney, and didn't know anything about some other rules until I met and began playing with someone who did know.
I didn't know, for example, that in castling you must first move the king, then place the rook on the other side. I usually slid the rook over next to the king, then placed the king on the other side. I did it this way to avoid misplacing the pieces in a queen side castle... the king and rook would automatically end up in the correct position.

I also didn't know about the en passant rule, which blew my mind. I found an old toy chess set I used when first learning the game and sure enough, in the instruction paper that came with the set was the en passant rule.