I was reading the following article at http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/benjamin-franklin-on-the-morals-of-chess, and on the last paragraph, Ben Franklin says "Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a perilous situation, etc.".

But he also says "If you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand.", so if my opponent moves his queen to a spot where I could kill her, what would be the advantage of pointing out that his queen is in danger, since he cannot move his queen back to a safe spot (because he set it down, and therefore must let it stand)?

Thank you for any help. All help is greatly appreciated.


You hold yourself to a higher standard than your opponent, for politeness' sake.

So you let him play an alternative move after you kindly point out that it was perhaps not the best available, but you are acquiring a habit of caution by adhering strictly to the laws of the game for your own moves.

The point is to be moral, polite and extremely smug at the same time.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.