Another end-of-game rules puzzle

[Smythe_Dakota]

This one should be easy.

When does this game end?

1. This game is already over.
2. This game ends as soon as either player plays KxB legally.
3. This game ends when both players have played KxB legally.
4. This game ends as soon as either player claims a draw.
5. This game ends whenever the players agree to a draw.
6. This game ends whenever either player resigns.
7. This game ends whenever there is a correct 50-move or triple-occurrence claim by either player.
8. This game ends whenever there is a correct 75-move or quintuple-occurrence declaration by the arbiter.
9. This game is never over.

As before, please assume FIDE rules if there is any doubt as to whether FIDE and U.S.Chess rules may produce different answers.

Bill Smythe

[Mulfish]

A. This position is dead as a doornail. I defy anyone to show a sequence of legal moves whereby one could lose.

[jwiewel]

@Mulfish

A. This position is dead as a doornail. I defy anyone to show a sequence of legal moves whereby one could lose.

FIDE section.
White plays Ke2 and his cell phone rings. :mrgreen:

Has to be quick before the arbiter sees the listed position.

[Mulfish]

Do FIDE rules require a winnable position to win by forfeit on a phone ring?

[jwiewel]

@Mulfish

Do FIDE rules require a winnable position to win by forfeit on a phone ring?

Not any more

[Smythe_Dakota]

Did they ever?

Bill Smythe

[relyea]

@Mulfish

Do FIDE rules require a winnable position to win by forfeit on a phone ring?

If a player has cheated during the game, as can be evidenced by using a phone, then it is reasonable to assume he didn’t reach the dead position honestly.

Alex Relyea

[Steve_Immitt]

@relyea

@Mulfish

Do FIDE rules require a winnable position to win by forfeit on a phone ring?

If a player has cheated during the game, as can be evidenced by using a phone, then it is reasonable to assume he didn’t reach the dead position honestly.

Alex Relyea

If a player’s cell phone rings a second time, that is evidence that his cell phone was not turned off but that does not necessarily mean that he was cheating.

[relyea]

@Steve_Immitt

@relyea

@Mulfish

Do FIDE rules require a winnable position to win by forfeit on a phone ring?

If a player has cheated during the game, as can be evidenced by using a phone, then it is reasonable to assume he didn’t reach the dead position honestly.

Alex Relyea

If a player’s cell phone rings a second time, that is evidence that his cell phone was not turned off but that does not necessarily mean that he was cheating.

If a player’s phone rings a second time it means that the arbiter is deficient and should be sanctioned for not forfeiting the player’s game the first time.

Alex Relyea

[Mulfish]

It would appear Steve was thinking USCF rules. There is a clear difference in philosophy. Since FIDE forfeits on the first ring, it would appear they subscribe to Alex’s view that it’s reasonable to think they might have been cheating. Since US Chess doesn’t forfeit on the first ring, that suggests they DON"T subscribe to that philosophy and are punishing the annoyance to the players.

[brennanprice]

Back to the OP’s question: Under the FLC, the game is already over, and the result is a draw.

[tmagchesspgh]

This reminds me of a story someone told me of a game between S. Tarrasch and M. Tchigorin. They reached a similar blocked position. Tchigorin offered a draw and Tarrasch refused. Tchigorin then removed his own bishop from the board. Tarrasch got the message and sheepishly accepted that the position was impossible to win.

[GKarRacer]

You aren’t necessarily defaulted on first ring in a FIDE rated tournament. That is the default penalty, but the tournament rules can specify a less severe penalty. From the arbiter’s handbook (bolding is for emphasis):

The regulations about electronic devices are now very strict. No mobile phone is allowed in the playing venue and it makes no difference if it is switched on or off.
If a mobile phone (even switched off) is found with a player, his game is immediately lost and the opponent shall win. The result shall be 1-0 or 0-1. It doesn’t matter if, when the mobile phone is found, the opponent cannot checkmate the offender player by any series of legal moves: he wins the game.
It is different if the game has not yet started. Suppose the following situation occurs: There is no zero‐tolerance. Player A is in the playing hall at the start of the round. His opponent, Player B is absent. Immediately after player A made his first move his mobile rings. The arbiter declares the game lost for Player A. Some minutes later, but still on time, Player B arrives. The score is “‐/+”, it is not a “played” game and it cannot be rated.
However, there is the possibility for an arbiter or an organizer to specify in advance (in the regulations of the event) a less severe penalty for a violation of this article (i.e. a fine)
And they can also include in the regulations of the event the possibility of bringing such a device to the tournament provided that certain conditions are fulfilled: that it is completely switched off and stored in a separate bag, so that it is not in contact with the player and the player does not have access to the bag during the game, without the arbiter’s permission (and he cannot take the bag with him in the toilet, etc.).

Most of the tournaments that I’ve seen (non-norm at least) seem to go with the normal US penalty of 10 minutes for first offense and loss of game for 2nd offense.

[Smythe_Dakota]

@GKarRacer

… However, there is the possibility for an arbiter or an organizer to specify in advance (in the regulations of the event) a less severe penalty for a violation of this article …

Most of the tournaments that I’ve seen (non-norm at least) seem to go with the normal US penalty of 10 minutes for first offense and loss of game for 2nd offense.

I suppose, in an event that is both FIDE-rated and U.S. Chess rated, an organizer could enforce only the U.S. Chess version, even if not announced specifically in pre-event publicity, on the grounds that the U.S. version itself constitutes the necessary advance notice required by FIDE.

Might be shaky grounds, though. The organizer should really post the announcement in writing, during the registration period and throughout the tournament, just to be safe.

In general I prefer posted written announcements, instead of or in addition to verbal announcements, covering any necessary rules variations.

Bill Smythe