Checkmate--but it's not--updated version with new question

Hello again

I now have more information about the event I attempted to describe in my first post on this question. Let me clarify my question so that I can get the answer I need:

At a recent scholastic tournament, one player announced mate. The other agreed, and the two players stood up and shook hands. Less than one minute later, while the first player was circling his name at the TD table, the other realized that it was not really mate, and he ran over to the TD table protesting that the game was not over yet. One TD said, “if you shook hands, the game is over,” but he was overruled by the head TD, who said, “they are just learning; let them finish the game.” Now, I understand the compassion angle, and the education angle, but the first TD has asked me to see the rule, and I can’t find it in the book.

So the question is, if both players agree that the game is over, and shake hands, does that mean the game is absolutely over, no exceptions, or, does a player who agreed that the game is over have the right to determine that, based on the position on the board, and without receiving assistance, the game is really not over, and he should have the option of playing on? Is the shaking of hands a “magic moment” that defines the absolute last chance to change one’s mind about the end of the game?

I hope that clarifies the question.

We have another tournament coming up soon, and don’t want to see the same thing happen again.

Thanks,

Mike

Shaking hands, does not -BY ITSELF- indicate an agreement that the game is over. Many people will politely shake automatically if the other holds out his hand. This is true whether you’re talking about an offer of a draw, a resignation, agreement that the position is checkmate or stalemate, etc.

The other circumstances need to be considered. Here it does sound to me that the player had agreed that the game was over, and only later came to regret his decision. Once you have an agreed result, that’s the end. If for no other reason then because in many cases it would be impossible to fairly recreate the situation before the player mistakenly agreed that it was over. It’s not just the position on the board – a few seconds later and his opponent may have left the playing room, the clocks could have already been reset, seeing that the game was over a spectator may have made a comment about the position, etc. Once the players have agreed on the result, that needs to be the end.

In any event, the “They are just learning” is an awful comment. All players have a right to expect that the rules will be followed, and the one who played by the rules shouldn’t be punished because his opponent is a beginner.

Note that this is a very tricky situation, and there has been much written about when the game ends, and as there were apparently no scoresheets to sign, it gets more complicated, but the “ignorance of the law” defense is a lousy reason to overrule the assistant TD.

Alex Relyea

This is one time the rules are very unclear what should be done. The rules have been designed for the adults, not for the scholastic player … not the clear novice players. Mike Nolan is right … as the way the rules stand. If the players are adults … and both players do not know what a checkmate is … they should know better. With scholastic players … the change could be worse than the cure.

Lets look at the problem if the director could do something. In the case above, someone pointed out the non-checkmate. Who did point out the non-checkmate is a spectator … the spectator does not have the right to point out anything during the game. Unless the spectator points it out, to the director, away from the players. Its’ unclear even if the director has the right to point out the non-checkmate.

Would love to have some scholastic rules, dealing with the problems just like this. But, the cure would be worse than the problem. It opens up the challenge of false claims, from the side that lost the game. Not all scholastic players will or are willing to use scoresheets. Even if they did use scoresheets, some can be in error. The use of a scoresheet, would be asking the director to go over the scoresheet. At this time the director does not have to go over the scoresheets.

Some would say check the position of the board. This can be a huge problem with cheating. As the players can walk away from the board, one of the parents or someone that wants to change the game, can can the position on the board.

Until there are clear scholastic rules, have to say if both parties declared a checkmate without a checkmate on the board, the results have to stand. It is a checkmate even if you can prove it was not. The point is this, the players declared a checkmate.